My new VDARE.com column is about a little-noticed Fourth of July op-ed in the New York Times arguing that going down the path of integrating
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
18 comments:
Some increased economic integration with Mexico could be a good thing, provided it is done in a way that benefits the U.S. as well as Mexico. In the EU example, Spain benefited partly from participating in the EU movement to privatize state-owned industries; also, by allowing hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Britons, Germans, and other Northern Europeans to buy retirement homes in coastal areas of Spain. Of course, British and German retirees benefited as well.
If American retirees could buy coastal land in Mexico and retire there, it would spur a big economic boom in Mexico, and raise wages for construction trade work in both the U.S. and Mexico.
This is true, but spain looks like switzerland compared to mexico, corruption-wise.
My solution is to encourage the split-up of Canada and take in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and maybe the Atlantic Provinces; and seize the Northern tier of Mexico, including Baja California, Nuevo León, and Guadalajara, which is full of Americans, anyway. These are the enterpreneurial and partly Americanized parts of our two neighbors.
We can integrate those places in 50 years.
Let the rest go their own way.
Or, break up the US on sectional lines, which might not be a bad idea, either.
The lack of "increased economic integration with Mexico" isn't whats keeping American retirees from buying costal land in Mexico, the corrupt Mexican government is responsible for that.
And I find it hard to believe that an "integration" that would give people like Bush and Kennedy more influence in Mexico is somehow going to lessen that level of corruption.
A lot of Americans have been buying land in Mexico, but the memory of the 2000 event in which 300 American homeowners in Baja had their homes taken from them has slowed the market.
It would be in everybody's interest for Mexico to provide retirement living to lots of American baby boomers, but better property rights and better policing would help that market take off.
"Unfortunately, there is also much negative political logic to transnational integration. The problem is that a multilingual polities and representative government don't work well together."
So, Steve, are you saying that the reason the EU is anti-democratic is because it doesn't have a common language? How many multi-lingual democracies and monolingual dictatorships will it take to refute that?
Steve, where did you say your immigrant ancestors emigrated from? Wasn't it .. Switzerland? 4 languages, and the ONLY mature, stable democracy in that part of Europe. The most multi-lingual nation of all is India, which seems to be doing pretty well as a democracy, having worked hard to accommodate linguistic rivalries. Did you know Canada, with its 2 languages, is still widely regarded as the more grown-up version of North American democracy?
On the other hand you have all the Spanish-only dictatorships or pseudo-democracies of Latin America. And as for continental Europe, the monolingual countries that have failed at democracy are probably the majority. The deepest failures of all time, Germany and Austria, are both German-only. (The democracy they practice now was imposed on them by the more civilised countries that conquered them in WWII. They did not create democracy for themselves.) And that's the EU's problem: it's not anti-democratic for lack of a common language, but because so many of its member states are anti-democratic individually. Much of Continental Europe's peculiar political tradition is not democracy, but fascism.
Grumpy old man, I agree with you!
This is probably the first time, but I think you make an excellent suggestion.
If the resource rich and somewhat entrepreneurial parts of Mexico could be removed from the lecherous Mexico city, it would have an amazing effect.
Mexico city would go bankrupt in about 6 months, and the other area would THRIVE under even modest rule of law.
Baja has at least twice the cost line of California and warmer water to boot. The boom that would result in baja would be something to behold.
Also , they really have very few people in the entire baja peninsula - I would say 4 million MAX, and probably less. Tijuana and the cape, that it! For that you would get land and coast that is probably worth more that all of CA!
Baja Libre!
John of London:
See my 2000 VDARE article "The Swiss Exception:"
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/multilingualism.htm
Ever wonder what the Baja Penisula would be like if it had been bought in the 1930's or 1940's and been given to the Jews as a "New Israel"?
Wasn't that idea proposed back in the 1930's?
If that had happened, California would be even wealthier than it is today, just from being close to it.
Lot of the Middle Eastern strife that could have been avoided.
Ever wonder what the Baja Penisula would be like if it had been bought in the 1930's or 1940's and been given to the Jews as a "New Israel"?
...
Lot of the Middle Eastern strife that could have been avoided.
Come on now, you know that country would end up pissing off numerous other countries anyway.
It just has to be that way.
And of course, America would be sending them all sort of subsidies, for some reason or another.
Ever wonder what the Baja Penisula would be like if it had been bought in the 1930's or 1940's and been given to the Jews as a "New Israel"?
I think the USA ought to annex part of the Baja coast south of Tijuana. Link it up with San Diego and LA with a freeway and commuter rail line that bypasses T.J.
It works on the West Bank, mais non?
Make the Baja New Towns showcases for New Urbanism, solar power and de-salinization of seawater.
Re: Israel on the Pacific-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49353,00.html
A nice essay Steve! Raises some important issues in a fresh way.
Personally I would like to see the Western democracies somehow leverage their wealth and influence to encourage more genuine liberal reform and economic development in the third world. Free trade and free movement of capital, made conditional upon maintenance of certain minimum standards of a liberal society, is one way to go, and does not create the big cultural and political problems that free migration of people would. But to make it work (ie, use free trade as a lever) western democracies will have to learn how to combine economic redistribution with economic efficiency (an unsolved problem, some say unsolvable).
And it would also probably be necessary to put an end to the practice of using anonymous bank and brokerage accounts to participate in the international banking system, upon which most crime and corruption depends (unless I am mistaken).
I attempt to address these problems in my revised Born-Again Democrat platform, which razib just recently put up for me.
David Davenport: You propose annexing Baja California, or part of it.
Supposedly President Reagan made a secret offer to Mexico to buy Baja California for approximately $100 billion. I don't know though if that is true or some sort of conspiracy theory.
It would be trivial to find a cause to invade Mexico. In fact, the flood of immigrants into our country does give us a legit reason to be concerned with just what the government of Mexico is doing. We have a refugee problem, really.
We could easy find some Mexican immigrants to the US who could tell us stories of how they were mistreated by the Mexican authorities because such stories would be true.
We could also find many Americans who were severely mistreated by Mexican authorities including by police. Again, we could do this because such stories are true.
They happen EVERY day.
We would clearly be more justified in "liberating" parts of Mexico than we were with invading Iraq.
Supposedly President Reagan made a secret offer to Mexico to buy Baja California for approximately $100 billion. I don't know though if that is true or some sort of conspiracy theory.
The truth will probably emerge in another 20 years or so, but Reagan didn't offer it. Rather the Mexicans (at least those in the then Miguel de la Madrid administration) secretly offered the US both Baja and Sonora...not for $100B but for relief in the Latin Debt Crisis of 1983. Apparently the Reaganites were interested but the offer came off the table when it was realized de la Madrid could never sell it to the Mexican people, even though the PRI had an unchallenged rule at the time.
I wouldn't annex Baja California or Sonora now. Looking back though, I wish we had annexed those territories in 1848.
The idea of a North American Union is a poor idea.
On another note, I heard the New York Times hired William Kristol, as a columnist.
Post a Comment