Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
Feb 22nd 2003, 7:09 pm
#136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
ActualGeek wrote:
> In article ,
> "David Eduardo" wrote:
>
>
>>"ActualGeek" wrote in message news:ActualGeek->
>>>Your hatred of chicanos is sad. They are an opportunity for america,
>>>not a threat.
>>Chicanos are Mexican Americans, first generation or later. They are not
>>immigrants.
>
>
> Not just Mexican americans. And some of them are immigrants.
NO chicano is an Immigrant. By definition, it means they were born citizens
of the USA.
--
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
> In article ,
> "David Eduardo" wrote:
>
>
>>"ActualGeek" wrote in message news:ActualGeek->
>>>Your hatred of chicanos is sad. They are an opportunity for america,
>>>not a threat.
>>Chicanos are Mexican Americans, first generation or later. They are not
>>immigrants.
>
>
> Not just Mexican americans. And some of them are immigrants.
NO chicano is an Immigrant. By definition, it means they were born citizens
of the USA.
--
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 22nd 2003, 7:12 pm
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
ActualGeek wrote:
> In article ,
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
>
>>ActualGeek wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>> Graphic Queen wrote:
>>>>Uh Why don't you learn the same things and you will know that these
>>>>people are bringing nothing but death, disease, and rampant
>>>>criminality with them. They bring nothing of good to this country,
>>>>save for the rare Mexican who wishes to assimilate and become a good
>>>>American.
>>>Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
>>>leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
>>Troll.
>>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>>Mexico is a NATION that has INVADED.
>>Now go toddle back under your bridge, little troll.
>>You've been getting a drubbing all day every day for the last few weeks, and
>>you can't even trot out anything more than calling someone "racist".
>
>
>
>
> Still, you hate them because they are brown,
Actually, I don't hate them because they're brown. And I don't even hate
them. It's just that massive immigration -- especially massive illegal
immigration at the scale of Invasion -- is a huge danger to my country and
way of life, and I must do all that I can, within the law, to stop it.
> which makes you a racist.
Not at all, see above, because, as usual, you're just WRONG.
>
> Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the policies after the
> crash of 1929 don't fit the broken window error.....
>
> You seem to have ignored that one completely, which means you loose.
It's not remotely relevant. It's your red herring, why the hell should I
chase after it?
> I know, it irritates you to be defeated, and so you have to call me
> "troll"... in this case, its the cry of the pain of the defeated.
>
> Ha!
My $DIETY what a simpleton.
--
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
> In article ,
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
>
>>ActualGeek wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>> Graphic Queen wrote:
>>>>Uh Why don't you learn the same things and you will know that these
>>>>people are bringing nothing but death, disease, and rampant
>>>>criminality with them. They bring nothing of good to this country,
>>>>save for the rare Mexican who wishes to assimilate and become a good
>>>>American.
>>>Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
>>>leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
>>Troll.
>>"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
>>Mexico is a NATION that has INVADED.
>>Now go toddle back under your bridge, little troll.
>>You've been getting a drubbing all day every day for the last few weeks, and
>>you can't even trot out anything more than calling someone "racist".
>
>
>
>
> Still, you hate them because they are brown,
Actually, I don't hate them because they're brown. And I don't even hate
them. It's just that massive immigration -- especially massive illegal
immigration at the scale of Invasion -- is a huge danger to my country and
way of life, and I must do all that I can, within the law, to stop it.
> which makes you a racist.
Not at all, see above, because, as usual, you're just WRONG.
>
> Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the policies after the
> crash of 1929 don't fit the broken window error.....
>
> You seem to have ignored that one completely, which means you loose.
It's not remotely relevant. It's your red herring, why the hell should I
chase after it?
> I know, it irritates you to be defeated, and so you have to call me
> "troll"... in this case, its the cry of the pain of the defeated.
>
> Ha!
My $DIETY what a simpleton.
--
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 22nd 2003, 7:43 pm
#138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
ActualGeek wrote:
> In article ,
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
>
>>ActualGeek wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>> Fred Elbel wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:55:20 -0800, ActualGeek
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>Is "growth" in and of itself a good thing?
>>>>>Yes. Its the only way to fight poverty. You do want to fight poverty,
>>>>>don't you?
>>>>Hmmm. India has grown to join China in the one-billion plus club.
>>>>They have massive poverty and beggars in the street.
>>>Yes, but they had more poverty before the last 20 years when they
>>>enacted economic reforms that created growth.
>>>>It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.
>>>You are an idiot. You ignore the fact that India doubled the income of
>>>its average worker, and just point out that there are poor people in
>>>india.
>>Twice nothing is still nothing.
>
>
> Not only are you an idiot, you're a liar. The people were living on
> what they made before, now they are living twice as well.
And there are slightly more than twice as many, right?
> Fact is, you have been disproven by the facts, YET AGAIN.
You haven't posted any "facts". You've made unsupported assertions,
repeatedly, apparently expecting the multipliciy of repetition to somehow
congeal into fact. But it hasn't happened, because it cannot.
>
> And so you pretend that the facts don't matter-- not surprising, they
> don't!
Especially when you never post them!
> To you anyway.
>
> I'm don with you, scream your empty head off as much as you want. I've
> given you argument after argument, and all you give me is shrill
> screaming and your petty little hateful, racist, bullshit.
Seems to me that these are the screams of desperation, you've got nothing
left but to shriek "it's all racism" and duck out of the discussion, which
after all wasn't a discussion since you never posted anything other than one
link to a page of an economist's OPINION.
>
> You know, that horrible living situation you've got?
Nope, which one?
> you earned it, and
> you deserve it. and its goign to get WORSE.
I would not count on that.
>
> Enjoy the mouthfuls of shit!
>
> Geek
>
> PS-- since you're too dense to get it:
Too bad. You know, right now would be the time to make all of the points you
claim I never made, and back them up with cites, and when you re-emerge as
another sockpuppet and claim that you've posted facts, I can refer back to
this little present exchange with Google, and even more people can laugh at
your antics then, than are laughing now.
And by the way...
Just because India has suddenly developed something of a well-paid
well-educated class which drags up the average pay for the nation as a
whole, that is no proof at all that "everyone in India has it twice as good
as they did before, despite in doubling in population".
You're mistaking the average for the mean, Goof Boy.
--
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
> In article ,
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
>
>>ActualGeek wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>> Fred Elbel wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:55:20 -0800, ActualGeek
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>Is "growth" in and of itself a good thing?
>>>>>Yes. Its the only way to fight poverty. You do want to fight poverty,
>>>>>don't you?
>>>>Hmmm. India has grown to join China in the one-billion plus club.
>>>>They have massive poverty and beggars in the street.
>>>Yes, but they had more poverty before the last 20 years when they
>>>enacted economic reforms that created growth.
>>>>It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.
>>>You are an idiot. You ignore the fact that India doubled the income of
>>>its average worker, and just point out that there are poor people in
>>>india.
>>Twice nothing is still nothing.
>
>
> Not only are you an idiot, you're a liar. The people were living on
> what they made before, now they are living twice as well.
And there are slightly more than twice as many, right?
> Fact is, you have been disproven by the facts, YET AGAIN.
You haven't posted any "facts". You've made unsupported assertions,
repeatedly, apparently expecting the multipliciy of repetition to somehow
congeal into fact. But it hasn't happened, because it cannot.
>
> And so you pretend that the facts don't matter-- not surprising, they
> don't!
Especially when you never post them!
> To you anyway.
>
> I'm don with you, scream your empty head off as much as you want. I've
> given you argument after argument, and all you give me is shrill
> screaming and your petty little hateful, racist, bullshit.
Seems to me that these are the screams of desperation, you've got nothing
left but to shriek "it's all racism" and duck out of the discussion, which
after all wasn't a discussion since you never posted anything other than one
link to a page of an economist's OPINION.
>
> You know, that horrible living situation you've got?
Nope, which one?
> you earned it, and
> you deserve it. and its goign to get WORSE.
I would not count on that.
>
> Enjoy the mouthfuls of shit!
>
> Geek
>
> PS-- since you're too dense to get it:
Too bad. You know, right now would be the time to make all of the points you
claim I never made, and back them up with cites, and when you re-emerge as
another sockpuppet and claim that you've posted facts, I can refer back to
this little present exchange with Google, and even more people can laugh at
your antics then, than are laughing now.
And by the way...
Just because India has suddenly developed something of a well-paid
well-educated class which drags up the average pay for the nation as a
whole, that is no proof at all that "everyone in India has it twice as good
as they did before, despite in doubling in population".
You're mistaking the average for the mean, Goof Boy.
--
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 22nd 2003, 8:07 pm
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for
ActualGeek wrote:
> In article ,
> Fred Elbel wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:49:22 -0800, ActualGeek
>> wrote:
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>> Fred Elbel wrote:
>>>>>>I always wonder why come people say "more growth", "more consumption",
>>>>>>"more population"? When will we say enough is enough? Perhaps only
>>>>>>after it is too late to reduce our numbers.
>>>> India has grown to join China in the one-billion plus club.
>>>Yes, ignoring the fact that India has doubled the incomes of more poor
>>>people in the last 20 years than ever in human history-- by REJECTING
>>>your ideology and EMBRACING mine.
>>Let me clarify your illusions, dude. I represent no ideology, no
>>theology.
>>India has a disproportionate number of poor, hungry, and destitute.
>>People spend their entire lives in the street and crap in the gutter.
>>We, too can have that standard of living in the U.S. when we surpass
>>the one billion mark.
>>>Oh, we all know you're just waiting to fire up the gas ovens to
>>>"stabilize" the population.
>>You bigoted sack of shit masquerading as an intemperate asshole.
>>Don't pull that racist shit on me. There's not one *word* of racism
>>in discussion that I have posted.
>
>
> Actually, I hadn't made the connection to racism at that point-- I was
> just pointing out that you what the wholesale murder of millions of
> people. But there is a bit of a racist overtone-- after all the jews
> were hated in part because they were wealthy, not just because they were
> jewish.
>
> So when fascists like yourself want to oppress rich people, the ovens
> are exactyl the correct end solution you advocate, and for the same
> reasons.
>
> Not really racist pur-se, but advocating mass murder, yep.
>
> This whole "Carrying capacity" crap is a big lie in an ottempt to
> enslave everybody under your brand of socialism. And socialism,
> whether nationalistic or not, always results in mass graves.
You actually win an award. Not one anyone would want to win, but you won it
anyway.
It's the "relentless flight of fancy into pontification entirely unrelated
to anything in the discussion, without even trying to change the subject".
All we are trying to do is to get the government to enforce laws already on
the books, which prohibit illegal immigration. Furthermore, we are pointing
out that overpopulation is one of the things that enforcing those laws would
tend to prevent.
How you go from "enforcing laws already on the books" to "mass-murdering
socialists" I have no idea.
Though if I had an idea I'd suggest that drugs were involved, either their
unfortunate presence or their unfortunate lack.
--
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
> In article ,
> Fred Elbel wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:49:22 -0800, ActualGeek
>> wrote:
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>> Fred Elbel wrote:
>>>>>>I always wonder why come people say "more growth", "more consumption",
>>>>>>"more population"? When will we say enough is enough? Perhaps only
>>>>>>after it is too late to reduce our numbers.
>>>> India has grown to join China in the one-billion plus club.
>>>Yes, ignoring the fact that India has doubled the incomes of more poor
>>>people in the last 20 years than ever in human history-- by REJECTING
>>>your ideology and EMBRACING mine.
>>Let me clarify your illusions, dude. I represent no ideology, no
>>theology.
>>India has a disproportionate number of poor, hungry, and destitute.
>>People spend their entire lives in the street and crap in the gutter.
>>We, too can have that standard of living in the U.S. when we surpass
>>the one billion mark.
>>>Oh, we all know you're just waiting to fire up the gas ovens to
>>>"stabilize" the population.
>>You bigoted sack of shit masquerading as an intemperate asshole.
>>Don't pull that racist shit on me. There's not one *word* of racism
>>in discussion that I have posted.
>
>
> Actually, I hadn't made the connection to racism at that point-- I was
> just pointing out that you what the wholesale murder of millions of
> people. But there is a bit of a racist overtone-- after all the jews
> were hated in part because they were wealthy, not just because they were
> jewish.
>
> So when fascists like yourself want to oppress rich people, the ovens
> are exactyl the correct end solution you advocate, and for the same
> reasons.
>
> Not really racist pur-se, but advocating mass murder, yep.
>
> This whole "Carrying capacity" crap is a big lie in an ottempt to
> enslave everybody under your brand of socialism. And socialism,
> whether nationalistic or not, always results in mass graves.
You actually win an award. Not one anyone would want to win, but you won it
anyway.
It's the "relentless flight of fancy into pontification entirely unrelated
to anything in the discussion, without even trying to change the subject".
All we are trying to do is to get the government to enforce laws already on
the books, which prohibit illegal immigration. Furthermore, we are pointing
out that overpopulation is one of the things that enforcing those laws would
tend to prevent.
How you go from "enforcing laws already on the books" to "mass-murdering
socialists" I have no idea.
Though if I had an idea I'd suggest that drugs were involved, either their
unfortunate presence or their unfortunate lack.
--
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 22nd 2003, 10:29 pm
#140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:18:48 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones
wrote:
>Oliver Costich wrote:
>>Those sytems in Scandinavia and Canada are near bankrupt in spite of
>>amazingly high tax rates. The rest is pretty comparable. Notice how
>>many Asians are here to get the latest in technology?
>Wrong -- and wrong at the rate of almost an error per phrase. "Near
>bankrupt" is of course a weasel phrase: everything in the world is only
>one step away from bankruptcy, which is why the whole world runs on
>credit.
First I said nearly because they are desperatley close to no getting
enough credit to fill the gap left by the deficit between spending and
revenue. The world runs on credit, but that isn't remotely close to
bankruptcy. I buy a house with a mortgage. That doesn't mean I'm one
step from bankruptcy.
>The fact is that Canadians, all Canadians, not just the richest
>two-thirds, have access to excellent health care, and on average have
>longer life expectancies than Americans. Further, Canadian health care
>is run by doctors and the appropriate medical authorities, not by a
>bunch of insurance companies looking out for their own bottom line.
>Canadian health care costs about 10% of GDP, somewhere around 2/3rds of
>the percentage of GDP that Americans pay -- for both less and inferior
>coverage.
The waiting times in Canada are very long.
>
>The difference between Canadian and American tax rates is simply that we
>are paying our taxes now, while Americans have elected to pay their
>taxes later and with interest added.
Which is smater because of the time value of money.
>
>I notice a lot of Asians in the States and in Canada: they're here to
>create, not to get, the latest in technology. In fact theonly technology
>in which the United States excels in weaponry. The best cars, the best
>textiles, the best food, the best TV programs are all imported from
>elsewhere. The best consumer electronics are used elsewhere, but can't
>be imported to North America because American transmission standards are
>a generation behind the rest of the world.
You show a remarkable lack of knowledge of the technology industry.
How much chip design research is done in the US? Almost all of it.
Making chips and developing new chip technology are vastly different.
Your blather about consumer electronics is nonsense.
>
>
> -dlj.
>>
wrote:
>Oliver Costich wrote:
>>Those sytems in Scandinavia and Canada are near bankrupt in spite of
>>amazingly high tax rates. The rest is pretty comparable. Notice how
>>many Asians are here to get the latest in technology?
>Wrong -- and wrong at the rate of almost an error per phrase. "Near
>bankrupt" is of course a weasel phrase: everything in the world is only
>one step away from bankruptcy, which is why the whole world runs on
>credit.
First I said nearly because they are desperatley close to no getting
enough credit to fill the gap left by the deficit between spending and
revenue. The world runs on credit, but that isn't remotely close to
bankruptcy. I buy a house with a mortgage. That doesn't mean I'm one
step from bankruptcy.
>The fact is that Canadians, all Canadians, not just the richest
>two-thirds, have access to excellent health care, and on average have
>longer life expectancies than Americans. Further, Canadian health care
>is run by doctors and the appropriate medical authorities, not by a
>bunch of insurance companies looking out for their own bottom line.
>Canadian health care costs about 10% of GDP, somewhere around 2/3rds of
>the percentage of GDP that Americans pay -- for both less and inferior
>coverage.
The waiting times in Canada are very long.
>
>The difference between Canadian and American tax rates is simply that we
>are paying our taxes now, while Americans have elected to pay their
>taxes later and with interest added.
Which is smater because of the time value of money.
>
>I notice a lot of Asians in the States and in Canada: they're here to
>create, not to get, the latest in technology. In fact theonly technology
>in which the United States excels in weaponry. The best cars, the best
>textiles, the best food, the best TV programs are all imported from
>elsewhere. The best consumer electronics are used elsewhere, but can't
>be imported to North America because American transmission standards are
>a generation behind the rest of the world.
You show a remarkable lack of knowledge of the technology industry.
How much chip design research is done in the US? Almost all of it.
Making chips and developing new chip technology are vastly different.
Your blather about consumer electronics is nonsense.
>
>
> -dlj.
>>
Feb 22nd 2003, 10:30 pm
#141
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:39:55 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones
wrote:
>D. Long wrote:
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Japanese live in many ways better than Americans do. They live longer,
>>>and in better health.
>>>
>> And you attribute that to the density of their population?
>No. I merely bring it up as the one counter-example that's all you need
>to puncture your own claim, that high density means a lousy way of life.
And you really want to argue that rapidly increasing population will
improve the quality of life? Try Hong Kong.
>
> -dlj.
>>
wrote:
>D. Long wrote:
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Japanese live in many ways better than Americans do. They live longer,
>>>and in better health.
>>>
>> And you attribute that to the density of their population?
>No. I merely bring it up as the one counter-example that's all you need
>to puncture your own claim, that high density means a lousy way of life.
And you really want to argue that rapidly increasing population will
improve the quality of life? Try Hong Kong.
>
> -dlj.
>>
Feb 22nd 2003, 10:35 pm
#142
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary forEconomic Growth)
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:03:14 GMT, Aztec Warrior
wrote:
>On 21/2/03 2:30 AM, in article [email protected], "D.
>Long" wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> "Juan Jose" wrote:
>>
>>> America is shit compared to many places (e.g., healthcare in Scandanavia,
>>> social safety net in Canada, infrastructure maintenance in Australia,
>>> culture and freedoms of Europe, innovations in Asia, etc.).
>>
>> Hilarous, coming from a Mexican ... Don't forget to slip
>> the trashman some mordida, Jose, or he won't pick up
>> your garbage. Then again, you could just toss the stuff
>> in the street as so many Mexicans apparently do.
>So by attacking me and Mexico you chose not to refute the facts that America
>is a dump? I've been to all those places, believe me, America is a
>shithole!
If it is a dump, it''s less a dump that Mexico. Look at the numbers
crossing the border both ways.
>>> Did you know that less than 10% of Americans have passports and only a
>>> minority of those that do use them. Thus, Americans get their worldview
>>> from corporate media conglomerates (who are not at all biased). Americans
>>> are the stupidest, most ignorant people around.
>>
>> Again, the irony is too rich, coming as it does from a Mexican.
>> At least when we travel we actually do use passports and don't
>> sneak by the millions into a neighboring country and live in
>> them as parasites.
>We are here to invade! If you have balls, try to stop us! If not, move
>over!
>>
wrote:
>On 21/2/03 2:30 AM, in article [email protected], "D.
>Long" wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> "Juan Jose" wrote:
>>
>>> America is shit compared to many places (e.g., healthcare in Scandanavia,
>>> social safety net in Canada, infrastructure maintenance in Australia,
>>> culture and freedoms of Europe, innovations in Asia, etc.).
>>
>> Hilarous, coming from a Mexican ... Don't forget to slip
>> the trashman some mordida, Jose, or he won't pick up
>> your garbage. Then again, you could just toss the stuff
>> in the street as so many Mexicans apparently do.
>So by attacking me and Mexico you chose not to refute the facts that America
>is a dump? I've been to all those places, believe me, America is a
>shithole!
If it is a dump, it''s less a dump that Mexico. Look at the numbers
crossing the border both ways.
>>> Did you know that less than 10% of Americans have passports and only a
>>> minority of those that do use them. Thus, Americans get their worldview
>>> from corporate media conglomerates (who are not at all biased). Americans
>>> are the stupidest, most ignorant people around.
>>
>> Again, the irony is too rich, coming as it does from a Mexican.
>> At least when we travel we actually do use passports and don't
>> sneak by the millions into a neighboring country and live in
>> them as parasites.
>We are here to invade! If you have balls, try to stop us! If not, move
>over!
>>
Feb 23rd 2003, 5:26 am
#143
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
"Carlos Antunes" wrote in message news:...
> "Fred Elbel" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Of course, in doing so, we will outstrip the carrying capacity of our
> > own country, wreak havoc upon our environment as well as upon the
> > environment of contries from which we draw down resources.
> >
>
> Malthus has been proven wrong time and time again. I hope you aren't also a
> member of the Flat Earth Society.
When you claim something has been "proven wrong," you'd damned well
better provide context (you and the growth-addicted, nature-hating
Cato Institute).
I'm sure you're measuring the impact of human population growth only
in terms of your own immediate gratification (the state of your bank
account, the size of your house, or some other superficial yardstick).
Others frame it in an equally narrow context where feeding people is
all that matters. Even in that context, they ignore current starvation
levels and the fact that food production is following the law of
diminishing returns. Take a look at the declines in the fishing
industry, for starters. Too many people eating too many fish and not
giving them time to replenish; a textbook case of exceeding
carrying-capacity.
Growth-addicts don't like to talk about the PROVEN impacts of our
runaway population on shrinking wilderness, animal habitat, air and
water pollution and countless other problems caused by one species
that pretends nature is just a warehouse for its perpetual expansion.
People who claim Malthus was "wrong" simply don't care about what's
being LOST to overpopulation. They just won't acknowledge the evidence
of human impact. In fact, they will be perfectly happy if most
habitable areas of the U.S. resemble the L.A. basin at some point,
with plants and animals relegated to zoos and botanical gardens. It
will be all fine with them as long as someone is making blessed money
in the process. It's what I call terminal growth-addiction.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
> "Fred Elbel" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Of course, in doing so, we will outstrip the carrying capacity of our
> > own country, wreak havoc upon our environment as well as upon the
> > environment of contries from which we draw down resources.
> >
>
> Malthus has been proven wrong time and time again. I hope you aren't also a
> member of the Flat Earth Society.
When you claim something has been "proven wrong," you'd damned well
better provide context (you and the growth-addicted, nature-hating
Cato Institute).
I'm sure you're measuring the impact of human population growth only
in terms of your own immediate gratification (the state of your bank
account, the size of your house, or some other superficial yardstick).
Others frame it in an equally narrow context where feeding people is
all that matters. Even in that context, they ignore current starvation
levels and the fact that food production is following the law of
diminishing returns. Take a look at the declines in the fishing
industry, for starters. Too many people eating too many fish and not
giving them time to replenish; a textbook case of exceeding
carrying-capacity.
Growth-addicts don't like to talk about the PROVEN impacts of our
runaway population on shrinking wilderness, animal habitat, air and
water pollution and countless other problems caused by one species
that pretends nature is just a warehouse for its perpetual expansion.
People who claim Malthus was "wrong" simply don't care about what's
being LOST to overpopulation. They just won't acknowledge the evidence
of human impact. In fact, they will be perfectly happy if most
habitable areas of the U.S. resemble the L.A. basin at some point,
with plants and animals relegated to zoos and botanical gardens. It
will be all fine with them as long as someone is making blessed money
in the process. It's what I call terminal growth-addiction.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
Feb 23rd 2003, 6:13 am
#144
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for
Oliver Costich wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:39:55 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones
>wrote:
>
>>D. Long wrote:
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Japanese live in many ways better than Americans do. They live longer,
>>>>and in better health.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And you attribute that to the density of their population?
>>>
>>No. I merely bring it up as the one counter-example that's all you need
>>to puncture your own claim, that high density means a lousy way of life.
>>
>And you really want to argue that rapidly increasing population will
>improve the quality of life? Try Hong Kong.
Take a look at the sentence you're replying to, above. Or let me repeat
it: no, I don't argue that. I simply point out that extremely high
standards of living exist along with high densities.
-dlj.
>
>On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:39:55 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones
>wrote:
>
>>D. Long wrote:
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Japanese live in many ways better than Americans do. They live longer,
>>>>and in better health.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And you attribute that to the density of their population?
>>>
>>No. I merely bring it up as the one counter-example that's all you need
>>to puncture your own claim, that high density means a lousy way of life.
>>
>And you really want to argue that rapidly increasing population will
>improve the quality of life? Try Hong Kong.
Take a look at the sentence you're replying to, above. Or let me repeat
it: no, I don't argue that. I simply point out that extremely high
standards of living exist along with high densities.
-dlj.
>
Feb 23rd 2003, 6:23 am
#145
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for
Oliver Costich wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:18:48 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones
>wrote:
>
>>Oliver Costich wrote:
>>
>>>Those sytems in Scandinavia and Canada are near bankrupt in spite of
>>>amazingly high tax rates. The rest is pretty comparable. Notice how
>>>many Asians are here to get the latest in technology?
>>>
>>Wrong -- and wrong at the rate of almost an error per phrase. "Near
>>bankrupt" is of course a weasel phrase: everything in the world is only
>>one step away from bankruptcy, which is why the whole world runs on
>>credit.
>>
>First I said nearly because they are desperatley close to no getting
>enough credit to fill the gap left by the deficit between spending and
>revenue.
But this is false. both in Scandinavia and in Canada medical care is
paid for out of taxes, and taxes are not about to stop being collected
and paid out in future as at present and in the past.
>>The fact is that Canadians, all Canadians, not just the richest
>>two-thirds, have access to excellent health care, and on average have
>>longer life expectancies than Americans. Further, Canadian health care
>>is run by doctors and the appropriate medical authorities, not by a
>>bunch of insurance companies looking out for their own bottom line.
>>Canadian health care costs about 10% of GDP, somewhere around 2/3rds of
>>the percentage of GDP that Americans pay -- for both less and inferior
>>coverage.
>>
>The waiting times in Canada are very long.
Some waiting times in Canada are longer than they ought to be. Contrast
this with the United States, where roughly 30% of the population are
excluded entirely from the lines, or else get their medical care on
charity, by waiting inline at emergency rooms for ordinary non-emergency
care.
>>The difference between Canadian and American tax rates is simply that we
>>are paying our taxes now, while Americans have elected to pay their
>>taxes later and with interest added.
>>
>Which is smater because of the time value of money.
If you think so, fine, your choice. Just don't go around claiming that
other people have higher taxes when the difference is that you have
higher borrowings.
>>I notice a lot of Asians in the States and in Canada: they're here to
>>create, not to get, the latest in technology. In fact theonly technology
>>in which the United States excels in weaponry. The best cars, the best
>>textiles, the best food, the best TV programs are all imported from
>>elsewhere. The best consumer electronics are used elsewhere, but can't
>>be imported to North America because American transmission standards are
>>a generation behind the rest of the world.
>>
>You show a remarkable lack of knowledge of the technology industry.
>How much chip design research is done in the US? Almost all of it.
A high percentage of chip design is done in the US, it's true, though a
lot of it is wasted by being useless for anything but weapons. My point
was that the Asians you sneer at are not in the US to get that
technology: the US is dependent upon Asian immigrants to produce that
technology. No Asian immigrants, no more US leadership.
>Making chips and developing new chip technology are vastly different.
>Your blather about consumer electronics is nonsense.
Not so. The US has essentially no consumer electronics industry, outside
of Motorola's tag-end position in cell phones, and the cellular
communications technology that is useable in the US is a generation or
more behind that of both Europe and Asia.
-dlj.
>On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:18:48 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones
>wrote:
>
>>Oliver Costich wrote:
>>
>>>Those sytems in Scandinavia and Canada are near bankrupt in spite of
>>>amazingly high tax rates. The rest is pretty comparable. Notice how
>>>many Asians are here to get the latest in technology?
>>>
>>Wrong -- and wrong at the rate of almost an error per phrase. "Near
>>bankrupt" is of course a weasel phrase: everything in the world is only
>>one step away from bankruptcy, which is why the whole world runs on
>>credit.
>>
>First I said nearly because they are desperatley close to no getting
>enough credit to fill the gap left by the deficit between spending and
>revenue.
But this is false. both in Scandinavia and in Canada medical care is
paid for out of taxes, and taxes are not about to stop being collected
and paid out in future as at present and in the past.
>>The fact is that Canadians, all Canadians, not just the richest
>>two-thirds, have access to excellent health care, and on average have
>>longer life expectancies than Americans. Further, Canadian health care
>>is run by doctors and the appropriate medical authorities, not by a
>>bunch of insurance companies looking out for their own bottom line.
>>Canadian health care costs about 10% of GDP, somewhere around 2/3rds of
>>the percentage of GDP that Americans pay -- for both less and inferior
>>coverage.
>>
>The waiting times in Canada are very long.
Some waiting times in Canada are longer than they ought to be. Contrast
this with the United States, where roughly 30% of the population are
excluded entirely from the lines, or else get their medical care on
charity, by waiting inline at emergency rooms for ordinary non-emergency
care.
>>The difference between Canadian and American tax rates is simply that we
>>are paying our taxes now, while Americans have elected to pay their
>>taxes later and with interest added.
>>
>Which is smater because of the time value of money.
If you think so, fine, your choice. Just don't go around claiming that
other people have higher taxes when the difference is that you have
higher borrowings.
>>I notice a lot of Asians in the States and in Canada: they're here to
>>create, not to get, the latest in technology. In fact theonly technology
>>in which the United States excels in weaponry. The best cars, the best
>>textiles, the best food, the best TV programs are all imported from
>>elsewhere. The best consumer electronics are used elsewhere, but can't
>>be imported to North America because American transmission standards are
>>a generation behind the rest of the world.
>>
>You show a remarkable lack of knowledge of the technology industry.
>How much chip design research is done in the US? Almost all of it.
A high percentage of chip design is done in the US, it's true, though a
lot of it is wasted by being useless for anything but weapons. My point
was that the Asians you sneer at are not in the US to get that
technology: the US is dependent upon Asian immigrants to produce that
technology. No Asian immigrants, no more US leadership.
>Making chips and developing new chip technology are vastly different.
>Your blather about consumer electronics is nonsense.
Not so. The US has essentially no consumer electronics industry, outside
of Motorola's tag-end position in cell phones, and the cellular
communications technology that is useable in the US is a generation or
more behind that of both Europe and Asia.
-dlj.
Feb 23rd 2003, 3:12 pm
#146
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
[ ... ]
>
> My $DIETY what a simpleton.
Syntax error (few people will probably get the joke)
>
[ ... ]
>
> My $DIETY what a simpleton.
Syntax error (few people will probably get the joke)
Feb 24th 2003, 5:46 am
#147
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
x-no-archive: yes
"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Take a look at the sentence you're replying to, above. Or let me repeat
> it: no, I don't argue that. I simply point out that extremely high
> standards of living exist along with high densities.
High standards according to what measure, by whose standards?
"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Take a look at the sentence you're replying to, above. Or let me repeat
> it: no, I don't argue that. I simply point out that extremely high
> standards of living exist along with high densities.
High standards according to what measure, by whose standards?
Feb 24th 2003, 5:58 am
#148
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for
D. Long wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Take a look at the sentence you're replying to, above. Or let me repeat
>>it: no, I don't argue that. I simply point out that extremely high
>>standards of living exist along with high densities.
>>
> High standards according to what measure, by whose standards?
>
Your call: what do you want?
You tell me what your standards are, I'll find you a place with high
population density that meets them.
-dlj.
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Take a look at the sentence you're replying to, above. Or let me repeat
>>it: no, I don't argue that. I simply point out that extremely high
>>standards of living exist along with high densities.
>>
> High standards according to what measure, by whose standards?
>
Your call: what do you want?
You tell me what your standards are, I'll find you a place with high
population density that meets them.
-dlj.
>
Feb 24th 2003, 4:41 pm
#149
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
x-no-archive: yes
"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote:
> >>Take a look at the sentence you're replying to, above. Or let me repeat
> >>it: no, I don't argue that. I simply point out that extremely high
> >>standards of living exist along with high densities.
> > High standards according to what measure, by whose standards?
> Your call: what do you want?
> You tell me what your standards are, I'll find you a place with high
> population density that meets them.
My standard is low population density.
"David Lloyd-Jones" wrote:
> >>Take a look at the sentence you're replying to, above. Or let me repeat
> >>it: no, I don't argue that. I simply point out that extremely high
> >>standards of living exist along with high densities.
> > High standards according to what measure, by whose standards?
> Your call: what do you want?
> You tell me what your standards are, I'll find you a place with high
> population density that meets them.
My standard is low population density.
Feb 24th 2003, 11:09 pm
#150
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> D. Long wrote:
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> "David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Take a look at the sentence you're replying to, above. Or let me repeat
>>> it: no, I don't argue that. I simply point out that extremely high
>>> standards of living exist along with high densities.
>>>
>> High standards according to what measure, by whose standards?
>>
> Your call: what do you want?
>
> You tell me what your standards are, I'll find you a place with high
> population density that meets them.
Like maybe... Calcutta?
--
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
> D. Long wrote:
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> "David Lloyd-Jones" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Take a look at the sentence you're replying to, above. Or let me repeat
>>> it: no, I don't argue that. I simply point out that extremely high
>>> standards of living exist along with high densities.
>>>
>> High standards according to what measure, by whose standards?
>>
> Your call: what do you want?
>
> You tell me what your standards are, I'll find you a place with high
> population density that meets them.
Like maybe... Calcutta?
--
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