Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
Feb 20th 2003, 1:30 pm
#91
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for
ActualGeek wrote:
> In article ,
> Fred Elbel wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>
>
> When there are no poor people on the planet, then you can start talking
> about "Enough" and I might listen.
>
> Right now, unfettered capitalism is the only weapon in the human arsenal
> to fight poverty.
Balderdash. You are simply pontificating, and not in any way elaborating why
this is so. That's a broad sweeping generalization. Try supporting it
sometime, and people might pay attention to you instead of -- rihtly, at
present -- dismissing you out-of-hand.
>
> Immigration is part of it-- let people go where the jobs are and send
> money back home.
And this promotes capital investment, reinvestment, return on investment and
capital growth, reinvestment and development _where the work is done_ just
HOW exactly?
>
> Immigration is not what changes birth rates-- education is. And
> education comes from not being poor anymore.
Actually, education comes from schooling. Regardless of whether it's
parental instruction or private school or public schools, education comes
from schooling. It does not come from wealth, and in many cases, it is no
guarantee of gaining wealth.
>
> You let people immigrate here, the economy grows, they send money back
> home, their grandkids go to college and have fewer children.
Unfortunately, we don't see that happening.
>
> This becomes a self feeding cycle that reduces population and poverty at
> the same time.
>
> On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and have
> too many kids.
Not at all, if we start exporting family-planning methods and knowledge.
And if we _do_ block all illegal immigration and restrict legal immigration
to only the best and brightest, we don't get overrun by people who couldn't
make it in their own country, and we reward those who _could_ make it in
their own country with access to the knowledge and techniques that made
America great... and _they_ take that knowledge and technology home, and
provide work for the people who otherwise couldn't make it, and we have much
less net immigration while living standards are raised abroad.
Your problem is that you do not think things through entirely, because your
ideology is blinding you to the complexity of reality. It's not all so
simple and cut-and-dried as you wish to believe.
--
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:
>
>>>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.
>
>
>
> When there are no poor people on the planet, then you can start talking
> about "Enough" and I might listen.
>
> Right now, unfettered capitalism is the only weapon in the human arsenal
> to fight poverty.
Balderdash. You are simply pontificating, and not in any way elaborating why
this is so. That's a broad sweeping generalization. Try supporting it
sometime, and people might pay attention to you instead of -- rihtly, at
present -- dismissing you out-of-hand.
>
> Immigration is part of it-- let people go where the jobs are and send
> money back home.
And this promotes capital investment, reinvestment, return on investment and
capital growth, reinvestment and development _where the work is done_ just
HOW exactly?
>
> Immigration is not what changes birth rates-- education is. And
> education comes from not being poor anymore.
Actually, education comes from schooling. Regardless of whether it's
parental instruction or private school or public schools, education comes
from schooling. It does not come from wealth, and in many cases, it is no
guarantee of gaining wealth.
>
> You let people immigrate here, the economy grows, they send money back
> home, their grandkids go to college and have fewer children.
Unfortunately, we don't see that happening.
>
> This becomes a self feeding cycle that reduces population and poverty at
> the same time.
>
> On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and have
> too many kids.
Not at all, if we start exporting family-planning methods and knowledge.
And if we _do_ block all illegal immigration and restrict legal immigration
to only the best and brightest, we don't get overrun by people who couldn't
make it in their own country, and we reward those who _could_ make it in
their own country with access to the knowledge and techniques that made
America great... and _they_ take that knowledge and technology home, and
provide work for the people who otherwise couldn't make it, and we have much
less net immigration while living standards are raised abroad.
Your problem is that you do not think things through entirely, because your
ideology is blinding you to the complexity of reality. It's not all so
simple and cut-and-dried as you wish to believe.
--
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 20th 2003, 2:16 pm
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for
ActualGeek wrote:
> In article ,
> "Squanto" wrote:
>
>
>>>On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and have
>>>too many kids.
>>I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable at
>>any level.
>
>
> About a billion people in India who had their income doubled in the last
> 20 years disprove your assertion.
You keep saying this.
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
> In article ,
> "Squanto" wrote:
>
>
>>>On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and have
>>>too many kids.
>>I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable at
>>any level.
>
>
> About a billion people in India who had their income doubled in the last
> 20 years disprove your assertion.
You keep saying this.
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
Feb 20th 2003, 2:34 pm
#93
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for
ActualGeek wrote:
> In article ,
> Oliver Costich wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:30:12 -0800, ActualGeek
>> wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>>"Squanto" wrote:
>>>>>On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and have
>>>>>too many kids.
>>>>I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable at
>>>>any level.
>>>About a billion people in India who had their income doubled in the last
>>>20 years disprove your assertion.
>>It's not hard to double your income when it is dismally low to begin
>>with. Is it even in real terms or just inflation?
>
>
> And so you would rather reduce their income instead?
All lucid readers will note that when challenged on data, Goof Boy's
response is to put words in his opponent's mouth.
Give us the data please. Is it even in real terms, or just inflation? And
don't forget to give links to your data and methodology. That's a good 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 ,
> Oliver Costich wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:30:12 -0800, ActualGeek
>> wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>>"Squanto" wrote:
>>>>>On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and have
>>>>>too many kids.
>>>>I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable at
>>>>any level.
>>>About a billion people in India who had their income doubled in the last
>>>20 years disprove your assertion.
>>It's not hard to double your income when it is dismally low to begin
>>with. Is it even in real terms or just inflation?
>
>
> And so you would rather reduce their income instead?
All lucid readers will note that when challenged on data, Goof Boy's
response is to put words in his opponent's mouth.
Give us the data please. Is it even in real terms, or just inflation? And
don't forget to give links to your data and methodology. That's a good 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 20th 2003, 2:41 pm
#94
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for
ActualGeek wrote:
> In article ,
> Fred Elbel wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:05:35 -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.
>>>When there are no poor people on the planet, then you can start talking
>>>about "Enough" and I might listen.
>>Hooey. As posted to another thread:
>>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
You keep making this assertion and you contine to never support it.
> than ever in human history-- by REJECTING
> your ideology and EMBRACING mine.
And now you're elaborating on your unsupported assertion.
Cites, please.
>>>Right now, unfettered capitalism is the only weapon in the human arsenal
>>>to fight poverty.
>>Why, no, that's not true. Another such weapon is population
>>stabilization.
>
>
> Oh, we all know you're just waiting to fire up the gas ovens to
> "stabilize" the population.
In the face of an unassailable argument, and in support of an indefensible
position, Goof Boy instantly turns to defamatory imputations of monstrous
intent.
Cites, please.
>
>
>>>Immigration is part of it-- let people go where the jobs are and send
>>>money back home.
>>No thanks. I would prefer to stabilize U.S. population and put an end
>>poverty here, while sending massive amounts of family planning
>>assistance to other countries.
>
>
> And your plan will create more poverty both in the US and in the other
> countries.
Unsupported bald assertion. Cites, please.
> You have completely ignored my proof of this, and just gone
> on repeating your ignorant bullshit.
>
> Learn some economics.
Repeated mantra irrelevant to present discussion. This is as relevant -- not
at all, that is to say -- as would be your saying "if you knew Jesus you'd
believe me". Appeal to religious mantra is not a valid argument.
And by the way, if YOU knew any economics, you could at least try to defend
your position. You're not even actually trying to defend your position, and
we can thus presume that you have no ammunition to your own defense, and can
only demand that others assume the role of defending your position.
>
>
>>The solution to the symptoms of overpopulation is not continued
>>overpopulation. The root cause must be addressed in order to
>>ameliorate the symptoms.
>
>
> The root cause is lack of education. So, stop enforcing your socialist
> created poverty on the world, and let us capitalists create enough
> wealth for them to get educated.
Riiiight. And you are going to educate them for what reason, again? with
your hard-earned money? Who decides who gets educated? Ah, that's right,
you, the Authoritarian masquerading as a "libertarian".
--
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 Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:05:35 -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.
>>>When there are no poor people on the planet, then you can start talking
>>>about "Enough" and I might listen.
>>Hooey. As posted to another thread:
>>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
You keep making this assertion and you contine to never support it.
> than ever in human history-- by REJECTING
> your ideology and EMBRACING mine.
And now you're elaborating on your unsupported assertion.
Cites, please.
>>>Right now, unfettered capitalism is the only weapon in the human arsenal
>>>to fight poverty.
>>Why, no, that's not true. Another such weapon is population
>>stabilization.
>
>
> Oh, we all know you're just waiting to fire up the gas ovens to
> "stabilize" the population.
In the face of an unassailable argument, and in support of an indefensible
position, Goof Boy instantly turns to defamatory imputations of monstrous
intent.
Cites, please.
>
>
>>>Immigration is part of it-- let people go where the jobs are and send
>>>money back home.
>>No thanks. I would prefer to stabilize U.S. population and put an end
>>poverty here, while sending massive amounts of family planning
>>assistance to other countries.
>
>
> And your plan will create more poverty both in the US and in the other
> countries.
Unsupported bald assertion. Cites, please.
> You have completely ignored my proof of this, and just gone
> on repeating your ignorant bullshit.
>
> Learn some economics.
Repeated mantra irrelevant to present discussion. This is as relevant -- not
at all, that is to say -- as would be your saying "if you knew Jesus you'd
believe me". Appeal to religious mantra is not a valid argument.
And by the way, if YOU knew any economics, you could at least try to defend
your position. You're not even actually trying to defend your position, and
we can thus presume that you have no ammunition to your own defense, and can
only demand that others assume the role of defending your position.
>
>
>>The solution to the symptoms of overpopulation is not continued
>>overpopulation. The root cause must be addressed in order to
>>ameliorate the symptoms.
>
>
> The root cause is lack of education. So, stop enforcing your socialist
> created poverty on the world, and let us capitalists create enough
> wealth for them to get educated.
Riiiight. And you are going to educate them for what reason, again? with
your hard-earned money? Who decides who gets educated? Ah, that's right,
you, the Authoritarian masquerading as a "libertarian".
--
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 20th 2003, 3:28 pm
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary forEconomic Growth)
"Juan Jose" wrote in message
news:BA79F153.288A%[email protected]...
> On 20/2/03 2:39 AM, in article [email protected], "David
> Lloyd-Jones" wrote:
> > D. Long wrote:
> >
> >> x-no-archive: yes
> >> "Carlos Antunes" wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected].
> >>
> 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.
Interesting. This guy thinks it is supposedly bad that we haven't gotten
passports to cross oceans, to leap continents and such. Quite frankly,
while I have traveled to other countries, I'm not even close to being done
seeing all that is to be seen in my homeland. I find THAT to be far more
important, interesting and relevant to my lifetime than traveling abroad.
Your statement is a tired refrain I hear a lot from Europeans.
But, once the EU fully becomes the equivalent of the United States, the
exact same "accusation" you made of us will be applicable to them. A mere
two-generations ago, the "average longest distance" any person on earth ever
traveled from his or her home was 30 miles. While I don't have the numbers,
I'm willing to go out on a limb and bet that Americans today, on average,
travel farther from their place of birth during their lifetimes than the
citizens of any other nation. We don't need a passport to do that, nor to
we have any totalitarian governments (well, not yet!) standing in our way of
simply driving from Key West to Seattle.
But I guess, when our culture is busy taking the lead at trailblazing new
frontiers and dying on the way back from space for the overall betterment of
mankind, those who envy us are prone to accuse us all of being backwards
homebodies. The facts indicate nothing of the sort.
--
The American Kernel
news:BA79F153.288A%[email protected]...
> On 20/2/03 2:39 AM, in article [email protected], "David
> Lloyd-Jones" wrote:
> > D. Long wrote:
> >
> >> x-no-archive: yes
> >> "Carlos Antunes" wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected].
> >>
> 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.
Interesting. This guy thinks it is supposedly bad that we haven't gotten
passports to cross oceans, to leap continents and such. Quite frankly,
while I have traveled to other countries, I'm not even close to being done
seeing all that is to be seen in my homeland. I find THAT to be far more
important, interesting and relevant to my lifetime than traveling abroad.
Your statement is a tired refrain I hear a lot from Europeans.
But, once the EU fully becomes the equivalent of the United States, the
exact same "accusation" you made of us will be applicable to them. A mere
two-generations ago, the "average longest distance" any person on earth ever
traveled from his or her home was 30 miles. While I don't have the numbers,
I'm willing to go out on a limb and bet that Americans today, on average,
travel farther from their place of birth during their lifetimes than the
citizens of any other nation. We don't need a passport to do that, nor to
we have any totalitarian governments (well, not yet!) standing in our way of
simply driving from Key West to Seattle.
But I guess, when our culture is busy taking the lead at trailblazing new
frontiers and dying on the way back from space for the overall betterment of
mankind, those who envy us are prone to accuse us all of being backwards
homebodies. The facts indicate nothing of the sort.
--
The American Kernel
Feb 20th 2003, 3:34 pm
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
ActualGeek wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-ECAB27.1631011902200....supernews.com...
> In article , Andrew
> wrote:
> > IMO, the moment someone
> > invokes racism, they've lost the argument--they're admitting that they
> > can do no better than name-calling.
> Yes, that's why I call them on their racism. They are doing nothing but
> using code words, like "illegal" rather than using reason and logic to
> make their case.
> > > If you actually loved this country, you'd welcome them with open arms.
> >
> > If you had a brain,
> What was that about resorting to name-calling again?
> I guess you lost.
Is "racism" a term that indicates preference for one's own race or dislike
for one(s) of a different race?
If one is racist is that necessarilly bad? Does one equate racist feeling
with accompanying illegal activities? Is having racist thoughts alone bad?
What IS racism? How is it defined?
Who is in more danger... a white guy walking through the black ghetto as 2
am or vice versa?
Jesse Jackson himself said he would be relieved if, when walking at night,
if someone was walking behind him and they were white he would be relieved,
that if it was a black man he'd worry.
If the culture of an invading people is one that too-often views females as
property to be used by males....if not wanting that culture to grow in
America is "racist" to you, is that bad? Art thou confusing dislike of
behavior with racism?
Sigh.................
Can a person who has grown up in "suburbia" leading a middle-class or higher
existense truly understand the peril created by invasion? Can those
surrounded by white collar droids infesting cubicals truly understand the
lives lead by fellow Americans who live and work surrounded by the illegal
hordes? I doubt it.
How I wish I could take every illegal alien or excess immigration defender
into Cantua Creek of Five Points in California's Central Valley on a Friday
night. We'll stroll around. I want to see the cubical dwellers pee their
pants when some chollos decide to play games with the Gringo.
-----= 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! =-----
news:ActualGeek-ECAB27.1631011902200....supernews.com...
> In article , Andrew
> wrote:
> > IMO, the moment someone
> > invokes racism, they've lost the argument--they're admitting that they
> > can do no better than name-calling.
> Yes, that's why I call them on their racism. They are doing nothing but
> using code words, like "illegal" rather than using reason and logic to
> make their case.
> > > If you actually loved this country, you'd welcome them with open arms.
> >
> > If you had a brain,
> What was that about resorting to name-calling again?
> I guess you lost.
Is "racism" a term that indicates preference for one's own race or dislike
for one(s) of a different race?
If one is racist is that necessarilly bad? Does one equate racist feeling
with accompanying illegal activities? Is having racist thoughts alone bad?
What IS racism? How is it defined?
Who is in more danger... a white guy walking through the black ghetto as 2
am or vice versa?
Jesse Jackson himself said he would be relieved if, when walking at night,
if someone was walking behind him and they were white he would be relieved,
that if it was a black man he'd worry.
If the culture of an invading people is one that too-often views females as
property to be used by males....if not wanting that culture to grow in
America is "racist" to you, is that bad? Art thou confusing dislike of
behavior with racism?
Sigh.................
Can a person who has grown up in "suburbia" leading a middle-class or higher
existense truly understand the peril created by invasion? Can those
surrounded by white collar droids infesting cubicals truly understand the
lives lead by fellow Americans who live and work surrounded by the illegal
hordes? I doubt it.
How I wish I could take every illegal alien or excess immigration defender
into Cantua Creek of Five Points in California's Central Valley on a Friday
night. We'll stroll around. I want to see the cubical dwellers pee their
pants when some chollos decide to play games with the Gringo.
-----= 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! =-----
Feb 20th 2003, 3:35 pm
#97
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
ActualGeek wrote:
> In article , Andrew
> wrote:
>
>
>>IMO, the moment someone
>>invokes racism, they've lost the argument--they're admitting that they
>>can do no better than name-calling.
>
>
> Yes, that's why I call them on their racism. They are doing nothing but
> using code words, like "illegal" rather than using reason and logic to
> make their case.
Hey look folks, it's Delusional Goof Boy once again, with his Special
Private Dictionary that only he owns! It's so Special -- just like Goof Boy
-- that words we all use are, to him, code!
No wonder nothing he says makes any sense.
--
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 , Andrew
> wrote:
>
>
>>IMO, the moment someone
>>invokes racism, they've lost the argument--they're admitting that they
>>can do no better than name-calling.
>
>
> Yes, that's why I call them on their racism. They are doing nothing but
> using code words, like "illegal" rather than using reason and logic to
> make their case.
Hey look folks, it's Delusional Goof Boy once again, with his Special
Private Dictionary that only he owns! It's so Special -- just like Goof Boy
-- that words we all use are, to him, code!
No wonder nothing he says makes any sense.
--
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 20th 2003, 3:35 pm
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for
ActualGeek wrote:
> In article ,
> Oliver Costich wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 05:50:04 -0800, ActualGeek
>> wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>>Oliver Costich wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:30:12 -0800, ActualGeek
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>"Squanto" wrote:
>>>>>>>On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and
>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>too many kids.
>>>>>>I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable
>>>>>>at
>>>>>>any level.
>>>>>About a billion people in India who had their income doubled in the last
>>>>>20 years disprove your assertion.
>>>>It's not hard to double your income when it is dismally low to begin
>>>>with. Is it even in real terms or just inflation?
>>>And so you would rather reduce their income instead?
>>Is that supposed to be a response? You implied they are better off.
>>Are they really?
>
>
> Yes.
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
> In article ,
> Oliver Costich wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 05:50:04 -0800, ActualGeek
>> wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>>Oliver Costich wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:30:12 -0800, ActualGeek
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>"Squanto" wrote:
>>>>>>>On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and
>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>too many kids.
>>>>>>I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable
>>>>>>at
>>>>>>any level.
>>>>>About a billion people in India who had their income doubled in the last
>>>>>20 years disprove your assertion.
>>>>It's not hard to double your income when it is dismally low to begin
>>>>with. Is it even in real terms or just inflation?
>>>And so you would rather reduce their income instead?
>>Is that supposed to be a response? You implied they are better off.
>>Are they really?
>
>
> Yes.
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
Feb 20th 2003, 3:45 pm
#99
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
"Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ActualGeek wrote:
> > In article , Andrew
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>IMO, the moment someone
> >>invokes racism, they've lost the argument--they're admitting that they
> >>can do no better than name-calling.
> >
> >
> > Yes, that's why I call them on their racism. They are doing nothing but
> > using code words, like "illegal" rather than using reason and logic to
> > make their case.
> Hey look folks, it's Delusional Goof Boy once again, with his Special
> Private Dictionary that only he owns! It's so Special -- just like Goof
Boy
> -- that words we all use are, to him, code!
> No wonder nothing he says makes any sense.
THF,
Didn't you hear? To read Goof Boy's posts, you need to have the
"Super-ultra-special Decoder Ring" that comes with each purchase of a box of
"Doltish Pops!"
--
The American Kernel
news:[email protected]...
> ActualGeek wrote:
> > In article , Andrew
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>IMO, the moment someone
> >>invokes racism, they've lost the argument--they're admitting that they
> >>can do no better than name-calling.
> >
> >
> > Yes, that's why I call them on their racism. They are doing nothing but
> > using code words, like "illegal" rather than using reason and logic to
> > make their case.
> Hey look folks, it's Delusional Goof Boy once again, with his Special
> Private Dictionary that only he owns! It's so Special -- just like Goof
Boy
> -- that words we all use are, to him, code!
> No wonder nothing he says makes any sense.
THF,
Didn't you hear? To read Goof Boy's posts, you need to have the
"Super-ultra-special Decoder Ring" that comes with each purchase of a box of
"Doltish Pops!"
--
The American Kernel
Feb 20th 2003, 3:46 pm
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:07:52 -0700, Graphic Queen
wrote:
> An ILLEGAL
> is ILLEGAL. What about that word don't you understand? They have no
> rights at all to be in this country whatsoever.
Oh, yes they do! They have the right to be deported as quickly as
possible. That's the LAW - which our Congress and administration are
so conveniently ignoring.
wrote:
> An ILLEGAL
> is ILLEGAL. What about that word don't you understand? They have no
> rights at all to be in this country whatsoever.
Oh, yes they do! They have the right to be deported as quickly as
possible. That's the LAW - which our Congress and administration are
so conveniently ignoring.
Feb 20th 2003, 3:50 pm
#101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for
Carlos Antunes wrote:
> "Oliver Costich" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Not as bad as India, but most Japanese would consider the typical US 2
>>bedroom apartment as wildly luxurious. They live in very tiny spaces
>>and actually live, on average, well below the US standard.
>
>
> I believe the discussion is about carrying capacity, not about lifestyle.
> The fact is that the Japanese are not dying of starvation or any other kind
> of thirld world disease which means that, even with 12 times the population
> density of the USA, they are able to live their lives reasonably well. And
> certainly way better than India.
I believe that it's a cultural attribute, somewhat based on religious beliefs.
The Japanese are somewhat Confucian, if I recall correctly they don't
believe in reincarnation as either a reward or a punishment as in the Hindu
or Buddhist belief systems. Thus, if a Japanese is to be worthy of the
honorable ancestors, he has to always try to improve his life or station as
best he can. Thus, once the Japanese people were introduced to modern ways
and realized that competition between their own culture and other cultures
was inevitable, they took to modernizing with great diligence. Further,
after discovering that military defeat was possible, in the post-WWII times
they worked even harder to modernize, and the Japanese have always excelled
at organizational efficiency.
Contrarily, in India they are mostly traditionally fatalists, and even if
you don't make anything of yourself in this life, there is always the next
life. Besides, no matter how low your station in life, you can always find
someone who is worse off, and you can thank the gods for your own position
and curse whoever is worse off as having offended the deities, to whom
expiation is owed by suffering in this life, to be followed by elevation in
station in the next life. Furthermore, too much striving in this life will
inevitably lead to a karmic burden which in the next life will result in the
need for expiation by being born into and remaining in abject misery , etc etc.
The odd thing is that neither the Japanese nor the Hindic people are
unintelligent; in fact they are both known for intelligence and
perseverance. I think one can only ascribe it to the outlook on life, that
the Japanese are much better off on-average than are the Hindu.
--
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
> "Oliver Costich" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Not as bad as India, but most Japanese would consider the typical US 2
>>bedroom apartment as wildly luxurious. They live in very tiny spaces
>>and actually live, on average, well below the US standard.
>
>
> I believe the discussion is about carrying capacity, not about lifestyle.
> The fact is that the Japanese are not dying of starvation or any other kind
> of thirld world disease which means that, even with 12 times the population
> density of the USA, they are able to live their lives reasonably well. And
> certainly way better than India.
I believe that it's a cultural attribute, somewhat based on religious beliefs.
The Japanese are somewhat Confucian, if I recall correctly they don't
believe in reincarnation as either a reward or a punishment as in the Hindu
or Buddhist belief systems. Thus, if a Japanese is to be worthy of the
honorable ancestors, he has to always try to improve his life or station as
best he can. Thus, once the Japanese people were introduced to modern ways
and realized that competition between their own culture and other cultures
was inevitable, they took to modernizing with great diligence. Further,
after discovering that military defeat was possible, in the post-WWII times
they worked even harder to modernize, and the Japanese have always excelled
at organizational efficiency.
Contrarily, in India they are mostly traditionally fatalists, and even if
you don't make anything of yourself in this life, there is always the next
life. Besides, no matter how low your station in life, you can always find
someone who is worse off, and you can thank the gods for your own position
and curse whoever is worse off as having offended the deities, to whom
expiation is owed by suffering in this life, to be followed by elevation in
station in the next life. Furthermore, too much striving in this life will
inevitably lead to a karmic burden which in the next life will result in the
need for expiation by being born into and remaining in abject misery , etc etc.
The odd thing is that neither the Japanese nor the Hindic people are
unintelligent; in fact they are both known for intelligence and
perseverance. I think one can only ascribe it to the outlook on life, that
the Japanese are much better off on-average than are the Hindu.
--
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 20th 2003, 4:55 pm
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:45:39 GMT, "Carlos Antunes"
wrote:
> I believe you are being a little bit too pessimistic. Japan has 12 times the
> population density of the USA and they are far from having the same living
> conditions as people in India have. Note that India's population density is
> slighly lower than Japan's. The explanation for their poverty lies, in my
> opinion, on decades of socialism, not population density.
I suspect that Japan imports a lot of food from other countries. I
doubt that they are ecologically self-sufficient. I know that their
demand for fish from international waters (a commons) is among the
highest in the world.
The U.S. is for now fortunately a net food exporter. As our
population continues to increase, that will change in 20 years or so
according to some scientific projections.
Certainly both form of government and overpopulation are contributory
factors in poverty and standard of living. Also important - and
frequently overlooked - is the rate at which a country is drawing down
its natural capital (and the natural capital of other countries) in
order to sustain a high standard of living.
Fred
wrote:
> I believe you are being a little bit too pessimistic. Japan has 12 times the
> population density of the USA and they are far from having the same living
> conditions as people in India have. Note that India's population density is
> slighly lower than Japan's. The explanation for their poverty lies, in my
> opinion, on decades of socialism, not population density.
I suspect that Japan imports a lot of food from other countries. I
doubt that they are ecologically self-sufficient. I know that their
demand for fish from international waters (a commons) is among the
highest in the world.
The U.S. is for now fortunately a net food exporter. As our
population continues to increase, that will change in 20 years or so
according to some scientific projections.
Certainly both form of government and overpopulation are contributory
factors in poverty and standard of living. Also important - and
frequently overlooked - is the rate at which a country is drawing down
its natural capital (and the natural capital of other countries) in
order to sustain a high standard of living.
Fred
Feb 20th 2003, 4:59 pm
#103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth
"Tiny Human Ferret" wrote
> Almost universal. However, the exception is quite a notable one; the
sylvan
> natives of North America. Food and game was so abundant here that poverty
as
> we conceive it was non-existant.
Sounds like hunter-gatherers, pre-agriculture, right? Now I read in such
favourable circumstances populations double every, say, 25 years. So my
question is: what prevents them from hitting the "just over starvation"
level in less than a century? I would guess, they have low life expectancy,
because of very high infant mortality, just like the rest of humanity.
That's what I would call "poverty". I am open for better measures of
poverty, though. Still, losing many of one's children doesn't sound like
paradise.
> > Then the question becomes: what caused the fact that at some point in
time,
> > for a limited (as yet) number of people, and on a limited surface of the
> > planet, people broke through the "just above starvation" point?
> Plague. As near as anyone can tell, it was always plague.
Apparently you invoke a mechanism where overpopulation causes poverty, and
the way-out is a population crash. Now I agree on your cyclical development,
rather than a simple equilibrium, and we do agree on the "mean" being
poverty (so I snip those pieces). Now that still raises the question why
some population crashes translated into an advance, where so many others did
not - how could there else be question of a "cyclical development"?
So I feel we still need a clarification of the causality. For example:
> But along came the Black Death, which practically depopulated parts of
> Europe. In some places, there were so few humans that the forests began to
> regenerate, topsoil renewed itself, and almost anyone who wished to live
in
> the woods could. But for those who didn't want to live in the woods, there
> was a shortage of manpower in the cities. This promoted development of
> technology...
Why would this have happened in Europe and not in so many other agricultural
civilizations who did develop towns and no doubt often had population
crashes? My opinion that the sudden drop in numbers is no sufficient cause
is supported by two further considerations.
The first is that technological development in Europe really started around
the year 1000 and came in full swing around 1100 - 1200. This was a time of
rising productivity, and it was also a time of rising populations. But the
increasing populations may well have been a *cause* of the increasing
knowledge of technology, and therefore of rising population. That is at
least what I think to recall from authors like David Landes or Jared
Diamond.
A second consideration is that you propose shortage (instead of the
contrary, above) of manpower in the towns as the cause of technological
advances. But why and how would such shortage translate into technological
advances? And in any case, the medieval towns were population sinks; they
were overcrowded, unhygienic, and they needed to be resupplied in population
from the countryside all the time. So again it looks like the technological
development, in which we agree the towns played an important role, took
place where there were *many*, not few, people, and at a point which was
even *below* Malthus.
Therefore I would suggest it is not the population crashes, and hence not
the plague, that caused development, but rather the other way round. In any
case, the plague notoriously interrupted European development in the 14th
century, well after the important developments after the year 1000. I do
accept, of course, that such crashes may have played an important role. If
at some times there was shortage of manpower, they will have helped to
distribute hat wealth was available, if only under the form of better wages
or more land available. Once again, I would be open for more specific
mechanisms of increasing access to wealth.
Concluding, or the moment I think rising productivity was what allowed
Europe to increase its population, and it was already a few centuries later
before Malthus overtook those.
(snippings)
> Well, the cause of poverty is always overpopulation. If the population is
> small in contrast to the amount productive environment, there can be no
> poverty.
We were here before. It depends on what we call poverty. Hunter-gatherer
populations typically had life expectancies, AFAIK mainly due to high infant
mortality, which are even lower than the most basic agrarian cultures. In
the terms of my story, productivity is painfully low.
Cheers, Koen
> Almost universal. However, the exception is quite a notable one; the
sylvan
> natives of North America. Food and game was so abundant here that poverty
as
> we conceive it was non-existant.
Sounds like hunter-gatherers, pre-agriculture, right? Now I read in such
favourable circumstances populations double every, say, 25 years. So my
question is: what prevents them from hitting the "just over starvation"
level in less than a century? I would guess, they have low life expectancy,
because of very high infant mortality, just like the rest of humanity.
That's what I would call "poverty". I am open for better measures of
poverty, though. Still, losing many of one's children doesn't sound like
paradise.
> > Then the question becomes: what caused the fact that at some point in
time,
> > for a limited (as yet) number of people, and on a limited surface of the
> > planet, people broke through the "just above starvation" point?
> Plague. As near as anyone can tell, it was always plague.
Apparently you invoke a mechanism where overpopulation causes poverty, and
the way-out is a population crash. Now I agree on your cyclical development,
rather than a simple equilibrium, and we do agree on the "mean" being
poverty (so I snip those pieces). Now that still raises the question why
some population crashes translated into an advance, where so many others did
not - how could there else be question of a "cyclical development"?
So I feel we still need a clarification of the causality. For example:
> But along came the Black Death, which practically depopulated parts of
> Europe. In some places, there were so few humans that the forests began to
> regenerate, topsoil renewed itself, and almost anyone who wished to live
in
> the woods could. But for those who didn't want to live in the woods, there
> was a shortage of manpower in the cities. This promoted development of
> technology...
Why would this have happened in Europe and not in so many other agricultural
civilizations who did develop towns and no doubt often had population
crashes? My opinion that the sudden drop in numbers is no sufficient cause
is supported by two further considerations.
The first is that technological development in Europe really started around
the year 1000 and came in full swing around 1100 - 1200. This was a time of
rising productivity, and it was also a time of rising populations. But the
increasing populations may well have been a *cause* of the increasing
knowledge of technology, and therefore of rising population. That is at
least what I think to recall from authors like David Landes or Jared
Diamond.
A second consideration is that you propose shortage (instead of the
contrary, above) of manpower in the towns as the cause of technological
advances. But why and how would such shortage translate into technological
advances? And in any case, the medieval towns were population sinks; they
were overcrowded, unhygienic, and they needed to be resupplied in population
from the countryside all the time. So again it looks like the technological
development, in which we agree the towns played an important role, took
place where there were *many*, not few, people, and at a point which was
even *below* Malthus.
Therefore I would suggest it is not the population crashes, and hence not
the plague, that caused development, but rather the other way round. In any
case, the plague notoriously interrupted European development in the 14th
century, well after the important developments after the year 1000. I do
accept, of course, that such crashes may have played an important role. If
at some times there was shortage of manpower, they will have helped to
distribute hat wealth was available, if only under the form of better wages
or more land available. Once again, I would be open for more specific
mechanisms of increasing access to wealth.
Concluding, or the moment I think rising productivity was what allowed
Europe to increase its population, and it was already a few centuries later
before Malthus overtook those.
(snippings)
> Well, the cause of poverty is always overpopulation. If the population is
> small in contrast to the amount productive environment, there can be no
> poverty.
We were here before. It depends on what we call poverty. Hunter-gatherer
populations typically had life expectancies, AFAIK mainly due to high infant
mortality, which are even lower than the most basic agrarian cultures. In
the terms of my story, productivity is painfully low.
Cheers, Koen
Feb 20th 2003, 5:03 pm
#104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
"Fred Elbel" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I suspect that Japan imports a lot of food from other countries.
I don't have any numbers so I really don't know the answer to this one. I'm
going to try to find out.
> I doubt that they are ecologically self-sufficient. I know that their
> demand for fish from international waters (a commons) is among the
> highest in the world.
Well, Japanese are known for their taste for fish. This can hardly be used
as an argument in this discussion. Personally, they can have my share! :-)
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
news:[email protected]...
> I suspect that Japan imports a lot of food from other countries.
I don't have any numbers so I really don't know the answer to this one. I'm
going to try to find out.
> I doubt that they are ecologically self-sufficient. I know that their
> demand for fish from international waters (a commons) is among the
> highest in the world.
Well, Japanese are known for their taste for fish. This can hardly be used
as an argument in this discussion. Personally, they can have my share! :-)
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Feb 20th 2003, 5:30 pm
#105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Carrying Capacity is BOGUS (WAS Re: Immigration necessary for Economic Growth)
> Fred Elbel wrote:
>
> > Here's an explanation of exponential growth with graphs and charts:
> > Exponential Growth and The Rule of 70
> > http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/facts/exponential70.html
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:46:19 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:
> Its amazing the things you can get when you just blindly project a
> current trend out to the future!
Ain't it though! It sure emphasizes the danger of unchecked
population growth!
As for specific projections, the U.S. Census Bureau says our
population will double this century.
> > Again, "development" is a more fitting term than "growth".
>
> Yes, try redefining words so your argument makes sense. It doesn't
> work.
No redefining here, my unlearned freind.
1. Infinite physical growth of population numbers is impossible on a
finite planet, and in a finite country.
2. Continued development of our economy is possible even with a
stable population.
3. But to generically that "infinite growth is attainable" is a
falsehood, since it is contradicted by point 1.
> > Infinite physical growth on a finite planet is impossible. In fact,
> > even one more doubling of human population is questionable.
>
> So says you, but you are clearly uneducated when it comes to these
> matters.
Oh, I dunno. I've done a *lot* of research on the issue. See
Comprehensive Population and Sustainability resources at
http://www.ecofuture.org/populat.html
> > Technological growth and economic development are indeed conceivable
> > and practicable without physical growth.
>
> Yes, but that's irrelevant.
Huh? That's precisely the point.
>
> > Here's an explanation of exponential growth with graphs and charts:
> > Exponential Growth and The Rule of 70
> > http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/facts/exponential70.html
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:46:19 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:
> Its amazing the things you can get when you just blindly project a
> current trend out to the future!
Ain't it though! It sure emphasizes the danger of unchecked
population growth!
As for specific projections, the U.S. Census Bureau says our
population will double this century.
> > Again, "development" is a more fitting term than "growth".
>
> Yes, try redefining words so your argument makes sense. It doesn't
> work.
No redefining here, my unlearned freind.
1. Infinite physical growth of population numbers is impossible on a
finite planet, and in a finite country.
2. Continued development of our economy is possible even with a
stable population.
3. But to generically that "infinite growth is attainable" is a
falsehood, since it is contradicted by point 1.
> > Infinite physical growth on a finite planet is impossible. In fact,
> > even one more doubling of human population is questionable.
>
> So says you, but you are clearly uneducated when it comes to these
> matters.
Oh, I dunno. I've done a *lot* of research on the issue. See
Comprehensive Population and Sustainability resources at
http://www.ecofuture.org/populat.html
> > Technological growth and economic development are indeed conceivable
> > and practicable without physical growth.
>
> Yes, but that's irrelevant.
Huh? That's precisely the point.