Popular misconceptions

>they actually don't cost more than they return
t. Abdul Muhammad

File: MejicoXXGril.jpg (63KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 720x960px

>>130648158
Maybe a dumb question, but why not give money to citizens then?

File: kjWN6JA_d.jpg (38KB, 640x511px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x511px

>>130648158

Bin that hijab.

File: Screenshot_2017-06-18-21-06-52-1.png (296KB, 1080x1309px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1080x1309px

>>130648158
It's literally about sustaining their welfare state. This is their solution, continually flood the country with migrants indefinitely. It has nothing to do with refugees, they were just a convenience. If the refugee crisis ends, the immigrants wont. Rip

>>130648415
Because then they can't drop worker's wages

>>130648158
>because of ideological reasons, which is false

How naive are you? This is planned and organized by the jew for the jew's benefit

>>130648158
Deserves analysis but even with that in mind it would equate modern policy with money laundering.

>>130648465
That doesn't even make sense though. The immigrants don't work and just put more stress on the state.

>>130648259
The only way they would cost more is if they hoard all their money in a basement, even if the state walfare is their only revenue, they will spend the money and it will return through taxes, their consumption will also extend the activities of local companies.

Even if immigration costs to the state (which it doesn't, it's calculated to be null at the very worse), it affects the GDP positively in all cases.

>>130648158

More workers = lower wages. That's the economic reason. The political reason is that an economically devastated working/middle class will be a less potent bloc that the elite won't have to share power with.

>>130648617
>>130648415
This

By extent, inviting immigrants in drops wages and extends the first necessity services consumer base (food, water, electricity, etc), instead of improving them towards high-end services that are more efficient and innovative.

>>130648927
Sure, just ignore that they all send loads of welfare money to family in other countries. Thus, removing money in circulation.

>>130648778
Don't be so dumb, no people on earth puts the interest of others before their own interests, it's in the interest of the most powerful actors of the economy to have more immigrants coming in, they're not planning on making the white race fall but they're forseeing a better paycheck.

Never underestimate greed.

File: 1465850540476.gif (3MB, 420x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 420x300px

>>130648158
>tax your citizens excessively
>give that tax money to non-citizens
>gee Francois, why are our citizens not spending anything and not getting into debt? We clearly need more people

>>130649440
That was a problem in the 70's but now there's whole families of immigrants coming in, policies even encourages entire families to come, so their expenses stay inside the country.

>>130648158
I'd agree with you but then we'd both look like idiots.

If I give you $100, you send 50 back home and spend $50 with me, I haven't made $50. I've lost $50.

>>130648158
True. Also they push up the price of essentials like housing, by creating more demand and if you must leave your city and leave for a smaller, whiter one, so much the better. The nation will have a new city to generate revenue entirely at the expense of middle class people.

They are trying to compete with Mexico, the UK, China and India in manufacturing.
Immigration is to being our standard of living down to the level of these developing economies.

>>130648893
more stress on the state>oy vey goyim we have to raise taxes for a while, just to get out of this crisis!>state gets more power over people>rinse and repeat

>>130650278
Not accounting for all the other wonderful benefits of mass migration. Real wages haven't gone up in a decade or more.

>>130648158
Was this never a mystery?
I thought we've all known this all along.

An increase in GDP does not necessarily lead to an increase in GDP per capita. Especially when it comes to mass immigration of this scale the GDP can (and probably will) increase while the GDP per capita decreases.

>>130648415
We save too much money for our governments liking.

>>130648158
>By working or abusing welfare money, immigrants spend a lot,
No they don't, they send all the money they can in their native country to pay for more migration. Literally bleeding the economy dry.

>>130648158
All of this while milking the honest indigenous worker.

Also, the state doesn't benefit for immigration.

And there are politicians who benefit from immigration due to political gain, ex: dems and spics in the US

>>130649620
>no people on earth puts the interest of others before their own interests
define "their own", besides ideology does play a part

>>130650278
Let's say i have a brother, he made 100$, sends 50$ back home and gives you 50$, you have your money back.

Now let's say you encourage more people like him to come and you encourage him to bring his whole family so he doesn't send anything back home. Now you start to make a lot of money.

>move to europe
>get a free, decent home
>live on very little as one from a poor nation is used to
>send rest to family abroad

>>130651145
True, it wasn't my point though, since it's rarely a decrease of GDP per capita either.

We over estimate "mass immigration", in a couple years, countries neighboring Syria have had a true mass migration of refugees, by the millions, Europe is much better protected as immigration is under control.

>>130650623
Also men arriving in their 20s can never hope to access the west's education systems. They are doomed to minimum wage slavery.

>>130651459
What do you think the regroupement familial was about ? It was about bringing families in so the money spent on them is sent back into the economy, not in some relatives hand.

>>130651590
>Also, the state doesn't benefit for immigration.
A country where we have 20% TVA on everything clearly benefits from immigration

>And there are politicians who benefit from immigration due to political gain
Immigrants are rarely involved in politics and all parties try to appeal to them, politicians don't go out of their way defending migrants to get more seats in parliament, they do it because the lobbies that finance them are pro-migrant.

>>130652447
>since it's rarely a decrease of GDP per capita either.
Yes, it most definitely is, because a) productivity does not decrease at the same rate as the population (due to negative birth rates) and b) does not increase at the same rate as the population (work force) increases due to mass immigration - and that is already assuming the ideal case that immigrants could actually be integrated into the work force in high numbers.

>>130653045
And btw, I know that was not your point, I just find it important to point out, because (naive) people generally assume that a "growing economy" or an increase in GDP means we are all better off. You are right, the only ones who are better off are the corporations.

>>130651663
The interest of McDonald is to franchise more restaurants into a McDonald, to achieve that they sell hamburgers. Immigrants are wealthy enough to buy their products and they are poor enough to accept a job in one of their restaurants. It's a double win for this type of company.

Like I said earlier, the problem is that they mainly participate in those primary needs sectors, they drop wages and in consequence, we have less innovation or quality improvement.

File: 1489995162995.gif (997KB, 500x270px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 500x270px

>>130648158
If any of this was right, and it is not, why not take latin american catholics, or about whatever other migrant?
Sure would cause less problems than the fucking muslims.

>>130653320
>You are right, the only ones who are better off are the corporations
Thank you, I am glad we can have a debate that is not about "the jews want to genocide whites" or "Islam wants to take over the west". Those lobbies exist but they're not nearly as powerful as the big industries behind the immigration lobby.

>>130653031
you fucking dumbass, how does the country benefit from giving money to migrants and taxing what they spend? It's all government money to begin with.

>>130653997
Because there's more demand from muslims, hispanics prefer moving to the USA, and the actors at play have no ideology in mind, they just take in whoever asks.

>>130648927
You're reasoning is flawed as the disposable income of the immigrants is part of the GDP of the country already. It is only redistributed and no additional wealth is created.

E.g. whether I buy a tv or an immigrant gets a tv with welfare money (which was mine, or that of the state, before redistribution), the same value added tax would still apply and go back to the state.

>>130654256
When there are more people spending money instead of saving it, more people consuming goods, it allows businesses to expand and invest and ultimately they will pay more taxes, too.

>>130654848
We save money, so it's not in circulation, immigrants spend it.

>>130654985
Saved money is invested by banks. The only way it is not in circulation is if you were to literally hoard cash under you mattress.

>>130655147
That is literally what people are doing.

>>130654256
Considering that not all of them live under welfare, and that taxes affect everything, from the service you pay for, the salary of the people you buy from, the profit of the company, and the share of the associates, the country benefits greatly.

It can fail but since it's so easy to simply refuse a visa if you don't already work here, it needs minimal planning to work.

>>130655893
>the country benefits greatly.
Define "country"

>>130655481
Pretty sure most people have bank accounts, not a money box somewhere in their house.

I get the reasoning, similar to basic income, the redistribution will lead to higher consumption and accelerated growth.

For this to be sustainable, economies need increased efficiency of labour (i.e. a skilled workforce) in order to compensate for the higher unemployment caused by automatisation. This does not mean however that importing unskilled labour, which is largely useless to our economy is something positive.

>>130648158
No shit, you tell me that's why all the companies shill for EU, free trade & immigrants?

>>130655893
>arab kebab shop
>paying taxes
The best joke of the year

>>130648158
bullshit. they are needed by the central bankers as future debt slaves since the western countries don't have enough population growth. debt based currency becomes unsustainable quickly without non stop population growth. we're all just chattel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJGlXEs8nI

>>130654240
By doing that (((they))) are genociding the whites, and you're just a useful idiot. Also GDP per capita going down is very bad for people like you or me.

>>130648158
If it was about the money alone, they would have established legal mass migration point-based system. They bring as many subhuman trash as they can. Why? The agenda is ethnic displacement. Ever heard of Jean Monnet or Richard Kalergi?

>>130648158
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/65628/Secret-plot-to-let-50million-African-workers-into-EU

>>130656159
We are reaching a point where negative interest rates are or soon will be a reality and banks are playing with the idea to charge fees whenever you withdraw money. My bank charges a hefty monthly fee just for their basic services, even just printing a bank statement costs money. There is literally no reason to keep "excess" money in a bank account anymore.

File: Danish-Immigrants.png (100KB, 672x307px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 672x307px

>>130648158
>A popular misconception in Europe is that centrist right and centrist left parties are taking immigrants in because of ideological reasons, which is false, they take them for economic reasons.
We know about the economic reasons, but whenever that's discussed in public and someone disagrees with their reasoning, the 'centrist' left and right start spewing ideological buzzwords.
>By working or abusing welfare money, immigrants spend a lot, their expanses are very beneficial to the corporations and to the state they live in, they actually don't cost more than they return.
pic related
>In conclusion, immigrants help the state by a small margin (depending on how involved it is in the economy) and the corporation by a big, juicy margin. The refugee/immigrant lobby is a result of corporate interests making their way into politics.
Yes, corporations benefit. Lower and middle class native citizens? No.

>>130656384
>crypto commie republic of France
>not jewing out your business
top jej

>>130648158
This is total bullshit. The welfare money you give them is either: sent to their family in home their country, or spent on blackmarket.
It's like the keneysian economic cycle. You give money to citizens, they spend it, the economy is better.
But for this to work, and have migrant bringing more than they cost, that money needs to be spend LEGALLY (taxes) and no one should put money in the bank.
When Mohamed and it's family of 8 earn 2500 Euros in welfare every month and they buy stuff from hand to hand with no state taxes we are all screwed!

>>130656979
Completely true, you as a consumer should not have money stored in a bank account. You would be better off investing in stocks, and bonds.

This does not mean that the money is not in circulation. The money you store at the bank is used by the bank to invest in various mechanisms.

To the economy itself, whether you move the money or the bank does, its all the same.

Negative interest rates will only mean that it becomes an even worse deal for you to keep your money at the bank, but on the other hand you get a better deal on lending. This is the idea behind lowering interest rates. Just like with the basic income, quantitative easing, and other mechanisms to boost the economy, we want people to spend in order to keep the economic organism growing.

File: economic-stimulus-comic.png (98KB, 1160x420px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1160x420px

>>130648158

You really need almost 2 decades of state education to produce people stupid enough to still believe this horseshit in this day and age

>>130650278
Check mate

>>130650563
Sorry but we don't manufacture shit anymore in France.

>>130657030
Sauce on your pic. Would come in handy in discussions on immigration

>>130651763
No! Because before their 8 children a active part of society it takes decades. Decades during which you have to pay for their education, welfare, etc...
This whole thread is starting to sound very Jewish ...

>>130657838
The AVERAGE German is over 50 years old. Let me be clear, what I am hinting at is they do have large amounts of cash money stashed somewhere in their homes. Trust in banks is low and monetary incentive to keep your money in the bank is virtually zero except for the money you need to pay your bills.

>>130652502
And crime !

>>130657838
I completely agree. Bank's business is not money, it's DEBT !

File: 1479805048366.jpg (116KB, 527x588px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 527x588px

>>130648158
1.Jews don't want military aged Muslim men surrounding Israel.
2. Politicians can't wait 18 years for native born tax cattle to mature.
3. Pump, dump, collapse, control.

It is bad for the long run as these groups create instability in the state.

File: germany-population-pyramid-2014.gif (61KB, 610x425px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 610x425px

>>130658357
Even for people over 50, the amount of physical cash hoarded is a minute percentage.

When you switched from the Mark to the Euro, people had to have their money exchanged, so hoarding would be limited time wise. The phenomena you are referring to will probably increase the older one gets, but people in their 50s are paying off mortgages and raising children, not hoarding cash under their beds. Maybe becomes relevant for the old farmer generation of 80+, don't know of any data on this.

Pensions, wages, and unemployment benefits are paid out on a bank account. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has any type of income would take out their wages and stick it under their bed, in order to forego the interest(admittedly very low).

>>130648158

Tell us something new. Business cannot afford falling revenues. Creating consumers, that's what it should be called. State takes money from us and gives to them to spend. No, it's not beneficial or profitable in anyway.

>>130659630
>but people in their 50s are paying off mortgages and raising children
The average person does not own the house or apartment they live in and you know our current birth rates.

>>130660905
Your premise is, for as far as I understand; Immigration is good because of welfare distribution, and more spending by immigrant families will lead to higher economic growth.

I'm saying that the money that's redistributed already circulates in the economy, and immigrants in that sense add nothing beneficial.

Low birthrates are is a non-issue. Less people have never been the problem. Its that the welfare state will not be able to support the coming generation of elderly, because the contribution to the welfare state is too small. Immigration from non-western countries make that situation worse as shown in pic by >>130657030 as they don't contribute to the welfare state and are a net loss.

>>130659685
I am just stating the actual problem of immigration: corporate businesses taking the big share, the state takes a share too or loses a little, but in the end it's the corporations that win.

Recognise that this debate is more interesting than the usual debates regarding immigration on this board.

>>130661630
I am not arguing for immigration at all, very much the opposite. What I am saying is that it is entirely possible to utilize mass immigration to force economic growth, it's just that the general population does not benefit from it. I'm not disagreeing with the points you are making about the welfare system and the immigrants negative net contribution, just that one thing doesn't exclude the other.