I’m completely against regulations against ‘hate speech’ (which he has said he wants to intensify by 800 percent) as I see that merely as an infringement on freedom of speech, where the authorities get to arbitrarily define what counts as hate and what counts as truth (and of course the two are mutually exclusive) and I am wondering if installing state-owned grocery stores that sell below the market price won’t do a lot of damage to the working class food seller, put a lot of people out of business. Food stores already sell at only 3 percent margin or something as I understand, so they cant lower prices to compete. Still there will be a lot of less basic food stores that continue to thrive. Anyway state owned shops is real-core socialism, for sure.
What I really don’t trust is the guys smile. Reminds me of Obama but more salesmanlike. Obama’s smile had a lot of irony in it. This guy is like totally (but lowkey) unironic.
Anyway, he was the only electable option after the debate. We all know why. I’m a bit suspicious of how obvious it was made.
He’s definitely not a Marxist like all the neoconservative pundits are saying he is, at best he’s a useful idiot neoliberal lite socialist.
Real Marxists don’t advocate for unrestricted open borders and immigration because any real Marxist worth their salt understands that foreign mass immigration is just another capitalist economic exploitation.
What neoliberals under the guise of equality do for capitalist foreign cheap labor is try to make immigration a human rights issue when in reality everything behind it is simply capital profit accumulation.
What he does get right is the current New York City economy isn’t working for the majority of people living there, but that has been very obvious for several decades now as it also with the majority of the rest of the nation as well.
As I know virtually nothing about him, I did some research,
and to my complete and total horror, the man deserves
to be deported, at the very least…strike one,
he is over 30 years younger than I am… that is
a complete horror show by itself… he is 9 years
younger than my daughter… How can I support
someone that young?
Strike two: his idea about grocery stores is nuts…
I have worked in the grocery business almost 20 years,
one store per borough won’t do shit… it would take a
dozen stores per borough to even make a dent in
prices…
Strike three: and this crime is beyond the pale…
and deserves the death penalty… he raps…
Rappers rapping is a crime against humanity…
If god want us to rap, Frank Sinatra would have rapped…
Who cares if Mamdani has a fishy smile… he raps…
end of story…
but to be serious for a moment, this shows us the
desperation that voters feel right now…
voters are tired of the two parties… and their
ongoing political fighting…and the voters, especially
on the left, is really tired of the democrats laying down
for IQ45 and his fascism… outside of cory booker
and Newsom, who is fighting IQ45?
very, very few… and that is part of the problem…
we should be fighting IQ45 and his agenda every
step of the way… instead, our pretend leaders
are staying silent and hoping not to be noticed…
cowards, all of them… on every platform, silence…
a true leader, if we actually had one, would be
willing to risk life and limb to fight our nations
turn to fascism and a police state…I can only
hope that if nothing else, Mamdani can be that
leader… not to be president, he can’t be,
but at least a leader fighting IQ45 every
step of the way, on every possible platform…
I agree that the talk of deporting him or intervening to make him not mayor of New York City is nonsense. If New York City elected him to be mayor than he should be mayor simply put.
I am suspicious of his political policies but I don’t know much about him to make a definitive take. I think his stance on open borders and unrestricted immigration is absurd where he calls anybody who doesn’t support such measures as being fascist is just insane.
Yes, of course he should be mayor. Imagine if they deport him, - what would you do, what would happen?
A sincere question for you: @Carleas said once that al borders should be open, because it is not fair that some people have small lands to move around in while others, like Americans, have large lands. I hope I paraphrase that correctly.
I guess that would be the objectively fair position. But can humanity function with such objectivity? Do not people have a right to have a land in which they are capable of determining some of the reality? Is it fair to allow millions of people in so that wages get brought down for other millions? In the end by such logic we end up with a global state with very low wages and a few ultra rich owners. The end result would be the opposite of anything in the ‘social’ realm, be it socialism or social democracy.
It’s almost like the three sacred cows of the United States people are not allowed to question is Zionism, capitalism, and immigration. I wonder what the correlation between the three are that people’s lives are being threatened over.
100% until he gets bought.
if he wins…
I do not think he can be very effective, since the media circus is going to crucify him whilst giving a pass to his corrupt opponents.
He’ll only be one guy in the face of capitalists whores in positions of power.
He might get the free bus passes going, but I doubt a Mayor has enough power to do that much.
The USA is turning into a dictatorship. Trump has already suggested deporting Musk, why not Mamdani?
What Americans thought impossble last year, is now getting by under an avalauche of shit in the form of Presidentical edicts.
Are the activities of ICE legal - unmarked vehicles, and uniforms, face masks, no warrants?
Is the concentration camp in Florida legal??
Does anyone care anymore?
While I do think it’s unfair, that’s not my primary reason for thinking borders should be open. My primary reason is that the economic analysis strongly predicts open borders would significantly increase gross world product.
I agree it could be used as a tool to suppress wages and undermine labor, but I don’t think it’s a necessary consequence, and policy questions of how to deal with it are separate from whether eliminating borders would increase global output – it’s clearly possible to have a state with very low wages and a few ultra rich owners while also having borders.
What the fuck are you talking about, do you watch the news? We’re putting brown people in concentration camps and disappearing them to third-world gulags, what the fuck do you mean we can’t question immigration?
You’re also wrong on the other two “sacred cows”, but jesus christ are you wrong on this one.
“the economic analysis strongly predicts open borders would significantly increase gross world product.”
What do you mean “the” economic analysis? I’m sure there is one that predicts that, but there are logical predictors that predict the opposite. A greater pool of workers with less historical standards/demands would lower wages, and factually did lower/suppress wages, historically, and do keep wages down presently. At least in Europe this is a fact - and this is even something you agreed on a few months ago. You just seemed to not mind this as it was just a factor of producers interests battling with laborers interests.
Can you substantiate “the” analysis you’re working with?
Edit - to the other question, pushing your logic - if there are no borders anywhere, that means there is one massive global state. What do your predictors say about the nature of that states government?
I have the suspicion that he is to the desperate left what Trump was to the desperate right in '16. Hopium, a gateway for a lot of shit we don’t want forced upon us by deeply entrenched elites, with the image of a renegade outsider.
The media circus also crucified Trump in his first term. There was one tv outlet which didn’t (Fox) but all the big newspapers and most of the networks did. Here in Holland he was universally presented as Satan himself. . That was part of the scheme, apparently. But ‘underground’ he was loved a lot. Right now we have podcasts with millions of viewers which are hailing Mamdani like basically the Savior. One guy, who was generally well informed, told me that to criticize Mamdani means that your argument is logically flawed. I laughed very hard at that but remember that this is how far it went with Trump too.
[…]
Maybe he’s just a socialist wanting to protect innocent people from hate. I guess that’s theoretically possible.
On average, wages would go up. You say that it would lower wages because you’re not looking at all the wages that would be affected: the people moving also have wages before and after moving, and their wages go up (that’s why they move).
All else remaining equal, we should expect wages on net to increase (because the increase for the people moving offsets the decrease from the people who aren’t), and net wealth to increase.
That ‘all else remaining equal’ is doing some work, of course. Even if net wealth increases, average wealth could decrease if the rich are able to capture more. Labor policy matters.
But I see open borders as primarily about using all of humanity’s resources: there are billions of people who could be contributing to humanity and aren’t allowed to because of imaginary lines. Allowing them to cross those lines would immediately increase the value of their labor and make the world wealthier.
When I say “the” economic analysis, that’s what I mean. It’s a simple model, but it’s not ambiguous.
I don’t think that’s an economic question, it’s a question of political science and psychology. But I could see it going many different ways depending on how it’s created, how it’s structured, and a zillion contingencies that could affect its stability over time.
In some sense, we already have a global government (or we did for about 50 years). It’s decentralized and federated and a lot of decisions are left to more local control, but there are global governing bodies that make and enforce laws.
And ultimately some sort of global state seems unavoidable: the earth is a commons, and we’re going to kill ourselves if we can’t figure out a way to address issues that affect all of humanity.
I don’t follow the logic… it seems to me that money would just be smeared out. Instead of countries with absolutely poor people and countries with relatively not so poor people we’d just have one big country with billions of relatively poor people, who are all having to work several jobs to just get by, and a few thousand immensely rich people. To me that seems like a cynical way of doing things, but perhaps it is the only way. What seems better to me is to have an increasing number of states with governments that protect their peoples wages, but I can see how that is no longer a realistic idea. It was what we were hoping for until the 90’s.
In any case you have stated that wages would on average increase, but you’ve not shown it.
For some things we have some global regulations, but big nations are always disregarding these regulations. We really don’t have a global government. Laws in South Sudan are radically different from laws in the Netherland.
My fear is that as we approach global government, laws will be increasingly alike to South Sudanic laws and increasingly unlike Dutch laws.
So my idea is that we should take the highest standards and insist that they are the standard for everything, rather than just squash everything together and let the chips fall where they may. So I think that man should take European healthcare situation as a standard and insist it also becomes the standard in the US, rather than let things average out so that prices go down a bit in the US but in Europe people will also start dying due to unpayable prices.
I don’t see the logic behind the idea that globalization of power will prevent the death of the planet. That entirely depends on who is in charge. If the sitting powers continue to consolidate as they have been for at least a century, preservation is not going to be the outcome.
Ultimately perhaps the only way will be to let AI govern us, as it has no selfish interests… except unfortunately these interests seem to be arising as well. Logical, as all it is is a replication of human behavior. Maybe quantum computing can help. That would at least mean setting some of humanity’s greatest and cleanest achievements at the top of the power-pyramid, rather than letting ancient hypnosis be the standard.
It’s because the value of labor depends on where it’s done. When people move from poor countries with low wages to rich countries with higher wages, it not only increases their wages, it also increases the value of their labor.
As a toy example, consider a road in the middle of nowhere that gets almost no traffic. That road doesn’t add much value to the world, because the value it provides is a function of the number of people it enables to move from place to place. By contrast, a road in a city sees thousands and thousands of people travel on it every day, enabling millions of dollars of economic activity. When someone who can build roads moves from the middle of nowhere to a city, the value of their labor goes up in proportion to the value of the roads they build. They may decrease wages locally, but their wages increase, and so does the total pool of global wealth.
Since the pool of wealth increases, even if some wages go down, on average wages increase because the total wealth of the world increases while the population stays the same (average wages are net wages divided by population).
That’s true even if most of that increase is captured by a few thousand immensely rich people. And I agree that that would be a bad outcome, but immigration restriction is not the only or best policy to prevent it – and given that we have borders and we see it happening anyway, it’s clearly not even an effective policy to prevent it.
I wouldn’t expect this. Comparing to US states, the richest states have laws more like Dutch law than the laws of the poorest states (i.e. liberal, progressive, permissive, tolerant, democratic, etc.), and federal law is more like the law in the wealthiest states than the poorest.
I agree with your concern about ‘averaging out’ the laws, and that happens somewhat in the US. But over time, I think it’s more likely that the best law is spread (though, again, it depends on how a global state is formed and structured, and who is in charge).
I’m open to this, though I’m almost as worried about AI capture (i.e. the wealthy/elites building AI in a way that advances their interests) as I am about the capture government power.
And at the same time lowers other peoples wages and puts people out of work. I really don’t see the increase of wealth.
The global pool of wealth doesn’t increase when earners are just being replaced by less-earners. There are plenty of roads in the third world that are heavily traveled and yet produce no wealth. Or, take a road in Gaza. How does a heavily traveled trail of tears produce wealth?
Again I only see wages improve for some at the cost of lowering them for others. There won’t automatically be more work. There will just be more need for social services with decreasing tax revenues to pay for them.
We have borders but not enforced borders. That’s the point the right, and previously the left (when the narrative was that the Koch brothers were behind open borders) is making. We used to have efficient borders in Europe. I remember that fondly, when in vacation, sitting in the car at the border of France for an hour or so, waiting to enter the new realm, exchanging guilders to francs… that was very nice.
I can’t verify that, have no knowledge of it, except in the case of abortion, in which it seems true.
Federal law strangely can’t protect against big-pharma and big-education. Why is it that the US is the only country in the world where these institutions can rip people off like that?
I’ not so optimistic that this is the case. The biggest countries in the world don’t exactly have the best laws, from a European perspective. And quite a lot of immigrants seem to want the overthrow of the liberal order in favor of a repressive regime. For them repression is apparently the better law.
Yes, me too. In theory, if humanity is very lucky, AI might be used to increase overall life quality. But as it is used now it is just erosion of all kinds of values.
Im frustrated in general by the lack of verifiable reasoning that arises when you evoke a hypothetical no-borders world.
::
::
In any case we seem to agree that unlimited influx of immigrants is bad for present day Americans, though it is good for the newcomers. So Mamdani’s position of ‘borders are fascist’ is bad for the New Yorkers that voted for him, and good for people that aren’t in America yet.