Note to Dems: High immigration population equals lower GDP

Back in 2010, when the investing community was still eager about the emerging economies, there was the BRIC ETF you could buy (still can), which represented a basket of investible companies in Brazil, Russia, India, and China.  The theory was that with the former two, natural resources would be pillaged in low-regulation environments, and the latter two had to do with an economic growth model being inextricably linked to booming populations. 

The theory was that the two production economies of Brazil and Russia, mainly oil, would be balanced out by two emerging consumption economies.  The problem was that shortly thereafter, the government of Brazil took possession of Petrobras in a thuggish move, and investors got scared of these economies of socialist and oligarchic fiat (read: Venezuela).  In addition, the price of oil eventually dropped as U.S. production ramped up and an oil glut kept prices eternally low.  

So all the ETF had at that point was India and China, the two behemoth nations in terms of robust breeding and the emerging consumer story.  But that theory has not born out.  What we are instead seeing is that human population growth stories are not automatically investible winners.  Not anymore.  Technology and automation are increasingly making dense population countries unstable, as low-skilled manual jobs are not as necessary as they once were.  China is more worried about pacifying an open revolt if its 1.4 billion people ever get hungry enough to engage in another Tiananmen Square demonstration, where easily over 10,000 people were slaughtered.  And India can't seem to get out of its own clumsy way long enough to make any traction with its GDP – partially because it is addicted to smothering regulations, but also, it has so much exposure to cultural poverty due to its inundated population zones without concomitant employment.  

Population growth stories are supposedly consumption-based economic models but instead are saddled with relatively higher welfare demands placed on the subject countries in order to pacify the poverty.  Consumption does not produce prosperity any more than eating a dozen Krispy Kremes produces a handsome physique.  Effort is required for that.  Production is required for wealth creation.  Consumption means only that subsistence is reached.  Nothing more.  And no real wealth accrued beyond subsistence.  

And yet, here at home, we have Democrats who preach that we need more immigrants and refugees for our economic growth.  What planet are they living on?  Okay: We know they are being their usual disingenuous selves and that they want foreign mercenaries hired by welfare to vote for them, but their base buys the low-information agit-prop as if it were something that should be taught in college.

No, wait – maybe it actually is.

Consumption-based economies are all the rage in Democrat circles.  "Supply-siders," aka production economies, that require investment (read: tax cuts) are all about those evil Republicans.  To the left, you don't need capital accumulation or savings to produce growth.  All you need is government handouts.  

What we are seeing is that further immigration into the U.S. from Mexico is creating greater drains on our welfare rolls as well as infrastructure, our schools, and our emergency rooms and hospitals.  It also removes low-skilled jobs from American citizens.  Citizens then go out and apply for unemployment insurance because they can't find employment due to illegals occupying those low-skilled spaces, a double-whammy, and all of it just to help Democrats get elected.  

No, immigration does not automatically convert to a nation's wealth.  It can do quite the opposite, in fact, and drain it that much faster and liquidate the treasury, a treasury that the Democrats are all too eager to pillage in order to buy votes from other foreign nationals who walk across our border and give them the vote as fast as possible.

Back in 2010, when the investing community was still eager about the emerging economies, there was the BRIC ETF you could buy (still can), which represented a basket of investible companies in Brazil, Russia, India, and China.  The theory was that with the former two, natural resources would be pillaged in low-regulation environments, and the latter two had to do with an economic growth model being inextricably linked to booming populations. 

The theory was that the two production economies of Brazil and Russia, mainly oil, would be balanced out by two emerging consumption economies.  The problem was that shortly thereafter, the government of Brazil took possession of Petrobras in a thuggish move, and investors got scared of these economies of socialist and oligarchic fiat (read: Venezuela).  In addition, the price of oil eventually dropped as U.S. production ramped up and an oil glut kept prices eternally low.  

So all the ETF had at that point was India and China, the two behemoth nations in terms of robust breeding and the emerging consumer story.  But that theory has not born out.  What we are instead seeing is that human population growth stories are not automatically investible winners.  Not anymore.  Technology and automation are increasingly making dense population countries unstable, as low-skilled manual jobs are not as necessary as they once were.  China is more worried about pacifying an open revolt if its 1.4 billion people ever get hungry enough to engage in another Tiananmen Square demonstration, where easily over 10,000 people were slaughtered.  And India can't seem to get out of its own clumsy way long enough to make any traction with its GDP – partially because it is addicted to smothering regulations, but also, it has so much exposure to cultural poverty due to its inundated population zones without concomitant employment.  

Population growth stories are supposedly consumption-based economic models but instead are saddled with relatively higher welfare demands placed on the subject countries in order to pacify the poverty.  Consumption does not produce prosperity any more than eating a dozen Krispy Kremes produces a handsome physique.  Effort is required for that.  Production is required for wealth creation.  Consumption means only that subsistence is reached.  Nothing more.  And no real wealth accrued beyond subsistence.  

And yet, here at home, we have Democrats who preach that we need more immigrants and refugees for our economic growth.  What planet are they living on?  Okay: We know they are being their usual disingenuous selves and that they want foreign mercenaries hired by welfare to vote for them, but their base buys the low-information agit-prop as if it were something that should be taught in college.

No, wait – maybe it actually is.

Consumption-based economies are all the rage in Democrat circles.  "Supply-siders," aka production economies, that require investment (read: tax cuts) are all about those evil Republicans.  To the left, you don't need capital accumulation or savings to produce growth.  All you need is government handouts.  

What we are seeing is that further immigration into the U.S. from Mexico is creating greater drains on our welfare rolls as well as infrastructure, our schools, and our emergency rooms and hospitals.  It also removes low-skilled jobs from American citizens.  Citizens then go out and apply for unemployment insurance because they can't find employment due to illegals occupying those low-skilled spaces, a double-whammy, and all of it just to help Democrats get elected.  

No, immigration does not automatically convert to a nation's wealth.  It can do quite the opposite, in fact, and drain it that much faster and liquidate the treasury, a treasury that the Democrats are all too eager to pillage in order to buy votes from other foreign nationals who walk across our border and give them the vote as fast as possible.