Actualgeek

In article ,
Oliver Costich wrote:

    > 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.

But it grows the economy, which lowers the burden.

Dont' they teach economics anymore?

Actualgeek

In article ,
Oliver Costich wrote:

    > 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?

You do realize that productivity is determined by more than just the
education of the work force-- the automation of the processes and the
computing facilities that are used in business have had the largest
impacts on productivity over the last 20 years and are largly
responsible for the boom that klinton just killed.

Actualgeek

In article ,
"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 :-)
    >

He thinks that because they are being replaced with people who are just
starting their careers (immigrants) that we're losing out.

He misses the fact that otherwise they'd be replaced by NOBODY.

And that the ones replaced by american kids are also replaced by people
just starting their careers.

And yet, if there are more immigrants added than there are retiries,
then productivity goes UP because the size of the working set is larger.

He's giving a lot of typical liberal voodoo economics.

Fred Elbel

On 14 Feb 2003 15:50:42 -0800, [email protected] (Dez Akin) wrote:

    > 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.

So let me see if I got this right:

China and India have overpopulated their countries. It's so bad that
the environmental problems in China are monumental, and India has
beggars in the streets.

And with with a little effort, we can win by sheer numbers. We can
grow our population from a measly 290 million to an overwhemlimg 1.3
billion - or more - and quash China and India in one fell swoop!


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.

Many cancer cells have professed the same philosophy.

Never before have I heard such irrationality. What are you afraid of?
Great hoardes of Chineese and Indians washing ashore to claim America
for themselves? Well, you will damned sure guarantee that they won't
want to come here when our overpopulation and environment are in as
bad a shape as their's.


Fred Elbel
EcoFuture (TM) environmental references:
http://www.ecofuture.org/

Carlos Antunes

"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.

You may want to start getting a clue by reading this small but elucidating
article:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-18-00.html

Regards,
Carlos Antunes.

Tiny Human Ferret

Carlos Antunes wrote:
    > "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.

Cites, please.




--
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

Carlos Antunes

"Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > > Malthus has been proven wrong time and time again.
    > Cites, please.

You may start by reading the article I provided. In any case, if Malthus
were right, we would be all starting by now, something that is obviously not
happening.

Regards,
Carlos Antunes.

Squanto

Carlos Antunes wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > 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 lackey of the elites is not negatively impacted by the invasion and
excessive legal immigration. His wages are not harmed. He does not have to
live among the disgusting cultures invading us.

The vile scum sees only money.... not social costs.

If Greenspic's daughter was groped by an illegal, if his wife was raped and
beaten by 5 illegals, if a drunk driving illegal plowed into his car turning
Greenspic into a quadraplegic would the disgusting unAmerican punk still
desire importing hordes of vermin?

It IS class warfare and "your" government and the elites behaind it despise
you.

The federal government is a bigger threat to us than any foreign power, in
my never humble opinion.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Squanto

ActualGeek wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-AD63A9.1944431402200....supernews.com...
    > In article ,
    > "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 :-)
    > >
    > He thinks that because they are being replaced with people who are just
    > starting their careers (immigrants) that we're losing out.
    > He misses the fact that otherwise they'd be replaced by NOBODY.
    > And that the ones replaced by american kids are also replaced by people
    > just starting their careers.
    > And yet, if there are more immigrants added than there are retiries,
    > then productivity goes UP because the size of the working set is larger.
    > He's giving a lot of typical liberal voodoo economics.

And.... the Greenspic specialist shows ignorance of matters scientific.

Can Greenspic envision an America overflowing with a billion or more people?

View overcrowded 3rd-world countries of today. Therein is America if the
population keeps increasing.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Squanto

ActualGeek wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-F4C15F.1912211402200....supernews.com...
    > In article ,
    > Oliver Costich wrote:
    > > 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.
    > But it grows the economy, which lowers the burden.
    > Dont' they teach economics anymore?

A cancerous tumor grows.

Is "growth" in and of itself a good thing?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Uncle Cato

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:48:28 GMT, "Carlos Antunes"
wrote:

    >"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.
    >You may want to start getting a clue by reading this small but elucidating
    >article:
    >http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-18-00.html
    >Regards,
    >Carlos Antunes.

He should go to the Cato Institute for clues?

If we want child-rearing information, I suppose we should get advise
from the Man-Boy Love Association?

You are doing the very thing we tried to warn you about Carlos:
Asserting your self-serving immigrant agenda into what is our National
Question. You are not an american national. That is just this sort
thing that has soured people on immigrants, generally.

Fred Elbel

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:42:09 -0600, "Squanto"
wrote:


    > The federal government is a bigger threat to us than any foreign power, in
    > my never humble opinion.

Interesting perspective, and indeed, there is more than a grain of
truth to it.

Fred Elbel

    > "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.


On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:48:28 GMT, "Carlos Antunes" wrote:
    > Malthus has been proven wrong time and time again. I hope you aren't also a
    > member of the Flat Earth Society.


No, I believe the earth is round and therefore finite. Infinite
growth is impossible on a finite planet.



    > You may want to start getting a clue by reading this small but elucidating
    > article:
    > http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-18-00.html

Oh come on, now. Just because technology has postponed the inevitable
doesn't it will postponed indefinitely. Carrying capacity is already
being exceeded (at present rates of consumption). We're stealing from
our children for the sake of today's profits.

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.




Fred Elbel
Why population stabilization is important:
http://www.ecofuture.org/populat.html

Tim Worstall

Fred Elbel 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.
    >
    >
    > On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:48:28 GMT, "Carlos Antunes" wrote:
    > > Malthus has been proven wrong time and time again. I hope you aren't also a
    > > member of the Flat Earth Society.
    >
    >
    > No, I believe the earth is round and therefore finite. Infinite
    > growth is impossible on a finite planet.

It´s a cute phrase but wrong. Infinite growth is not just possible but
virtually certain.

Consider :
Imagine a world with a stable population, full recycling, renewable
energy, and no new appropriation of resources....no new mining, for
example, just the endless recycling of those metals we have already
extracted.
Would we still see economic growth ? Yes indeed we would. Because
technology would still advance. Humans being the curious creatures
that we are, people would still dream up new ways to do things, and
some of these new ways would require less resources than the previous
way of doing things. Current world examples might be computer chips,
in that we use less silicon each generation of chips to perform the
same number of calculations.....this frees silicon to be used to make
solar cells. Or plating technologies....gold plating on chip
connectors has gone from 20 micron to 2 micron in 30 years, freeing
gold to be used for , say, dental caps.
New technologies tend to use less resources than the old ones they
replace. So even in a world of limited resource use, as technology
advances, resources become avaliable for us to do other or new things
with them. Another phrase for doing new things is economic growth.We
will continue to have such growth until one of three things happens :
Humans disappear, the universe runs down, or we discover everything.
None seem imminent.

So, finite earth not allowing infinite growth is a cute phrase, but
provably wrong.

Tim Worstall
    >
    >
    >
    > > You may want to start getting a clue by reading this small but elucidating
    > > article:
    > > http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-18-00.html
    >
    > Oh come on, now. Just because technology has postponed the inevitable
    > doesn't it will postponed indefinitely. Carrying capacity is already
    > being exceeded (at present rates of consumption). We're stealing from
    > our children for the sake of today's profits.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Fred Elbel
    > Why population stabilization is important:
    > http://www.ecofuture.org/populat.html

David Lloyd-Jones

Tim Worstall wrote:

Fred Elbel <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..



"Fred Elbel" <[email protected]> wrote:


No, I believe the earth is round and therefore finite. Infinite
growth is impossible on a finite planet.



It´s a cute phrase but wrong. Infinite growth is not just possible but
virtually certain.

Consider :
Imagine a world with a stable population, full recycling, renewable
energy, and no new appropriation of resources....no new mining, for
example, just the endless recycling of those metals we have already
extracted.
Would we still see economic growth ? Yes indeed we would. Because
technology would still advance. Humans being the curious creatures
that we are, people would still dream up new ways to do things, and
some of these new ways would require less resources than the previous
way of doing things. Current world examples might be computer chips,
in that we use less silicon each generation of chips to perform the
same number of calculations.....

Tim,
Â
This is correct, of course. One quibble: I don't understand the bit
about "no new appropriation of resources." Resources are something we
create, not something we appropriate. Thus technical advance took oil,
a water pollutant only used by a few Indian tribes as an arthritis
cure, a net cost on society, and we turned it into a resource --
something which incidentally took some of the pressure off the whales
that we were killing for their various oils. I hear there are some guys
out there trying to turn euxenite, a useless rock, into a resource...
Will weirdity never cease?
Â
Still, I betcha that on most planets which achieve stasis changed only
by progress in knowledge it takes a different form: perpetual increase
in the nonsense industry. Think hundreds of channels of tarot card
readers and Tony Robbins. Hey, tens of thousands of channels of Usenet.
Â
Part of the reason I think we should be settling space is that this
state of nothing-but-spiritual-progress seems to me to threaten us only
a couple of generations in the future. It's really urgent that we have
at least some places where chunks of the human race are safe from just
sitting around being primped by our machines.
Â
                                              Cheers,
Â
                                                    -dlj.
Â