Minimum Wage --Prevents-- Wealth Acquisition!

[EdwardBaiamonte]

from 1928 until 1933 we saw unemployment increase from 4% to over 25% using the great republican plan of open markets unrestricted by the gov.

open markets?? !00% stupid liberal lie as always. Hoover was a liberal. Ever heard of the Hoover Dam stimulus project??


... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.

 

[danielpalos]

Even Hoover didn't believe the propaganda and rhetoric of the Right regarding True capitalism.

 

[Andylusion]

Most liberals don't understand this because they don't really grasp the principles of free market capitalism. They react emotively and without thinking about consequences of what their emotions drive them to do. And when you're dealing with free market capitalism, this can be very costly because you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Such is the case with our beloved minimum wage.

Oh sure, it has been considered a wonderful idea through all the years... helped the poor exploited worker be treated at least half-way decently... but it has also produced a society full of idiots who don't comprehend how it has damaged the individual's ability to prosper. It's a big giant ball and chain on our ability to negotiate. In order to understand this, you must understand how the principles of free market capitalism (supply and demand) operate.

As I said, the toothpaste is out already, can't put it back now... So I am not suggesting we should get rid of the minimum wage at this time. Various reasons for that but it all goes back to the toothpaste already being out of the tube... we've already established a free market system around this baseline labor cost, any change now would be somewhat detrimental to a lot of people. The better idea at this point is to leave it alone and focus on making it irrelevant. Raising it is stupid and pointless because all you're ultimately doing is decreasing the value of a dollar.

But now... Let's go back to 1912, when this issue was first being debated. The First Progressive Movement was hell bent on establishing a minimum wage, at that time, for women and children. They tried numerous times to do this and kept running into failure because the Supreme Court continued to rule the minimum wage unconstitutional. This went on for over 20 years in the first part of the 20th century. So when we get to the Great Depression, FDR takes this opportunity to implement a national minimum wage. He says, and I quote:

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country."

Now...... THAT sounds very familiar, doesn't it? ....Where have I heard THAT recently? Can it not be clearer that this abysmal liberal policy has FAILED? Here we are, 82 years later and the same Progressives are screaming the same thing! The dollar amount is all that is different.

Same argument, same idea, same solution that hasn't worked in 82 years. But it's all about emotion, you see?

Okay, follow me here... think about, what if.... What IF we had not adopted a MW and instead, we promoted individual and collective bargaining? We could have established anti-trust laws where employers had to 'reasonably negotiate' with prospective employees on the specific job available. Of course, we have to understand there were "corporatists" back then who didn't want that to happen. They went along with this "minimum wage" idea because it effectively base-lined labor costs. Think about it for a hot second...

Every wage in America, whether you belong to a union or not, is pretty much determined in relation to the current minimum wage. If that goes up, so do all the wages up the ladder because that is their base line. As long as the minimum wage remains where it is, the motivation for the capitalist is to keep wages the same. so we've stagnated wealth acquisition by base-lining labor cost. You can't negotiate a higher wage because the wage is set according to the minimum you've set. Raising the minimum doesn't help you negotiate, it eliminates the job you're negotiating for. If there were no such thing as a minimum wage, you could negotiate based on market value of labor.

We don't know how free market forces would have worked the past 82 years... Sure, children and women were exploited back in 1912... Sure, people were struggling in 1933... but had we taken a different road, one that encouraged free market capitalism instead of trying to regulate it... we may have experienced a different result. It might be that today, an average worker negotiates $15 hr. for a burger flipper job because no one else wants to flip burgers? It might mean the value of the dollar never declined and $5 hr. buys as much as $15 today? We just don't know because we didn't take that road.

And boss, being a con tool with NO understanding of economics, makes statements too stupid to take seriously. For instance, he could not understand that from 1928 until 1933 we saw unemployment increase from 4% to over 25% using the great republican plan of open markets unrestricted by the gov. To not do what was done after the republican Great Depression had ravaged this nation FOR OVER 5 YEARS is simply butt stupid. Which we have come to expect from "Boss".

As Edward correctly pointed out in his follow up post, Hoover was a massive interventionist. He had government involved in every aspect of the economy.

All you have done with this post is proven how utterly ignorant you are of 1928 to 1933. In fact, nearly everything that FDR did, was based on policies that started with Hoover.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Most liberals don't understand this because they don't really grasp the principles of free market capitalism. They react emotively and without thinking about consequences of what their emotions drive them to do. And when you're dealing with free market capitalism, this can be very costly because you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Such is the case with our beloved minimum wage.

Oh sure, it has been considered a wonderful idea through all the years... helped the poor exploited worker be treated at least half-way decently... but it has also produced a society full of idiots who don't comprehend how it has damaged the individual's ability to prosper. It's a big giant ball and chain on our ability to negotiate. In order to understand this, you must understand how the principles of free market capitalism (supply and demand) operate.

As I said, the toothpaste is out already, can't put it back now... So I am not suggesting we should get rid of the minimum wage at this time. Various reasons for that but it all goes back to the toothpaste already being out of the tube... we've already established a free market system around this baseline labor cost, any change now would be somewhat detrimental to a lot of people. The better idea at this point is to leave it alone and focus on making it irrelevant. Raising it is stupid and pointless because all you're ultimately doing is decreasing the value of a dollar.

But now... Let's go back to 1912, when this issue was first being debated. The First Progressive Movement was hell bent on establishing a minimum wage, at that time, for women and children. They tried numerous times to do this and kept running into failure because the Supreme Court continued to rule the minimum wage unconstitutional. This went on for over 20 years in the first part of the 20th century. So when we get to the Great Depression, FDR takes this opportunity to implement a national minimum wage. He says, and I quote:

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country."

Now...... THAT sounds very familiar, doesn't it? ....Where have I heard THAT recently? Can it not be clearer that this abysmal liberal policy has FAILED? Here we are, 82 years later and the same Progressives are screaming the same thing! The dollar amount is all that is different.

Same argument, same idea, same solution that hasn't worked in 82 years. But it's all about emotion, you see?

Okay, follow me here... think about, what if.... What IF we had not adopted a MW and instead, we promoted individual and collective bargaining? We could have established anti-trust laws where employers had to 'reasonably negotiate' with prospective employees on the specific job available. Of course, we have to understand there were "corporatists" back then who didn't want that to happen. They went along with this "minimum wage" idea because it effectively base-lined labor costs. Think about it for a hot second...

Every wage in America, whether you belong to a union or not, is pretty much determined in relation to the current minimum wage. If that goes up, so do all the wages up the ladder because that is their base line. As long as the minimum wage remains where it is, the motivation for the capitalist is to keep wages the same. so we've stagnated wealth acquisition by base-lining labor cost. You can't negotiate a higher wage because the wage is set according to the minimum you've set. Raising the minimum doesn't help you negotiate, it eliminates the job you're negotiating for. If there were no such thing as a minimum wage, you could negotiate based on market value of labor.

We don't know how free market forces would have worked the past 82 years... Sure, children and women were exploited back in 1912... Sure, people were struggling in 1933... but had we taken a different road, one that encouraged free market capitalism instead of trying to regulate it... we may have experienced a different result. It might be that today, an average worker negotiates $15 hr. for a burger flipper job because no one else wants to flip burgers? It might mean the value of the dollar never declined and $5 hr. buys as much as $15 today? We just don't know because we didn't take that road.

And boss, being a con tool with NO understanding of economics, makes statements too stupid to take seriously. For instance, he could not understand that from 1928 until 1933 we saw unemployment increase from 4% to over 25% using the great republican plan of open markets unrestricted by the gov. To not do what was done after the republican Great Depression had ravaged this nation FOR OVER 5 YEARS is simply butt stupid. Which we have come to expect from "Boss".

As Edward correctly pointed out in his follow up post, Hoover was a massive interventionist. He had government involved in every aspect of the economy.

All you have done with this post is proven how utterly ignorant you are of 1928 to 1933. In fact, nearly everything that FDR did, was based on policies that started with Hoover.

yes, once liberals learn that Hoover was a liberal they are dumbfounded knowing they had been brainwashed to believe that their most common argument was based on the truth.

 

[danielpalos]

Most liberals don't understand this because they don't really grasp the principles of free market capitalism. They react emotively and without thinking about consequences of what their emotions drive them to do. And when you're dealing with free market capitalism, this can be very costly because you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Such is the case with our beloved minimum wage.

Oh sure, it has been considered a wonderful idea through all the years... helped the poor exploited worker be treated at least half-way decently... but it has also produced a society full of idiots who don't comprehend how it has damaged the individual's ability to prosper. It's a big giant ball and chain on our ability to negotiate. In order to understand this, you must understand how the principles of free market capitalism (supply and demand) operate.

As I said, the toothpaste is out already, can't put it back now... So I am not suggesting we should get rid of the minimum wage at this time. Various reasons for that but it all goes back to the toothpaste already being out of the tube... we've already established a free market system around this baseline labor cost, any change now would be somewhat detrimental to a lot of people. The better idea at this point is to leave it alone and focus on making it irrelevant. Raising it is stupid and pointless because all you're ultimately doing is decreasing the value of a dollar.

But now... Let's go back to 1912, when this issue was first being debated. The First Progressive Movement was hell bent on establishing a minimum wage, at that time, for women and children. They tried numerous times to do this and kept running into failure because the Supreme Court continued to rule the minimum wage unconstitutional. This went on for over 20 years in the first part of the 20th century. So when we get to the Great Depression, FDR takes this opportunity to implement a national minimum wage. He says, and I quote:

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country."

Now...... THAT sounds very familiar, doesn't it? ....Where have I heard THAT recently? Can it not be clearer that this abysmal liberal policy has FAILED? Here we are, 82 years later and the same Progressives are screaming the same thing! The dollar amount is all that is different.

Same argument, same idea, same solution that hasn't worked in 82 years. But it's all about emotion, you see?

Okay, follow me here... think about, what if.... What IF we had not adopted a MW and instead, we promoted individual and collective bargaining? We could have established anti-trust laws where employers had to 'reasonably negotiate' with prospective employees on the specific job available. Of course, we have to understand there were "corporatists" back then who didn't want that to happen. They went along with this "minimum wage" idea because it effectively base-lined labor costs. Think about it for a hot second...

Every wage in America, whether you belong to a union or not, is pretty much determined in relation to the current minimum wage. If that goes up, so do all the wages up the ladder because that is their base line. As long as the minimum wage remains where it is, the motivation for the capitalist is to keep wages the same. so we've stagnated wealth acquisition by base-lining labor cost. You can't negotiate a higher wage because the wage is set according to the minimum you've set. Raising the minimum doesn't help you negotiate, it eliminates the job you're negotiating for. If there were no such thing as a minimum wage, you could negotiate based on market value of labor.

We don't know how free market forces would have worked the past 82 years... Sure, children and women were exploited back in 1912... Sure, people were struggling in 1933... but had we taken a different road, one that encouraged free market capitalism instead of trying to regulate it... we may have experienced a different result. It might be that today, an average worker negotiates $15 hr. for a burger flipper job because no one else wants to flip burgers? It might mean the value of the dollar never declined and $5 hr. buys as much as $15 today? We just don't know because we didn't take that road.

And boss, being a con tool with NO understanding of economics, makes statements too stupid to take seriously. For instance, he could not understand that from 1928 until 1933 we saw unemployment increase from 4% to over 25% using the great republican plan of open markets unrestricted by the gov. To not do what was done after the republican Great Depression had ravaged this nation FOR OVER 5 YEARS is simply butt stupid. Which we have come to expect from "Boss".

As Edward correctly pointed out in his follow up post, Hoover was a massive interventionist. He had government involved in every aspect of the economy.

All you have done with this post is proven how utterly ignorant you are of 1928 to 1933. In fact, nearly everything that FDR did, was based on policies that started with Hoover.

yes, once liberals learn that Hoover was a liberal they are dumbfounded knowing they had been brainwashed to believe that their most common argument was based on the truth.

Hoover merely was merely infidel, protestant, and renegade to True Capitalism, merely for public profit instead of private profit.

 

[Boss]

Most liberals don't understand this because they don't really grasp the principles of free market capitalism. They react emotively and without thinking about consequences of what their emotions drive them to do. And when you're dealing with free market capitalism, this can be very costly because you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Such is the case with our beloved minimum wage.

Oh sure, it has been considered a wonderful idea through all the years... helped the poor exploited worker be treated at least half-way decently... but it has also produced a society full of idiots who don't comprehend how it has damaged the individual's ability to prosper. It's a big giant ball and chain on our ability to negotiate. In order to understand this, you must understand how the principles of free market capitalism (supply and demand) operate.

As I said, the toothpaste is out already, can't put it back now... So I am not suggesting we should get rid of the minimum wage at this time. Various reasons for that but it all goes back to the toothpaste already being out of the tube... we've already established a free market system around this baseline labor cost, any change now would be somewhat detrimental to a lot of people. The better idea at this point is to leave it alone and focus on making it irrelevant. Raising it is stupid and pointless because all you're ultimately doing is decreasing the value of a dollar.

But now... Let's go back to 1912, when this issue was first being debated. The First Progressive Movement was hell bent on establishing a minimum wage, at that time, for women and children. They tried numerous times to do this and kept running into failure because the Supreme Court continued to rule the minimum wage unconstitutional. This went on for over 20 years in the first part of the 20th century. So when we get to the Great Depression, FDR takes this opportunity to implement a national minimum wage. He says, and I quote:

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country."

Now...... THAT sounds very familiar, doesn't it? ....Where have I heard THAT recently? Can it not be clearer that this abysmal liberal policy has FAILED? Here we are, 82 years later and the same Progressives are screaming the same thing! The dollar amount is all that is different.

Same argument, same idea, same solution that hasn't worked in 82 years. But it's all about emotion, you see?

Okay, follow me here... think about, what if.... What IF we had not adopted a MW and instead, we promoted individual and collective bargaining? We could have established anti-trust laws where employers had to 'reasonably negotiate' with prospective employees on the specific job available. Of course, we have to understand there were "corporatists" back then who didn't want that to happen. They went along with this "minimum wage" idea because it effectively base-lined labor costs. Think about it for a hot second...

Every wage in America, whether you belong to a union or not, is pretty much determined in relation to the current minimum wage. If that goes up, so do all the wages up the ladder because that is their base line. As long as the minimum wage remains where it is, the motivation for the capitalist is to keep wages the same. so we've stagnated wealth acquisition by base-lining labor cost. You can't negotiate a higher wage because the wage is set according to the minimum you've set. Raising the minimum doesn't help you negotiate, it eliminates the job you're negotiating for. If there were no such thing as a minimum wage, you could negotiate based on market value of labor.

We don't know how free market forces would have worked the past 82 years... Sure, children and women were exploited back in 1912... Sure, people were struggling in 1933... but had we taken a different road, one that encouraged free market capitalism instead of trying to regulate it... we may have experienced a different result. It might be that today, an average worker negotiates $15 hr. for a burger flipper job because no one else wants to flip burgers? It might mean the value of the dollar never declined and $5 hr. buys as much as $15 today? We just don't know because we didn't take that road.

And boss, being a con tool with NO understanding of economics, makes statements too stupid to take seriously. For instance, he could not understand that from 1928 until 1933 we saw unemployment increase from 4% to over 25% using the great republican plan of open markets unrestricted by the gov. To not do what was done after the republican Great Depression had ravaged this nation FOR OVER 5 YEARS is simply butt stupid. Which we have come to expect from "Boss".

Nonsense, the plan was not "open markets" it was tariffs on imports to encourage American purchasing and American production. It failed for two reasons, the entire world economy was experiencing an economic depression, not just the US, and... we were a strong export nation. We also experienced a severe drought across most of our primary agricultural land... turned it into the Dust Bowl. That certainly wasn't Hoover's fault.

From a purely historical context, if FDR had been president when the stock market crashed and sent us into the depression, and he was out there implementing his Keynesian policies of more government help for the people but it was still failing to revive the economy and things just kept getting worse... we would have looked to a man like Hoover as someone who could have saved us. Hoover was a victim of really bad timing.

 

[danielpalos]

I think it was merely insufficient public sector intervention in private sector markets, in a manner most conducive to the improvement of our economy.

Everyone knows Capitalism can not be trusted in a real wartime situation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Everyone knows Capitalism can not be trusted in a real wartime situation.

1) capitalism is not for war so the the situation you describe is absurd
2) 120 million dead prove socialism cant be trusted in peacetime

 

[danielpalos]

so, when is capitalism going to get more socialist and insist Persons merely abstain and just say "no" to making a profit on weapons of micro and mass destruction, on Earth?

 

[dblack]

so, when is capitalism going to get more socialist and insist Persons merely abstain and just say "no" to making a profit on weapons of micro and mass destruction, on Earth?

Dude!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so, when is capitalism going to get more socialist and insist Persons merely abstain and just say "no" to making a profit on weapons of micro and mass destruction, on Earth?

dear, if they don't make a profit on weapons how will they fund the next generation of weapons needed to defend and promote our empire of liberty??

 

[danielpalos]

so, when is capitalism going to get more socialist and insist Persons merely abstain and just say "no" to making a profit on weapons of micro and mass destruction, on Earth?

dear, if they don't make a profit on weapons how will they fund the next generation of weapons needed to defend and promote our empire of liberty??

Why not simply ask Capitalists to abstain and just say "no" to creating "Hellish conditions on Earth" on a for-the-profit-of-lucre basis?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so, when is capitalism going to get more socialist and insist Persons merely abstain and just say "no" to making a profit on weapons of micro and mass destruction, on Earth?

dear, if they don't make a profit on weapons how will they fund the next generation of weapons needed to defend and promote our empire of liberty??

Why not simply ask Capitalists to abstain and just say "no" to creating "Hellish conditions on Earth" on a for-the-profit-of-lucre basis?

dear, capitalism in China just eliminated 40% of the entire planet's poverty. Eliminating poverty in nor hellish. It is considered a good thing.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[danielpalos]

so, when is capitalism going to get more socialist and insist Persons merely abstain and just say "no" to making a profit on weapons of micro and mass destruction, on Earth?

dear, if they don't make a profit on weapons how will they fund the next generation of weapons needed to defend and promote our empire of liberty??

Why not simply ask Capitalists to abstain and just say "no" to creating "Hellish conditions on Earth" on a for-the-profit-of-lucre basis?

dear, capitalism in China just eliminated 40% of the entire planet's poverty. Eliminating poverty in nor hellish. It is considered a good thing.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

so what, socialism in the US even pays out multimillion dollar bonuses for capitalists of wealth, even while on means tested, corporate welfare.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Small farmers in the US have slowly been forced by big farmers. This is normal and to be expected. Are there some subsidizes? Sure. The over all effect is ambiguous to me, because some suggest it's huge, and others say it's small.

"Slowly" , that is the key point. Every now and then works are shed off by technological improvements and competition.
Every system has a limit to the amount of change that it can cope with. When you apply a sudden change you simply break the system's capacity to cope with change.

Can the US receive 10 million immigrants in a 100 hundred years ? Sure, I am certain that is no problem.
Now , try the same in 5 years.
The same applies to infant industries , slow changes promote competition, sudden changes just kill off industries and cause severe crisis. Trade is a great thing , buth changes have to be gradual.
The free for all do it by the book approach of neo-liberalism and NAFTA has prooved to be a really bad idea.
It's too late to close the pandora box. It is now time to ask the important and unconfortable questions:
What went wrong ? and how can it be corrected?

Sure, you can wall up the US, to slow down immigration, that will work to an extent, but it seems a rather childish solution.

 

[Boss]

Small farmers in the US have slowly been forced by big farmers. This is normal and to be expected. Are there some subsidizes? Sure. The over all effect is ambiguous to me, because some suggest it's huge, and others say it's small.

"Slowly" , that is the key point. Every now and then works are shed off by technological improvements and competition.
Every system has a limit to the amount of change that it can cope with. When you apply a sudden change you simply break the system's capacity to cope with change.

Can the US receive 10 million immigrants in a 100 hundred years ? Sure, I am certain that is no problem.
Now , try the same in 5 years.
The same applies to infant industries , slow changes promote competition, sudden changes just kill off industries and cause severe crisis. Trade is a great thing , buth changes have to be gradual.
The free for all do it by the book approach of neo-liberalism and NAFTA has prooved to be a really bad idea.
It's too late to close the pandora box. It is now time to ask the important and unconfortable questions:
What went wrong ? and how can it be corrected?

Sure, you can wall up the US, to slow down immigration, that will work to an extent, but it seems a rather childish solution.

I want to interject something about small farmers here. I happen to know several and here is what has happened with them. They have struggled to survive as small fish in the big pond. Much of it is because they are good business people who knew how to negotiate good contracts with the larger farms to co-opt and remain afloat. The small farmer doesn't get a whole lot of government subsidies, most of those go to the larger scale operations. The little they receive is almost not worth the effort to obtain. However, many of them probably couldn't pay their property taxes if they didn't get some assistance. Still, they are not getting rich and at times it has seemed like their breed is dying out, that it's just a matter of time until they are all gone.

That said... Here is where the beauty of free market capitalism is so amazing to watch. One of my close friends has a small rural farm near where I live. He and his wife have been targeting the hipster generation, the new age organic trend... people who no longer trust the food supply because everything is full of chemicals, hormones and preservatives. A few years ago, they opened a "Country Store" and began doing mail orders for a variety of products produced on their farm. They added a delivery service to the city and just bought a second truck. The business has been phenomenal.

This past weekend, they opened their second store. This one is a specialty store for meats but they will carry much the same merchandise as their other store. I went to the grand opening and there was no place to park! I bet they ended up with over 1,000 people before the day was over. Seems that LOTS of people are interested in farm fresh, organically-raised and locally produced products.

So... Let's not be so quick to write off the small farmer in America. Free markets are often cyclical in nature, things come and things go, but the good things may return again some day!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sure, you can wall up the US, to slow down immigration, that will work to an extent, but it seems a rather childish solution.

dear thats 100% stupid and liberal as always!!! There is nothing childish about a country having a border and controlled immigration!!!

Slow???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, sudden changes just kill off industries and cause severe crisis.

if so why are you so afaid to present your best example???

 

[danielpalos]

Sure, you can wall up the US, to slow down immigration, that will work to an extent, but it seems a rather childish solution.

dear thats 100% stupid and liberal as always!!! There is nothing childish about a country having a border and controlled immigration!!!

Slow???

Yes Dear that really is slow we have a Commerce Clause why are we losing money on Commerce at our borders

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sure, you can wall up the US, to slow down immigration, that will work to an extent, but it seems a rather childish solution.

dear thats 100% stupid and liberal as always!!! There is nothing childish about a country having a border and controlled immigration!!!

Slow???

Yes Dear that really is slow we have a Commerce Clause why are we losing money on Commerce at our borders

losing money??????