SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum
GLD 455.37+3.1%Feb 6 4:00 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: elmatador who wrote (118355)4/21/2016 3:34:18 AM
From: Maurice Winn1 Recommendation

Recommended By
3bar

  Read Replies (2) of 220083
 
He's struggling to get to the right idea of Tradable Citizenship. Until citizenship is a property right rather than the individual being a piece of property of the state, it's just going to stay a mess with conflict abounding.

Another solution is the good old British Empire system but as a federation instead of creating one giant worldwide country in which all become British subjects with the right to go anywhere. The benighted masses around the world gained huge advantage from the British expansion, including for the slaves of the USA who had zero prospects as slaves in Africa and much better prospects in Dixie [which might be arguable but certainly their descendants hit the jackpot].

Tradable Citizenship is the best method of improvement. mqurice.blogspot.co.nz

A faulty idea in that article by Branko Milanovic is that migrants are fungible. They are not. Some are good and super valuable, others are a net drag and even a total disaster. Compare Albert Einstein and Mohamed Atta for example as migrants adding value to the USA. Or the Boston Bombers versus Satya Nadella and Sanjay Jha. Some migrants should be stopped at the border, with bullets if necessary. Others could be given a free citizenship as an incentive to immigrate.

The way to reduce the income difference between rich countries and poor countries is not for the culturally bereft barbarians to take their mess to the civilized world but to change their own political systems at home in a similar way to that done by Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Singapore, and India is doing some of too. Maoris were stone age cannibals but decided they could benefit from having the British set up shop in NZ and they have done fantastically well. Mugabe did the opposite - kicking out the British and taking the country back to the stone age [not quite there but certainly on the way].

Money, like water and electricity, flows downhill. Richer people pay people to do things for them. Those paid need the money so do things for those with the money. The money trickles down. Adopting free enterprise [which means private property] is the essential first step for people in poor places to stop starving. Adopting free enterprise makes a huge difference. Look at China. 1.3 billion people could not migrate to wealthy countries to reduce poverty. They did what was the right thing which was turn loose private enterprise. They are only part-way there as their system is fascism rather than private enterprise. Fascism with bribery and corruption.

Mqurice
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News