Mass migration increases GDP. But is it a financial benefit for the people already living in the country? By Elizabeth Nickson at Absurdistan (who was European Bureau Chief of LIFE magazine, and wrote for Harper’s Magazine, the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, the Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday Times Magazine, the Telegraph, the Globe and Mail and the National Post).
Governments and banks reckon that any migration is a net financial benefit, because the immigrants must be fed and housed, which adds to GDP:
The migration storm that hit us post Covid? … Migration is calculated to be a net positive in the balance sheet of every country. They pay some tax, they contribute to GDP. Therefore numbers are guestimated and added to GDP.
Because migration is believed and is calculated to be a net positive in the balance sheet of every country. … The central banks, hedgies and funds “believe” it and besides, they love lowering labor costs.
Hmmm. Really?
Countries need billions of new dollars to pay for migrants. So when a country is catastrophically broke, like Spain this summer, bang! a hundred thousand new migrants and the economy can stumble forward by borrowing money allowed by the European Central Bank, which sees migrants as a positive.
Canadian example:
In the demented Dominion, calculations have hardened around an annual spend of $80,000 per migrant in their allowance, medical, dental, housing and food needs. That is not considered to be a cost by the government. It’s counted on the growth side of the budget….
In the demented Dominion we pay for their “jobs” too, either directly hiring them in the public service, bulking it out unnecessarily, or financing their small businesses. Add another $50K per to the bill. Annually. Because few ever get on their feet. …
If mass migration from the third world really increased GDP so everyone became richer, you’d think we would have noticed by now:
The U.K. after Thatcher, according to [British ex-PM] Truss, median income was equivalent to that of the U.S. Today? Fifty percent of U.S. income. … That’s what globalism has done to the U.K. …
In the demented Dominion, our upper middle class earn ONE-THIRD of that of a member of the upper middle class in the U.S. That is what globalism has done to Canada. Made growing your family impossible. …
Recently in Australia there has been a public recognition that mass migration has lowered GDP per capita, even while slightly increasing GDP. Surely a massive red flag.
To go off on a related tangent, fast growth seems not to be “allowed” any more in the West. It would require reversing some favorite narratives of the globalists, and it would also require many small banks making local decisions about creation of credit (i.e. money, in today’s system), which upsets the current banking monopoly by a few large banks:
What was Truss’s crime? It was growth. She wanted growth. She wanted an end to Net Zero, she wanted fracking and drilling in the North Sea. She wanted tax cuts for corporations AND people. She wanted Investment Zones all over the U.K., where green, DEI, ESG regulations were over-ridden by the Need for Growth. Her plan abolished tax on tourist purchases, and stamp duty, which is a tax on transactions like buying land, houses etc. It reduced employer contribution for state benefits. It was a classic growth budget. It opened the economy for growth.
Same as Trump. Same as every conservative head of state. Common as mud, typical of every single leader since time immemorial. …
That very day, the day she announced a mini-budget for growth, the entire financial system hunted her to exhaustion and killed her off…. Within a couple of weeks, they forced her resignation. That is what they do to every head of state that wants to grow.
Is going for growth a root cause of TDS? What role has the monopoly on money creation played in all this? I’ll bet this never could have occurred under a gold standard — because it never did.