Bongs are asked if the situation has not necessarily developed to Britain's advantage 
[LONG]
Lots of things have bothered me, a lot, over time. Brexit, Amazon & Google, Netflix, Trump, AI... But it's only been specifically recently with Musk and Farage that I truly felt scared for my future, my kids future.
Right off the bat we are faced with the full frontal delusion of the average 
. After his country is bombarded with 1.2 million people a year during a time when COVID had dealt a Mortal Kombat finisher to an economy in terminal Stage IV socialism, the bong sifts past all this to find a single guardian headline about Elon Musk meeting with Farage (The devil himself).
I literally have no idea why he references Netflix. I'm sure it isn't all the 
they added to our period dramas 
The idea that Musk can do trivially choose to give any amount of money to the far right in our country
political donations? Perish the thought! The Supreme Soviet Presidium of SSR Blighty would never take money from wealthy donors 
Diagnosing the Collapse
To anyone with eyes, the reason for Britain's demise is completely fricking obvious. To the labour voter, however, this poses a problem since access to young moroccan bussy is a point of personal contention, and so he must invent 
alternative explanations as to why their Christmas market looks like this:
I'm worried about the UK now. Average British person these days sounds like Oswald Mosely.
We live in a period
The same journ*lists who stopped using X because it's 'far-right'? Or was it the ones who Made out that Rwandan mass murderer Axel Rudakubana was a welsh Christian and innocent Choir boy? Perhaps it was the journ*lists who, at risk of prejudicing a trial, invented a Pakistani Migrant superhero who was able to 'wrestle a knife' from an attacker, unharmed and unbloodied with no witnesses, only to deliver a pro-migration homily in a pull-focused interview? 
Of course, they're 'scapegoated' because it's literally impossible that immigration could've maybe, perhaps, possibly caused a public finances problem.
How would this affect you personally? 
Well, I would stop reading stories about women being r*ped to death in public by somalians, for one thing. Quieter buses for another. 
It's a fait accompli, comrade! Nothing can be done, we just have to Spend 5.7 billion pounds on asylum seekers because of uhhh George Bush or something 
in actual fact the issue has always been a chronic underinvestment in actually useful services
It's because we haven't sacrificed enough blood for the blood god!
Render to the worms what is theirs! 
Another 50 billion for free dentists in Eritrea 
ignore that silly little graph teehee 
We've been fricked since Thatcher destroyed the post war consensus
Oh, it was Thatcher, was it? What an original and thoughtful analysis of 2024 britain 
Far right discourse is so normalised that a sitting member of parliament had his bank account shut down for being xenophobic 
Far right violence is so normalised that a man was given over two years in prison for shouting by the same justice system that let an infant r*pe enthusiast walk free! 
The biggest issue for the UK is lack of full access to the EU single market and a customs union.
brave dramatard here baited several 
to emerge from their slam poetry events
How many "hard left socialist" parties were successful in the last General Election?
yeah it's just this really fringe party you might not've heard of it
yeah that's like totally normal, right? 
Looks normal to me! 
I ain't reading all that:
- The bankers the bonuses the bankers the bonuses it's disgusting, and if the tories were serious they would tax the bankers the bonuses to 90%
I invite !britbongs to weigh in with their own interpretation
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
ITT: chuds still not understanding that immigrants (yes, even unskilled, brownskinned ones) generate positive economic activity.
Without immigration, Britain would be even more broke and
would have to go down the chippy and pick up his slop in person.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're right about immigration usually being net positive for econony.
However, the problem with mass immigration is its decreasing cohension of society for the purpose of increasing gdp.
The underlying issue, is countries reliant on competition in the global economy and on continual growth. These countries are doomed to collapse. Immigration, and other methods can only delay, not remedy the problem.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Skill issue, UK just needs to assimilate better
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Facts.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's been 5 years since the boriswave and we're now poorer in real terms. When can I expect this economic growth you describe?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Gosh, I wonder what could have happened exactly in Q1 2020?
Maybe 100 gorillion rubber dinghys full of muslims all decided to coordinate their arrival in February 2020? 
I didn't say you'd see growth, I said you'd be even poorer without immigrants. Fundamentally the UK is poor because it's a staggeringly unproductive county that combines the bureaucracy of Germany with the work ethic of Italy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
But that's just a fundamentally r-slurred take because until 2008 we were the strongest European economy and on par with Norway and the US on a per-capita basis.
In real productivity terms we were only slightly lower at the turn of the 21st century, and in median wage growth we were kicking your butt.
Immigrants represent a colossal cost burden on the economy, we're spending 5.7 billion on dinghy male feminists alone, forget the benefits, the NHS and the 150,000 socially housed foreign-born in our capital, one of the most expensive places on earth for real estate. If browns supposedly make us richer, then how has this happened in the time we were importing over 400,000 a year:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Just don't give them benefits and let them work?
The UK asylum system is extremely rslurred in that it forbids working (officially) and wastes shitloads of money on slumlords and rat trap motels.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Unironically this. There's no need to give them full free healthcare or access to social benefits before they become naturalized citizens. That way you can have immigrants who come to work and get their citizenship after proving themselves.
!neolibs
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!chuds as long as they come in LEGALLY
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You can also make it easier for them to come legally if they're qualified/skilled workers.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Libs would just film some homeless invalid and ride that to even more bennies than they started with. They have to go back
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I don't think we have the political will to withhold free money from poor immigrants
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Yeah, or we could just not import them, like we were doing until about 15 years ago?
Qataris, who stuff their
migrants into barracks and force them to work with no rights, no benefits, no vote and a low wage (as you seemingly want us to do) STILL end up poorer:
Just admit that your beloved thirdies are useless eaters who frick up every country they touch, why do you think India, Africa and the Middle East are like that?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Qatar is a petrostate that is also dependent on US gibs for the naval base there. Their citizens don't really work so it's a moot point since their output is fully dependent on global commodity pricing and how much we want to bomb Iran
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
to be fair I'm struggling to think of a country for which this isn't true
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Euros be talking shit until they realize a single spending bill could push them back into the 19th century
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Qatar has been devestated by oil prices decreasing (as has most petrol-states). Nothing to do with immigration, has to do with global economy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
the claim that importing foreign labour makes countries richer would've been proven by a deviation in this graph from the oil price, however no such deviation exists, which is why I shared it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ur looking at a graph of gdp of one country and trying to extrapolate that to one variable, then to every other country in the world.
Can't even tell if your trolling, no one could be this dumb.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Qatar doesn't have that type of economy. No amount of labour will increase their GDP by any large margin if oil prices are to lower for drilling to be economically positive.
During low oil prices, petrol states will lower the amount of oil they drill or stop drilling altogether. Labour is not an issue for petrol states when oil is doing bad, because they will be decreasing oil drilling and laying off employees.
Labour only becomes a limiting factor when oil prices are high and can sell more oil than they can drill.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Why did India's economy recently surpass the UK's? They're saddled with infinitely more useless eaters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
thanks for your acutely r-slurred comment
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Obviously India has a lower GDP per capita than the UK. Reread my comment.
You said Indians are useless eaters who constitute a cost burden on the economy, having 1.4 billion of them should mean India's economy is negative according to your logic. Why is India's economy growing at a much faster rate than bongland?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
They were always poorer. India was absolutely miserable and suffered famines just 80 years ago while Europe suffered famines in the 17th and 18th centuries.
You can't really compare countries which developed a century ago with developing countries who are late in the game
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
This assumes unskilled labor demand is limitless and provides a net benefit to the economy along with offsetting the costs of language and cultural barriers.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Last time I was in London the place was chockablock with Uber Eats riders delivering garbage so the demand for unskilled labor is, perhaps not infinite, but pretty darn high. Plus they kicked out all the EU farm pickers so someone needs to do that now and it sure won't be Farmer McGregor (he's too busy riding his tractor around Whitehall angry that he might owe tax on a ยฃ3 million inheritance)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
You couldn't cobble together a coherent political thought if your life depended on it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Just deport the violent parasites
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Useless stat. GDP growth doesn't rise proportional to population size.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
it's the only useful indicator of the relative wealth of a person in an economy, which relates to the original commenter's claims. I didn't even reference GDP growth rates. You should probably read before replying to avoid coming across like an r-slured seether
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Its not at all. Quite useless for that. India is the best example, decent gdp per capita, but has more people in poverty than any other country with similar.
Because once gdp reaches past a certain threshold, it becomes significantly harder no matter the population size for that number to increase.
Which is why GDP per capita for smaller countries is often times oversized. Look at Singapore for example, the GDP per capita is top 10 in the world, are you telling me the average singapore citizen has more wealth than the average UK cute twink?
Anyway, you're an r-slured cute twink with BIPOC aids and you can't even follow my arguments. You think gdp per capita is a good measure of relative wealth of an indivual in a country. You are more than r-slurred, you're an animal I would stop on you disgusting verminous rat.
I put a stick down your mom's throat to make her puke then make her lick it off the floor. put a gun to your head make you frick your grandad up the butt. I will kill you in real life if your details ever gets leaked. I will sell you and your whole cute twink family into s*x slavery to a clan of aidsey cute twinks. I will stomp on your skull until it cracks open like a watermelon, then piss on your grey matter, which you don't have much of so i will havr to get a scope and aim precisely to hit the microscopic amount of brain cells in your near hollow head. You're a down syndrome midgeted loser. Don't reply to me BIPOC ever again.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
wow you are such a little seether!
I'm not gonna read any of that but thanks for playing 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Dumb ladygarden
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Cogent analysis
!neolibs the bongs are hopping mad that darkies from the colonies are propping up their crumbling sclerotic welfare state.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Poorcel cope
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
why? poorcels love the idea that transferring money to them will make society richer.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Would you rather live in Ireland, Norway, America and Singapore, or Yemen, Afghanistan and North Korea? I guess it's impossible to say because GDP is an meaningless concept invented by (((them)))?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Obviously GDP is correlated with prosperity. You missed the point.
E.g. if (thanks to innovation or better regulations) building houses becomes 5% cheaper, the "GDP per constructed house" drops by 5%, equivalently the prosperity of new house builders, measured in how nice houses they can afford to build, increases by 5%). But demand for houses responds to price -- if (assuming everything else stays the same) building houses becomes 5% cheaper, then 8% more houses will be built. The GDP from all house construction increases by approximately 3% (=0.95 * 1.08 - 1). That's typical: improvements that increase prosperity are usually reflected in a rising GDP.
But there are lots ways to destroy prosperity without having that destruction (fully) reflected in GDP. Bullshit jobs are one.
Welfare migration is another, aka adding to a country of 100 million another 1 million men who don't have any special skills, don't speak the language, have incompatible worldviews, half of them work hard at the bottom rungs of society, the other half perpetually lives off welfare and commit crimes.
The low paid work that half of them do increases the prosperity of the natives, some services and goods become cheaper. But they also depress wages, so the for the bottom 30% of natives the net effect even of the working migrants is still negative. The welfare/criminal half is a net negative for everyone, large part of it unreflected in GDP -- public safety, later on quality of education.
They strongly increase the demand for housing, cars, furniture, language courses, prison cells, r*pe counselors, r-slur schools, etc... That shows up as increased GDP -- housing prices rise, new jobs for r*pe counselors are created -- but that's not prosperity for the large majority of natives, it's just a harder life.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
When you look in the mirror, can you tell that you're stupid?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This is great if you vet the immigrants and only let in highly skilled, motivated immigrants.
The issue with the "migrant" shit is they bypass that filter entirely. Countries should be selecting only the very best of the people who want to join, not simply swing the floodgates open and let those with no actual skills who will be net drains on the country's finances for their entire lives (maybe their children will move up).
I suppose you could argue that nobody skilled would actually want to move to the UK tho. I think the US tends to vacuum up most of the people who fit that description, bc frankly it's just a better country if you're a high-achiever.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jarvis, please overlay rising NHS costs with rising consanguine marriage rates
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
What if you have to increase taxes by 10% to pay for them? Surely there must be a point where they can be a net negative for an economy.
Safety and culture is also something people are willing to pay a price for. We prize our welfare states, but it won't be tenable in its current form if we import more less productive people.
Imagine America without BIPOCs. Even if they generate economic activity, is it really worth that some schools become utter trash, cities being unlivable due to crime and people having to inflate housing cost everymore to price out BIPOCs? Europe is currently working on creating its own 13% that is more culturally hostile and embedded in a more generous welfare system.
Edit: Also, don't forget the racial strive. Some percent of growth get sacrificed to costly DEI initiatives, and whole cities can come to halt during protests like the St. Floyd protests.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
To be honest despite the alarmism around the mohommedan menace i don't think any other population on earth is as wantonly violent and destructive as
and 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
BIPOCs are often violent among themselves after people learn to stay clear of their ghettos, they're pretty safe. Muslims often explicitly seek out kafirs to victimize.
BIPOCs are also somewhat integrated into the culture. If they ever become the majority, things will become a bit worse, gibs will increase, but you'll be mostly allowed to keep your culture. A muslim majority or even a significant minority will demand big changes due to their alien culture and refusal to assimilate
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Fricking r-slurred
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context