Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
Feb 11th 2003, 5:00 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
February 11, 2003
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
Excerpt:
"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
rather than later."
[...]
"Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
February 11, 2003
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
Excerpt:
"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
rather than later."
[...]
"Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
Feb 11th 2003, 5:32 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:00:40 GMT, "Carlos Antunes"
wrote:
>Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
>Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
>Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
>February 11, 2003
>http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
>Excerpt:
>"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
>accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
>in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
>productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
>major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
>will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
>It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
>rather than later."
The underlying presumption here is that the immigrants will be
sufficiently skilled ot educated to replace the US workers that
retire. By and large that is not the case for a large proportion of
current immigrants. The way to address it is with a immigration policy
focussed on the need rather than on sheer numbers.
>[...]
>"Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
>rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
>our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
>economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
>difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
wrote:
>Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
>Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
>Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
>February 11, 2003
>http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
>Excerpt:
>"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
>accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
>in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
>productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
>major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
>will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
>It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
>rather than later."
The underlying presumption here is that the immigrants will be
sufficiently skilled ot educated to replace the US workers that
retire. By and large that is not the case for a large proportion of
current immigrants. The way to address it is with a immigration policy
focussed on the need rather than on sheer numbers.
>[...]
>"Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
>rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
>our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
>economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
>difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
Feb 11th 2003, 5:41 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
More jew double talk by jew Greenspan. Back in the 60's when I studied
economics in college and first encountered the jew double speak of Greenspan he
was considered a fringe character at the University of Chicago.
Of course you know Ayn Rand (Rosenbaum) was a jew, and her father was a good
buddy of the jew Yagoda who was in charge of the soviet secret police. Some
think Rand may have been a soviet intelligence operative. What better cover
could she have had?
Carlos Antunes wrote:
> Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
> Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
> Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
> February 11, 2003
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
> Excerpt:
> "Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
> in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
> productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
> It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> rather than later."
> [...]
> "Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
> rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
> our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
> economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
> difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
economics in college and first encountered the jew double speak of Greenspan he
was considered a fringe character at the University of Chicago.
Of course you know Ayn Rand (Rosenbaum) was a jew, and her father was a good
buddy of the jew Yagoda who was in charge of the soviet secret police. Some
think Rand may have been a soviet intelligence operative. What better cover
could she have had?
Carlos Antunes wrote:
> Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
> Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
> Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
> February 11, 2003
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
> Excerpt:
> "Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
> in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
> productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
> It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> rather than later."
> [...]
> "Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
> rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
> our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
> economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
> difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
Feb 11th 2003, 7:21 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
Carlos Antunes wrote:
> Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
> Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
> Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
> February 11, 2003
>
>
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
>
>
> Excerpt:
>
>
> "Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
> in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
> productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
> It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> rather than later."
>
> [...]
>
> "Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
> rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
> our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
> economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
> difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
That's not an argument _for_ immigration, it's an argument for _fiscal
discipline_.
Yeesh.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle
> Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
> Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
> Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
> February 11, 2003
>
>
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
>
>
> Excerpt:
>
>
> "Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
> in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
> productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
> It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> rather than later."
>
> [...]
>
> "Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
> rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
> our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
> economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
> difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
That's not an argument _for_ immigration, it's an argument for _fiscal
discipline_.
Yeesh.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle
Feb 11th 2003, 7:49 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:00:40 GMT, "Carlos Antunes" wrote:
>Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
>Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
>Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
>February 11, 2003
>http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
>Excerpt:
>"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
>accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
>in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
>productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
>major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
>will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
>It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
>rather than later."
So. What "addressing" is proposed? Stacking up currency at Fort Knox?
The only addressing that will work is improving productivity by many or
all means -- education, conservation, infrastructure.... all of which require
the kind of governmental actions the RCA's oppose.
>[...]
>"Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
>rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
>our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
>economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
>difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
"Deficits"? "Fiscal Discipline"? Whoever wrote that paragraph was
dismally ignorant of accounting and economics.
Mason C not an RCA
>Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
>Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
>Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
>February 11, 2003
>http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
>Excerpt:
>"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
>accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
>in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
>productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
>major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
>will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
>It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
>rather than later."
So. What "addressing" is proposed? Stacking up currency at Fort Knox?
The only addressing that will work is improving productivity by many or
all means -- education, conservation, infrastructure.... all of which require
the kind of governmental actions the RCA's oppose.
>[...]
>"Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
>rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
>our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
>economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
>difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
"Deficits"? "Fiscal Discipline"? Whoever wrote that paragraph was
dismally ignorant of accounting and economics.
Mason C not an RCA
Feb 12th 2003, 4:14 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
In article ,
"Carlos Antunes" wrote:
> Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
> Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
> Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
> February 11, 2003
>
>
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
>
>
> Excerpt:
>
>
> "Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
> in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
> productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
> It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> rather than later."
>
> [...]
>
> "Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
> rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
> our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
> economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
> difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
Nice to see Greenspan agrees with me on immigration. Now where are
those liberals who insist immigration destroys american jobs?
"Carlos Antunes" wrote:
> Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
> Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
> Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
> February 11, 2003
>
>
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
>
>
> Excerpt:
>
>
> "Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
> in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
> productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
> It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> rather than later."
>
> [...]
>
> "Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
> rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
> our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
> economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
> difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
Nice to see Greenspan agrees with me on immigration. Now where are
those liberals who insist immigration destroys american jobs?
Feb 12th 2003, 4:15 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
In article ,
Oliver Costich wrote:
> >"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> >accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
> >in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
> >productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> >major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> >will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
> >It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> >rather than later."
> >
>
> The underlying presumption here is that the immigrants will be
> sufficiently skilled ot educated to replace the US workers that
> retire.
He is not making that assumption.
Oliver Costich wrote:
> >"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> >accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
> >in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
> >productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> >major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> >will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
> >It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> >rather than later."
> >
>
> The underlying presumption here is that the immigrants will be
> sufficiently skilled ot educated to replace the US workers that
> retire.
He is not making that assumption.
Feb 12th 2003, 4:18 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
In article , Tom L
wrote:
> More jew double talk by jew Greenspan. Back in the 60's when I studied
> economics in college and first encountered the jew double speak of Greenspan
> he
> was considered a fringe character at the University of Chicago.
>
> Of course you know Ayn Rand (Rosenbaum) was a jew, and her father was a good
> buddy of the jew Yagoda who was in charge of the soviet secret police. Some
> think Rand may have been a soviet intelligence operative. What better cover
> could she have had?
You get more entertaining every post!
Yeah, Ayn Rand was working for the communists by writing the most
anti-communist books around, and converting millions of liberal scum
like you away from socialism.
wrote:
> More jew double talk by jew Greenspan. Back in the 60's when I studied
> economics in college and first encountered the jew double speak of Greenspan
> he
> was considered a fringe character at the University of Chicago.
>
> Of course you know Ayn Rand (Rosenbaum) was a jew, and her father was a good
> buddy of the jew Yagoda who was in charge of the soviet secret police. Some
> think Rand may have been a soviet intelligence operative. What better cover
> could she have had?
You get more entertaining every post!
Yeah, Ayn Rand was working for the communists by writing the most
anti-communist books around, and converting millions of liberal scum
like you away from socialism.
Feb 12th 2003, 4:26 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> Carlos Antunes wrote:
> > Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
> > Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
> > Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
> > February 11, 2003
> >
> >
> > http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
> >
> >
> > Excerpt:
> >
> >
> > "Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> > accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
> > in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
> > productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> > major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> > will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
> > It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> > rather than later."
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > "Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
> > rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
> > our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
> > economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
> > difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
>
> That's not an argument _for_ immigration, it's an argument for _fiscal
> discipline_.
>
> Yeesh.
Yes, its time to eliminate the social security ponzi scheme and let
people invest their own money.
Another great example of the broken window fallacy you can't wrap your
little mind around:
You think it woudl be better for a poor person to freeze to death and
die because they couldn't pay thier $300 heating bill-- cause that $300
went to their retirement benefits that they'll never collect.
The tax does more damage than the benefits ever could (not to mention
that you get less than a quarter of your value out of social security.)
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> Carlos Antunes wrote:
> > Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
> > Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
> > Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
> > February 11, 2003
> >
> >
> > http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
> >
> >
> > Excerpt:
> >
> >
> > "Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> > accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
> > in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
> > productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> > major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> > will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
> > It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> > rather than later."
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > "Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
> > rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
> > our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
> > economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
> > difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
>
> That's not an argument _for_ immigration, it's an argument for _fiscal
> discipline_.
>
> Yeesh.
Yes, its time to eliminate the social security ponzi scheme and let
people invest their own money.
Another great example of the broken window fallacy you can't wrap your
little mind around:
You think it woudl be better for a poor person to freeze to death and
die because they couldn't pay thier $300 heating bill-- cause that $300
went to their retirement benefits that they'll never collect.
The tax does more damage than the benefits ever could (not to mention
that you get less than a quarter of your value out of social security.)
Feb 12th 2003, 1:15 pm
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
"Oliver Costich" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:00:40 GMT, "Carlos Antunes"
> wrote:
> >Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
> >Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
> >Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
> >February 11, 2003
> >
> >
> >http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
> >
> >
> >Excerpt:
> >
> >
> >"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> >accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we
are
> >in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration
of
> >productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> >major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> >will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's
time.
> >It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> >rather than later."
> >
> The underlying presumption here is that the immigrants will be
> sufficiently skilled ot educated to replace the US workers that
> retire. By and large that is not the case for a large proportion of
> current immigrants. The way to address it is with a immigration policy
> focussed on the need rather than on sheer numbers.
Another underlying presumption here is that the American People have somehow
started to become an un-industrious and un-creative people incapable of
developing solutions to problems. It causes me to immediately wonder what
started giving Greenspan these notions!
This prick Carlos, who has no legitimate status to discuss what American
policy should be in the first place, completely misses a clue in the portion
of the quote "but short of an outsized acceleration of productivity to well
beyond the average pace of the last seven years..." and wants us to focus
on the supposedly pro-immigrant portion of Greenspan's statement. Carlos'
stupidity and subversive dreaming aside, the FIRST question we must ask
ourselves is: what the hell has happened to lower the average productivity
of Americans in recent years?
If average productivity has declined during the most rapid and long-term
influx of immigrants this nation has ever seen, it seems to me that the
first thing we need to do is take a look at the damned immigration
situation. To do otherwise would be to admit, with no further examination,
that native-born Americans themselves have somehow become incapable of
matching the great achievements of their parents and of their ancestors!
That's not only absurd, it is disgusting. And it is patently wrong. In
essence, it says "hey, we have a problem...let's go find a bunch of people
who come from failing and violent cultures to fix it!" I'd say that the
best response to this issue Greenspan raised is to remove each and every
immigrant we legally can and see how THAT works before we knee-jerk our way
into importing more problems!
Carlos can help us best by going home and bringing his puta with him. The
NERVE of his thinking he has any say in this discussion, as a visa-dependent
plebe, is appalling, so I will not respect in any manner whatsoever. This
subversive chump is not worthy of respect from any American citizen. As far
as I am concerned, he perfectly exemplifies the "pretty face" the
multiculturalists try to put on all immigrants. I'm not buying, nor should
anyone buy his bullshit. He has a long way to go to raise his stature to
that of even an asshole in my book. He is an enemy...your enemy and
mine...and I'm very glad that he finally, fully "outed" himself with this
post. He's trying to assert "rights" in areas in which he has none.
> >"Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
> >rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
> >our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
> >economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and
the
> >difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
So, since many of our major corporations are addicted to the wage-deflating
"tit" of immigration, Greenspan fears that we cannot work through this. I'd
much rather interpret this as a call to alarm that folks like Carlos need to
have their visas ripped from their wallets on the way to the airport than as
an excuse to alleviate the problem in the short term with a solution that
eventually will exacerbate it beyond repair.
--
The American Kernel
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:00:40 GMT, "Carlos Antunes"
> wrote:
> >Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
> >Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
> >Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
> >February 11, 2003
> >
> >
> >http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
> >
> >
> >Excerpt:
> >
> >
> >"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
> >accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we
are
> >in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration
of
> >productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
> >major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
> >will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's
time.
> >It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
> >rather than later."
> >
> The underlying presumption here is that the immigrants will be
> sufficiently skilled ot educated to replace the US workers that
> retire. By and large that is not the case for a large proportion of
> current immigrants. The way to address it is with a immigration policy
> focussed on the need rather than on sheer numbers.
Another underlying presumption here is that the American People have somehow
started to become an un-industrious and un-creative people incapable of
developing solutions to problems. It causes me to immediately wonder what
started giving Greenspan these notions!
This prick Carlos, who has no legitimate status to discuss what American
policy should be in the first place, completely misses a clue in the portion
of the quote "but short of an outsized acceleration of productivity to well
beyond the average pace of the last seven years..." and wants us to focus
on the supposedly pro-immigrant portion of Greenspan's statement. Carlos'
stupidity and subversive dreaming aside, the FIRST question we must ask
ourselves is: what the hell has happened to lower the average productivity
of Americans in recent years?
If average productivity has declined during the most rapid and long-term
influx of immigrants this nation has ever seen, it seems to me that the
first thing we need to do is take a look at the damned immigration
situation. To do otherwise would be to admit, with no further examination,
that native-born Americans themselves have somehow become incapable of
matching the great achievements of their parents and of their ancestors!
That's not only absurd, it is disgusting. And it is patently wrong. In
essence, it says "hey, we have a problem...let's go find a bunch of people
who come from failing and violent cultures to fix it!" I'd say that the
best response to this issue Greenspan raised is to remove each and every
immigrant we legally can and see how THAT works before we knee-jerk our way
into importing more problems!
Carlos can help us best by going home and bringing his puta with him. The
NERVE of his thinking he has any say in this discussion, as a visa-dependent
plebe, is appalling, so I will not respect in any manner whatsoever. This
subversive chump is not worthy of respect from any American citizen. As far
as I am concerned, he perfectly exemplifies the "pretty face" the
multiculturalists try to put on all immigrants. I'm not buying, nor should
anyone buy his bullshit. He has a long way to go to raise his stature to
that of even an asshole in my book. He is an enemy...your enemy and
mine...and I'm very glad that he finally, fully "outed" himself with this
post. He's trying to assert "rights" in areas in which he has none.
> >"Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
> >rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
> >our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
> >economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and
the
> >difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
So, since many of our major corporations are addicted to the wage-deflating
"tit" of immigration, Greenspan fears that we cannot work through this. I'd
much rather interpret this as a call to alarm that folks like Carlos need to
have their visas ripped from their wallets on the way to the airport than as
an excuse to alleviate the problem in the short term with a solution that
eventually will exacerbate it beyond repair.
--
The American Kernel
Feb 13th 2003, 4:41 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:15:51 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:
>In article ,
> Oliver Costich wrote:
>> >"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
>> >accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
>> >in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
>> >productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
>> >major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
>> >will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
>> >It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
>> >rather than later."
>> >
>>
>> The underlying presumption here is that the immigrants will be
>> sufficiently skilled ot educated to replace the US workers that
>> retire.
>He is not making that assumption.
Of course he is. He's not stupid. Replacing retirees with lower paid
immigrants reduces productivity and places a higher burden on the
system which contains the SSA.
wrote:
>In article ,
> Oliver Costich wrote:
>> >"Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
>> >accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
>> >in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
>> >productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
>> >major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
>> >will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
>> >It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
>> >rather than later."
>> >
>>
>> The underlying presumption here is that the immigrants will be
>> sufficiently skilled ot educated to replace the US workers that
>> retire.
>He is not making that assumption.
Of course he is. He's not stupid. Replacing retirees with lower paid
immigrants reduces productivity and places a higher burden on the
system which contains the SSA.
Feb 13th 2003, 4:45 pm
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:14:29 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:
>In article ,
> "Carlos Antunes" wrote:
>> Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
>> Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
>> Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
>> February 11, 2003
>>
>>
>> http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
>>
>>
>> Excerpt:
>>
>>
>> "Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
>> accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
>> in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
>> productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
>> major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
>> will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
>> It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
>> rather than later."
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> "Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
>> rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
>> our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
>> economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
>> difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
>Nice to see Greenspan agrees with me on immigration. Now where are
>those liberals who insist immigration destroys american jobs?
You see no difference in immigrants that increase productivity and
those who diminish it?
wrote:
>In article ,
> "Carlos Antunes" wrote:
>> Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
>> Federal Reserve Board's semiannual monetary policy report to the Congress
>> Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
>> February 11, 2003
>>
>>
>> http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd.../testimony.htm
>>
>>
>> Excerpt:
>>
>>
>> "Because the baby boomers have not yet started to retire in force and
>> accordingly the ratio of retirees to workers is still relatively low, we are
>> in the midst of a demographic lull. But short of an outsized acceleration of
>> productivity to well beyond the average pace of the past seven years or a
>> major expansion of immigration, the aging of the population now in train
>> will end this state of relative budget tranquility in about a decade's time.
>> It would be wise to address this significant pending adjustment sooner
>> rather than later."
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> "Nevertheless, to assume that productivity can continue to accelerate to
>> rates well above the current underlying pace would be a stretch, even for
>> our very dynamic economy. So, short of a major increase in immigration,
>> economic growth cannot be safely counted upon to eliminate deficits and the
>> difficult choices that will be required to restore fiscal discipline."
>Nice to see Greenspan agrees with me on immigration. Now where are
>those liberals who insist immigration destroys american jobs?
You see no difference in immigrants that increase productivity and
those who diminish it?
Feb 13th 2003, 6:33 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
"Oliver Costich" wrote
> Replacing retirees with lower paid immigrants
> reduces productivity and places a higher burden
> on the system which contains the SSA.
What?! Retirees are _not_ "productive".
That's the whole point of being a retiree :-)
-- Tony P.
> Replacing retirees with lower paid immigrants
> reduces productivity and places a higher burden
> on the system which contains the SSA.
What?! Retirees are _not_ "productive".
That's the whole point of being a retiree :-)
-- Tony P.
Feb 13th 2003, 11:17 pm
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:33:57 -0500, "tonyp"
wrote:
>"Oliver Costich" wrote
>> Replacing retirees with lower paid immigrants
>> reduces productivity and places a higher burden
>> on the system which contains the SSA.
>What?! Retirees are _not_ "productive".
>That's the whole point of being a retiree :-)
>-- Tony P.
I may not be productive, but I sure contribute way more to the tax
revenue stream that I could possibly take out.
wrote:
>"Oliver Costich" wrote
>> Replacing retirees with lower paid immigrants
>> reduces productivity and places a higher burden
>> on the system which contains the SSA.
>What?! Retirees are _not_ "productive".
>That's the whole point of being a retiree :-)
>-- Tony P.
I may not be productive, but I sure contribute way more to the tax
revenue stream that I could possibly take out.
Feb 14th 2003, 10:50 pm
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
Oliver Costich wrote in message news:...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:14:29 -0800, ActualGeek
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Nice to see Greenspan agrees with me on immigration. Now where are
> >those liberals who insist immigration destroys american jobs?
>
>
> You see no difference in immigrants that increase productivity and
> those who diminish it?
No one who works diminishes the overall productivity. Importing
totally unskilled labor that is willing to work for next to nothing
doesn't destroy productivity, but certainly destroys the prospects of
unskilled americans in the very short term. In the long term
immigration and cheap labor fuels economic growth and makes everyone
more wealthy, except the union members rationing out jobs to their
buddies. And if you're a skilled laborer, your prospects in the short
term are also ensured.
If you want the US to be relavent in a hundred years, as I do,
immigration and population growth within the US is key to avoiding the
inevitable eclipsing might of China and perhaps India.
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:14:29 -0800, ActualGeek
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Nice to see Greenspan agrees with me on immigration. Now where are
> >those liberals who insist immigration destroys american jobs?
>
>
> You see no difference in immigrants that increase productivity and
> those who diminish it?
No one who works diminishes the overall productivity. Importing
totally unskilled labor that is willing to work for next to nothing
doesn't destroy productivity, but certainly destroys the prospects of
unskilled americans in the very short term. In the long term
immigration and cheap labor fuels economic growth and makes everyone
more wealthy, except the union members rationing out jobs to their
buddies. And if you're a skilled laborer, your prospects in the short
term are also ensured.
If you want the US to be relavent in a hundred years, as I do,
immigration and population growth within the US is key to avoiding the
inevitable eclipsing might of China and perhaps India.