Does Immigrant Improve Economy

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Does an immigrant improves the economy? Yes. But not for the reasons you think. You see US immigration policy is eugenic.
US match those who are in with the need of their economy.

You allow the smart one in, and you keep the dumb out.

When an immigrant comes to US, a US visa officer will ensure that this immigrant gives more than what he takes. If US needs more programmers they will allow programmers in.

Imagine a person likely to be parasitic entering US. Of course, he is not allowed. Those that will likely be parasitic will be rejected.

Yet, that person can enter US from another border and get citizenship.

A cradle to grave welfare parasite will breed another one. Tada.
That pretty much circumventing all vetting US governments do to vet people coming in.
That fetus if very likely to be parasitic. Their parents can’t afford themselves and now they surely can’t afford this new baby.

US breeding policy is dysgenic.

We can call this open womb policy. It’s like open border policies. In open border policies, you let everyone in. In open womb policies, you allow all kind of people to be born.

It gets worse than this.

You subsidize stupid people to make kids they can’t afford. Yet when someone rich or smart want to produce children, you make the transaction cost go up.

There are huge alimony, huge child support, anti-prostitution laws, that prevent the rich for “transacting” with girls. So of course, immigrant improves the economy.

You don’t like immigrants? Breed your own smart people.

How Prophet Works

Perhaps those prophets have some “insight” that most don’t see. Then they tell people, God told me this. And what they said is sort of true anyway.

Religions allow kings to coordinate his subjects achieving a high degree of cooperation without revealing how they are truly controlled. I wouldn’t want to say, you got to obey me because I killed the last king. Cooperation may be manipulative.

However, if even those manipulated are profited, such as being able to get lots of war loot, they may not care.

Open Womb Policy

An “open border policy” is a policy where anyone can come into the country.

Imagine if a state has a policy where anyone can give birth in the country irrelevant of the capability to support the child.

For example, in US, welfare recipients can have a number of children, each of whom are supported by tax payers’ money.

What would be the English term for that?

People say I am inferior because I give girls money to be my girlfriend. I may be am. I guess the rest are just alpha males.

I can’t help to notice that many guys actually pay much higher damage costs. Those are true if we measure it relative to their income or in absolute term or relative to the quality of the girl.

It seems that their strategy is far less cost-effective than mine. Tiger Wood is a notable sample.

Some spend 50% of their income for their girlfriend/wife. Some spend 100%. Many commit suicide due to alimony that arises out of the complexity of marriage laws.

And yet men keep agreeing to get married. That’s horrible. It’s disgusting.
To me, all those people end up with even worse deals that I am getting.

And most people only have like 1 girl. I mean what? No sex party? No sex slaves? No threesome? Just 1 girl that get mad all the time? That’s happiness?

I think the ideal amount we should spend on a girl is 2-6% of our income. Less than that and we should aim for prettier girlfriend. More than that and we have a boss rather than an employee. If I can’t get a pretty girl with 2-6% of my income, I should concentrate on making more money first instead of getting girls.

If all guys are like that, every kid will have a rich smart dad and a pretty mom with the genes and all.

Now there is this issue that the other guys are not paying their girl but financially supporting them instead. What’s the fucking difference? Is this some semantic PHD test or what? Do I need to be a lawyer or have 180 verbal IQ just to get laid?

Giving based on need and taking based on capability is socialist. We should infuse capitalism in our relationship okay. We give based on what we get from the other side.

No play no pay no pay no play. The money comes with the cock. That’s what truly matters. That’s what we should do if we want a stable happy relationship.

Why Huge Debate on Whether Trans Can Compete Against Women in Sports?

Whatever you decide, I will appreciate if we exchange feedback.

Why is this something so “very emotional and polarizing topic” in US?

We usually argue when someone will be forced against their will to do something.

For example, we argue in court because someone may be sent to jail against his will based on the arguments.

Why do people argue whether trans women should be able to compete against cis women?

Are sports events made by private sectors or public sectors?

If it’s by private sectors, then the private sectors can decide. Some will decide cis women only. Some will decide trans and cis.

Then the fans can decide whether they want to watch or not. I am not sure in the US. Here, in Asia, I think most people would prefer to watch cis women only sport rather than the one including trans.

In either case, each people can choose where they want to watch. So why the heated argument?

Infusing Democracy with Spirit of Capitalism

Free market, in general, have a few edges over our democracy. All these works “in general” and not all the time. I am aware of market failure.

1. Profit incentive. Under free market you make more money if you do the right thing. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs produces what the market wants and got rich.
2. Competition. You can’t just raise price to make more money. You got competition.
3. You are rewarded for being correct. If you think stock price will go up, and it really goes up, you are profited.
4. You are rewarded for being correct when everyone else is wrong. Thinking that the stock will go up when everyone else already agrees pays little. The price is low. But being correct when everyone else is wrong gives huge fortune. Casandra of Troy would have made a fortune under capitalism.
5. If you govern your company well, the only way you will lose shares of that company is if you sell the share at high costs. You do not need to worry that you lose shares of your business because other shareholders breed more children or because immigrants are coming to your business’ territory.
6. Each shareholder receive benefits that are equal and depend only on the amount of shares. Hence, shareholders do not vote against each other’s interests. Shareholders vote for common interests.

What we need is to infuse a system like that in our democracy. We need to turn citizens into shareholders.

Is Stealing Part of the Game

Say I think stealing is wrong. That means I hate thieves. However, it doesn’t go far. I hate thieves, so what? They steal my money anyway. Not like thieves live or die based on whether I hate them.

Now, imagine, instead of thinking that stealing is wrong, I think stealing is part of the game.

Then there is much more that I can do. I know that thieves are unlikely to steal or rob in save regions or in the crowded areas. So I shouldn’t walk alone in an alley.

It seems that thinking that stealing is part of the game is more useful than thinking that theft is wrong.

By the same reasoning, what about, if, for a while only, we think genocide, abortion, socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, welfare, right-wingers, libtardism, not as something that’s “right” or “wrong” but something that’s “part of the game.”

Some people promote that, perhaps because that’s what’s their winning strategy. So what’s our winning strategy?

Notice reciprocity is not an optimal solution. Knowing that stealing is part of the game doesn’t mean because of that, I should steal too. I have different talent sets with those thieves. It is toward my best interests, for example, to ask for governments to shot down thieves, promote 3 strikes you’re out laws, or give free contraception/abortion than to say, legalize stealing.

However, I can understand that other people obviously have different agenda and hence have different winning strategies than I am.

Would Legalizing Abortion Cause Genocide?

We often hear that right? This is the one argument against abortion that makes any sense. Not that I agree, but this is the only thing worth addressing.

The idea is we got to presume that all humans life are equal. If we don’t, then we’ll start getting it wrong all the way, and some smart, productive individual humans will be presumed inferior and slaughtered.

And that seems to make perfect sense. From genocide in Ottoman against Armenian, or genocide against Jews in the Holocaust, or genocide against the bourgeois in China communist, and a bunch of pogroms against Chinese in southeast Asia.

There is something about government, especially democratic ones. Some group of people tends to be victims of genocide. The victims tend to be some minorities that are on average smarter and more industrious.

We still have a more subtle genocide in US. The governments make having children artificially costly for the rich.

Imagine if a rich, smart man get married and divorce and have children? The amount of alimony and child support such men pay will be much higher than if he were poor. In most cases, it’s very tricky to settle that before conception or before marriage. It can be done but tricky. Many such men commit suicide. In any case, the rich and smart wouldn’t make too many children.

But why?

There is a simple explanation.
Imagine if I am a dictator. Say I collect 100 poor kids or teenagers. I told them run. The one running the fastest will get money, girls, wives, slaves, bla bla. I’ll kill the slowest 50.

What would the kids do?

They would run for a while.

When they are running, they will learn that many of them will not be the one running the fastest. There are other kids, due to genetic advantage, will outrun them.

Running and winning is not the way to win for most of those kids. However, the penalty is huge. If they lost, they die. So what do you think those kids will do?

They’ll kill the kid in front.

That’ll make perfect sense right?

That dictator is God or mother nature. The kids are just us or our genes to be more exact.

And that’s the kind of game all living beings have been playing and playing. This is why we have war.

War is not always the solution. The Bonobo lives in peace. The Bonobo have orgies all the time. The Bonobo themselves are not at war. Their sperms are. Each Bonobo have big balls that produce massive amount of sperms. So instead of killing each other they out produce each others’ sperm.

Humans are somewhere between Bonobo and Chimps. Humans’ males’ balls are smaller. We don’t win by producing more sperm. We win by attracting more women.

Bonobo achieves peace by changing the games. Basically they no longer “win” by killing other males. They win by producing more sperms than other men. Then they just fuck and fuck and fuck and fuck and well, you know. Those sperms got to be put on the fighting front right?

The way we evolve, when we’re not at war, we’re in a race.

I used to think being a high IQ means I live in easy mode. I learn faster. I can learn whole college physics and Math in months.

Something bothers me. Why do I have to learn non-math stuff in schools? I don’t have an edge in learning memorizing courses. It’s useless in real life.

Why do schools look at your grade in school? Think about it. Different schools have different standards. So your grades in school means nothing right. You can’t compare an A in one school with a C in another.

I graduate thinking that schools are just a nightmare. Surely the market would take care of things. I picked computer science as a major. There are a low supply and high demand for programmers in this world. So, programmers earn more than bricklayers. Really?

Not really. In US the government, for example, allow programmers to get in with H1 visa and pretty much protect bricklayers from having to compete with foreigners. In my country programmers weren’t valued as much.

There is a loophole around this that I took advantage, but that will be a topic of another article.

Now. If you do a job that’s high in demand and low in supply, you make more money. Right? Wrong. We got income taxes. Curiously if people knew that you’ll make more money, you will still pay higher taxes. For example, society does not consider a poor college student eating ramen poor. They consider the college student rich. They consider some bricklayers with wives and kids to be poor. They’ll tax those single students and give money to those with children.

How do you get a job? Can you just post your IQ in your resume? Can’t do that. It’s politically incorrect. Again, as usual, justified by nonsense.

Finally, after going through all those, you can still just aim to get girls. Finally. Gene pool survival. Easy right?

No. If you’re rich, how do you get girls? The easiest way is to just pay for it. Ups, it’s illegal.

Okay, marry them then. Be careful. Remember about the alimony and child support?

If you’re just smart and count on normal economic theory to get rich, you’ll be lucky not to end up like the Jews during Holocaust. Those people are very smart. Chosen by God himself, I’ve heard. Most of them were slaughtered. You would be death too unless you learn from their mistakes.

All those strange anti-competitive laws are there for a reason. They don’t want you to win. They want to win instead. Most people are like the slowest 50 kids in the race. They want you death.

Unless you kill them first or change the game.

Being the smartest species in the world, humans have been changing the game again and again.

Currently, we presume that everyone has the same chance of winning the running race. In fact, we self fulfill those ideas by so many ways.

But how far can we pull this out? Imagine you have a 148 IQ and you are competing against someone with 85 IQ. Let’s see which one of us will have higher paying jobs and make more money and get more girls and produce more children and grandchildren?

Do you think those 85 IQ guys will, vote libertarianism and believe that capitalism is fair?

One way or another, we will evolve. Most will go extinct, some will reproduce.

Wouldn’t it be better if the greatest among us is the one producing the best service to the most customers?

That’ll be very consistent with capitalism too. Capitalism is quite eugenic. However, that’s just not going to be where the game is. Most people just don’t like pure capitalism. So you just have to make the best on what’s your situation.

The best way to deal with those that will not be productive anyway is to simply ensure they’re never born.

No. Abortion and free contraception will not cause genocide, at least not against the best and brightest and most industrious among humans.

To the opposite, not giving them free, legal, or sometimes mandatory contraception, will lead to genocide.

What’s the difference between abortion and infanticide? If we allow abortion, what about if we latter allow murder? Well. The younger the victim, the more politically correct it will be. So yea, free contraception will be the way to go. After that free abortion and mandatory abortion for welfare parasites. That alone should be enough to eliminate poverty in the most rich country.

Open Womb Policies

I am not even sure whether open womb policies is the right term.

Typically, a country does not just allow anyone that wants to come in. Typically people need a visa to enter a country. Also, entering a country don’t usually give someone citizenship.

A country that allows anyone to comes in will have problems. The most indigent immigrants will come and live on welfare, for example. That’ll drain the countries’ resources.

Well. A newborn baby is very similar to an immigrant. Basically, it adds the population. Basically, it’s someone entering the country albeit from slightly different borders. Immigrants come from other countries while the baby comes from the mom’s vagina.

They’re basically “entering” the country, just from a different “border” so to speak.

The kind of immigrant a country want (or what voters/rulers in that country want) should be roughly the same with the kind of new babies that country want.

A democratic country, for example, prefers job creators than job seekers. Most voters will prefer a baby that will more likely create jobs than seeking jobs. A country prefers taxpayers than welfare recipients. That same country will prefer babies that are more likely to pay taxes than becoming welfare recipients.

Yes. We do not know for sure whether a baby will be a welfare recipient or a productive citizen. However, in immigration, we also don’t know that for sure. We make decisions based on the indication. There are plenty of hints for both babies and potential immigrants.

Most problems that come with open border policies are similar to open womb policies.

If countries allow immigrants to come in without vetting, then welfare spending will go up (assuming the immigrants get welfare). The same way, a state that will enable anyone to give birth will also see welfare spending going up.

Immigrants are taking away jobs from citizens. So will most newborn babies when they grow up.

People fear that immigrants will change the character of the country.

Many people in Europe, fear, for example, that if they allow refugees coming from communist or Muslim countries, then those refugees and descendants will vote and demand more socialism or syariah, which many Europeans do not like.

That being said, if a commie or a muslim have more children, their children are also more likely to vote for socialism and syariah too. Same issues.

However, while countries restrict refugees from poorer countries, they do not restrict breeding from their poorer population.

I wonder why?

Shouldn’t countries vet future parents first before allowing them to give birth?

Note: I notice that vetting for immigration is not very tight either. Many countries allow anyone to come in if they can convince the country that they have some minimum income. So for a start, a country can also allow anyone with certain income to reproduce. A country can also give welfare only in exchange for temporary fertilization.

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14062/do-skilled-immigration-policies-harm-developing-countries?rq=1

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/25236/do-any-countries-have-a-100-open-immigration-policy?rq=1

Note: I found another thing that’s even more bizarre. Most countries have birth restrictions. However, it works in opposite ways than the way they vet immigrants.

If 1000 people want to come to your country. Say half of them is smart, educated, have sponsors, have a job, and rich, and want to invest. The other half is poor with no special skills and will likely be unemployed. You will allow the “top” half in. You will reject visa for the other half.

Say 1000 people want to be parents. The first half is smart, rich, investor, job creators, bla bla. The other 500 are welfare recipients. The former face restrictions. There are child support laws that prevent rich men from having too many children. The latter can freely breed without limitation.

Why countries “prefer” certain immigrants to come in and yet they also prefer the opposite type to breed?

Why the exact opposite?