Comment by Herring

Yep, his administration took the worst possible approach by waiting so long only to bring these slow milquetoast prosecutions against trump. They should have gone after him and his accomplices immediately, but failing that doing nothing would have been better.

These weak prosecutions did nothing to stop trump and only caused republicans to rally around him.

Oh sure, I'd be one of those people. I was talking about an alternative approach under our system of dual sovereignty. The federal government is currently in gross violation of our Constitution that spells out the relations between the co-sovereigns. Both in terms of good-faith executing the offices laid out in the Constitution document itself, and overtly violating our natural rights including ones described in the Bill of Rights.

> If the quality of life was unsustainable without immigration, what makes it sustainable with?

Think of it like (internal) trade, it's a win-win. I've been reading about Brexit recently. It's super easy to convince uninformed UK voters that "look the EU is benefiting from trade with us, so if we stop trade we can take all their benefit and keep all our benefit" ... That's not how it works. In the real world it's like Taiwan specializes at chips, China specializes at solar, India specializes at medicines, etc everyone brings something unique to the table and we ALL benefit from working together. It takes a lot of balls to leave your original country family/friends/etc. Immigrants are usually high quality people, it's best to just let them work.

> Current immigrants come from countries with high population growth. When their population growth slows down, will they get their immigrants too?

1) How is that your problem? Have you ever been worried about China not having enough immigrants before? The US is extremely well-positioned to win this one.

2) Yes there will be increased competition for immigrants, but it's really not a bad thing. I'd love it if the UK was politically stable so I could just move over since the US keeps trying to elect Hitler.

I was more thinking of raising the school budget and increasing the economic part of the curriculum, but for adults I think there is a difference between honest information and manipulative advertisements.

You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not.

It does work and made those countries much richer but basically it won't easily happen under democracies with paths to citizenship for immigrants and strong welfare. For both rational and irrational reasons.

> I do question why diminishing profit rates are relevant though. Even if profits had generally been going up, wouldn't the desire for even more wealth lead to the same lobbying / looting pattern?

Yes, it would, because the expectations of growth/profit/ROI are baked into the system (eg. by interests rates ticking on everything) but in this case, not necessarily to the detriment of society. The profit drive is the root of the problem. Achieving these profits is the point of conflict.

In early capitalistic societies, economic growth is easier because of untapped resources but once the growth of the economic pie slows down, environmental exploitation becomes societal explotation. Previously the point of conflict was capitalists, externalizing cost onto nature (waste products, side effects), today, it is them externalizing operational cost onto the public. Marxs take is, as i understand it, that this profit margin is physically bound to shrink when the remaining space for cost externalization shrinks too, because free markets eventually propagate the lower product prices.