http://www.ara.cat/2016/05/18/Tent-Open-Refugees-Work_VFINAL-singlepages.pdf?hash=84875f11bf3bd0a7e21b8fca47ac6266e8174906
/pol/ BTFO
>throw away money
>somehow receive more money back
sounds like a scam
>>74377499
Gave an sandnigger a 100€-bill and he just ran away. Can't wait for him to come back in 5 years and give me 200.
How is this handled taxation wise?
obviously they are good for the economy or the elites wouldn't keep letting them flood in, they are just easier to exploit and more willing to work cheap than native populations, that's the only reason they were allowed in in the first place
>>74377499
>take money from native germans
>give money to refugees/migrants
>ECONOMIC GROWTH
In order for them to even start working, they'll have to learn the language of the land and a whole lot of other shit because the education standards in whatever sand pit they came from probably weren't too great, which means many years of schooling. Just because the gubbermint puts in a fuckton of money to accomodate these leeches doesn't mean the economy will be any better of it, even if it will be more active with more money in the circulation.
>>74377499
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]
The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit is in such good condition. This can also give a false impression of the quality of the fruit (since it is only a sample and is not a representative sample).
A concept sometimes confused with cherry picking is the idea of gathering only the fruit that is easy to harvest, while ignoring other fruit that is higher up on the tree and thus more difficult to obtain (see low-hanging fruit).
Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to an argument, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available. Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to reality.[4]
>>74377499
Does this also account for inflation?
>>74377499
I bet there is something fishy about that whole thing and that it is not completely honest.
(((the economy)))
>>74377499
what's the euro to fikki conversion rate these days?
>>74377770
That's what the elite conclude yes. But the elite made a wrong assumption.
Instead they attracted criminals and people trying to game the system and drain more welfare from the government.
They realized their mistake pretty quick actually. Which is why we are now allowed to become more right wing and vote against their departure in the future.
>>74377499
>Sweden waste 1 million SEK (119968,80 USD/106874,99 euro) to for one pic related for one year.
So that's at 106874,99 euro per year that's 534374.95 euro spent for 5 years. Then you make take those euros and 2x so that's 1068749.9.
Fucking sweet,1068749.9 euro for every single one of these. And we got like what? 100 000 thousand of them? Nice.
Thanks Soros! Hungary doesn't know what's its missing. I guess its true what they say, got to spend money to make money.
>>74377499
>implying what's good for the economy is good for society
>>74377499
Sounds totally legit. Thanks for the input, Dr. Goldstein.
>shitskins migrate from poor, backward, dirty countries
>somehow they become an economic asset when they touch down in the first world
wow... really makes you think...
>>74378105
>1068749.9 euro for every single one of these.
WE GONNA BE RICH YO!
Fucking pendulum can't swing to the far right soon enough.
I know that how worse it gets the better the future will be. But I can't stand it any longer. Thank god I'm already seeing change in that normies are even getting right wing, but FUCK get it over quickly man.
>>74377499
Modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical. As long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, then we are not even close to what is essential.
>New study shows refugees are good for the economy
No fucking shit Sherlock. Why the fuck do you think the "elite" sitting in their golden thrones (read jews, but not only them) shill immigration so god damn much ? Because it's an endless cash flow.
>refugees are an economic benefit in other countries
>but not their own
Hmmm
>>74377499
>we will gladly pay in five years for a refugee today!
I don't buy it
I have 20 euroes to invest in something, should I invest them in refugees. Wait a minute, I'll talk with my friend first.
Well, he said it is an okay investment.
Wasn't this studydone by a pro-rapefugee company? Try a non-biased source next time
>>74378007
>this is what some people believe
On the contrary, the risks are perfectly calculated.
>>74378560
these guys should capitalize on their stolen migrants and chain them to some sewing machines instead of turning them over. They're just going to come back until they end up in somve government mandated work program making money for some kike like soros, why not 'stimulate the economy' and make that money themselves?
>>74377499
I didn't even read the first paragraph and the author already directly compared wave of arabs and niggers with vietnamese migrants of XX century.
>>74378749
It has been proven economic migrants are not a profit(except if they are from Europe), google it, for some 10+ year period it has been proven that in England, European worker migrants to England have netted a 5 or something pounds to the country, while non-european migrants cost the country a lot of billions.
Ah, here is it,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/european-immigrants-contribute-5bn-to-uk-economy-but-non-eu-migrants-cost-118bn-9840170.html
It's fucking black on white.
>>74379125
>>74377499
There is actually something very sinister behind this. Importing people is in fact good for the economy, but not for the people.
>average person gets at least 100K in debt in his lifetime
>pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes
By importing people, they create a new vessel to attach their Keynesian debt onto. It substitutes the lack of positive population growth, for controllable uneducated masses.
This is bad for average people, as culture wars erupt. Social programs are all redirected towards the new """refugees"""; and most taxes are collected from the native population, and given to the migrants, so as to assimilate them into a less violent, but controllable situation.
The only people safe from this are the higher classes, and the people passing these very laws. They have bodyguards, they live in walled mansions, they have a summer house in the Bahamas.
This is a systematic effort to eliminate the native population, for a controllable people.
By creating a population with a low IQ, imported 3rd world problems, ability to harm others without guilt, and perpetual victim complex. They can ensure the prolongation of leftist ideals, and can use the new people to block out any increased right wing votes that the culture wars would start. Even native people will start voting for more authoritarian governments to protect them.
Think about their new population:
>breed like rabbits
>will kill dissenters
>loves authoritarian governments
>can take in hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt
>used to pseudo-slavery in their home countries
>willing to wipe out entire cultures in the blink of an eye
This is perfect for a Communist Nation, and that is the plan, and why they're importing savages.
>>74379427
>Importing people is in fact good for the economy
Where did this meme come from?
>>74379190
>>74379526
A larger population provides higher debt. It's bad for quality of life, but can brute force a decent economy like China has.
>>74377499
So are Wallstreet bankers, that doesn't mean it's good for the average citizen.
>>74379681
China has chinese, not sandniggers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb8gD-Dp5FE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaf17ipL1uk
Sounds like a pyramid scheme TB|-|
>>74377499
Spend natives pension funds on welfare for migrants and migrant services. Receive money for providing services for migrants and charge interest for the massive loans that have to be taken out to fund it. See how much more spending there is and how much more money the banks are making. Isn't it great. Sure median income is in the toilet and unsustainable deficit spending is through the roof, but in just seven years migrant labor participation is up to 30%.
>>74377561
It is. It's called a Ponzi scheme.
>>74381135
http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/
>>74377499
Our millions of legal immigrants with non European ethnicity cost us £120 billion in recent years, so I'm not buying this at all. Allowing an army of poor, culturally stunted, religious peasants to invade your nation is not healthy however you spin it.
>For the
first year, the output impact is entirely due to th
e aggregate demand impact of the additional fiscal
spending.
I think this is the most perverse use of Keynesian/demand-side economics I have ever seen.
The summary is basically this:
Germans should give their money away to immigrants (roughly €1,000 from each German, if Germany spends ~€90bn on the illegal immigrants), because the immigrants will then spend it, increasing GDP.
It's simply incredible.
How many of these economists are voluntarily giving their money to immigrants so that the immigrants can spend it? None, because they don't believe their own junk studies.
>>74377499
Even if that was true I don't really care. It's not worth it.
>>74377499
Let's accept it's premise (even though it's bullshit and refugees cost a shitload of money now and will cost even more for generations to come)
Even if you accept the premise, you're still willingly giving up your country to foreigners. Wow, my pensions and social security bennies are being funded, who cares if my country is no longer german or swedish!
Apparently being white means you have to have no objections to your culture, history, and people being wiped out from existence.
>>74377499
BRB, Investing my nest egg in bunting and welcome signs.
