When you say that wages are high in the west, that is only true to some extent. For the largest percentage of people wages (in the west) are pushed down by (forced) immigration. They see their purchasing power decline year after year.
What you write about the west is valid for say.. the upper 5% of earners. Another 15-20% are doing very …
When you say that wages are high in the west, that is only true to some extent. For the largest percentage of people wages (in the west) are pushed down by (forced) immigration. They see their purchasing power decline year after year.
What you write about the west is valid for say.. the upper 5% of earners. Another 15-20% are doing very well indeed, but for the remaining 70-75% you are getting to the level where they struggle to make ends meet.
I don't want to detract from the main point you made, which is certainly true. I do wish to point out that when you talk about "the west" it is mostly the upper echelons of those nations that do the profiting. The west is internally divided, and increasingly so.
(Extra: It even seems like it that the upper echelons actually WANT to decrease the consumption of the lower tiers, but that is an entirely other subject)
One last thought: Like in most contemporary economics you leave out the question of motivation. I.e. the motivation to perform work. And of course the related work-ethics. The Germanic and Scandinavian tribes seem to have lots of it. I don't really know about others that might be as deep into it as they do.
I feel like this should have a place when talking about world economics, but I don't know how to fit it into the discussion.
For example; a people with a high internal motivation to perform work and do it well, cannot be kept down. It is simply not possible. They will always re-emerge when beaten down. (Maybe that is the reason for immigration and white-hate?)
I should have completed the article before firing off my earlier response, mea culpa. You mention/hint at stuff I commented on later in your article.
Towards the end you even hint at a certain group of people that wants to stay in control. A group that is largely already in control for a few hundred years. A nameless entity but one that almost must be there given the effects we see on the world.
And -imo- this is the true fight. The only one that matters. Either we win, or they do. A free human spirit, or ...
In the end, even armageddon might be preferable over a win by them.
When you say that wages are high in the west, that is only true to some extent. For the largest percentage of people wages (in the west) are pushed down by (forced) immigration. They see their purchasing power decline year after year.
What you write about the west is valid for say.. the upper 5% of earners. Another 15-20% are doing very well indeed, but for the remaining 70-75% you are getting to the level where they struggle to make ends meet.
I don't want to detract from the main point you made, which is certainly true. I do wish to point out that when you talk about "the west" it is mostly the upper echelons of those nations that do the profiting. The west is internally divided, and increasingly so.
(Extra: It even seems like it that the upper echelons actually WANT to decrease the consumption of the lower tiers, but that is an entirely other subject)
One last thought: Like in most contemporary economics you leave out the question of motivation. I.e. the motivation to perform work. And of course the related work-ethics. The Germanic and Scandinavian tribes seem to have lots of it. I don't really know about others that might be as deep into it as they do.
I feel like this should have a place when talking about world economics, but I don't know how to fit it into the discussion.
For example; a people with a high internal motivation to perform work and do it well, cannot be kept down. It is simply not possible. They will always re-emerge when beaten down. (Maybe that is the reason for immigration and white-hate?)
I should have completed the article before firing off my earlier response, mea culpa. You mention/hint at stuff I commented on later in your article.
Towards the end you even hint at a certain group of people that wants to stay in control. A group that is largely already in control for a few hundred years. A nameless entity but one that almost must be there given the effects we see on the world.
And -imo- this is the true fight. The only one that matters. Either we win, or they do. A free human spirit, or ...
In the end, even armageddon might be preferable over a win by them.