![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
How can low-quality immigration make inroads? | |
Post new message in this thread
Date: July 16, 2004 04:34 AM
Author: Eleuthero
Subject: How can low-quality immigration make inroads?
As many DR'ers know, I'm a teacher and my classes are mostly foreigners. In the 1980s, the personal and intellectual attributes of those foreigners was much, much higher than it is in 2004. The newbie foreigners now have much poorer English skills, much weaker characters, and, frankly, a helluva lot less talent that the 1980s influx.
I believe that they are only succeeding because America is now a country that allows the SCUM, not the CREAM, to rise to the top. It is a reverse meritocracy. Most of my colleagues in education and in the industrial workforce sing the same song: Their bosses are bigger ignoramuses than ever before, people with real skills are often regarded as a THREAT as much as an ASSET (because they can reveal the boss's idiocy), and people who report incompetence (whistleblowers) are like "enemies of the people" in the old Soviet Union.
Indeed, I find life in America increasingly like the life I read of in "Khruschev: The Man and His Era". Nearly all the people in my school who are regarded by students as the most technically able instructors are estranged from Apparatchik-like administrators and newbie instructors who seem strangely politicized and even more strangely unskilled.
Of course, when one looks at Kerry vs. Bush, one realizes that the scum-rising-to-the-top phenomenon has given us perhaps the most comically bankrupt choice of "leaders" in the history of our Republic. Maybe the future of America is to drown all the 10-year-olds with I.Q.s above 120 in the Mississippi River so that the Emperor-Idiots can maintain an illusion.
"In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King".
E.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165145)
Date: July 16, 2004 11:33 AM
Author: Commandanté Pachuco
...America is now a country that allows the SCUM, and not the CREAM, to rise to the top.
Se&$241or Eleuthero...It is a good thing you are not a farmer...where there is cream in one pot...there is no scum... the two do not exist together.
Hahaha.....but you knew this already.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165225)
Date: July 16, 2004 12:01 PM
Author: DaveGillie
Subject: Like the Statue of Liberty inscription
This country was built GREAT BY the refuse/rejects/scum of other countries. I've a great deal of empathy for rejects, as a reject I succeeded. As a reject from Govt school my son succeeded in private school. AS everyone told me the private ed was for elites, I discovered it to be full of rejects from failing Govt schools!
AND as to your CREAM students, MY experience shows me that MOST of them are now working for the GOVERNMENT, STEALING like leeches From us normal folks who do ALL the PRODUCTIVE REAL work.
DaveGillie
Sorry for yelling, but this subject REALLY gets to my personal emotions!! People are GOOD, immigrants are good, more people are good, LEECHES are horrible and evil. You work for Govt school or private?????
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165240)
Date: July 16, 2004 12:16 PM
Author: Finster
Subject: No Such Thing As Too Much Of A Good Thing???
The "immigration was good therefore it is good" argument is transparently invalid logic. By the same reasoning, if 20 gallons of water in your bathtub is good, then 20,000 gallons is better.
Fuzzy-minded immigration advocates just listen to the self-serving claptrap that big business and big labor spew and forget that when America invited in the world's "hungry, tired and poor", it was an underpopulated expanse of land, filled with far more open space and natural resources than the contemporary inhabitants could possibly make good use of. That is no longer true. Today's Americans drive on crowded roads and highways, cannot provide their own energy needs, and suffer ever increasing regulation from attempts to preserve what clean air, water and open spaces are left. Liberty is gradually being eroded as increasing proximity to others prompts increasing regimentation and government-enforced socialization.
Yes, Americans are all descendants of immigrants. But Americans are hardly unique in this respect. After all, all humans are believed to have originated somewhere in Africa, the Middle East or Mediterranean region. Every other land on Earth is filled with the descendants of immigrants.
If American were losing population, mass immigration could be justified. But it's not, and it can't.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165244)
Date: July 16, 2004 12:22 PM
Author: Mark Grant
More to the point, it was a land that could make good use of millions of unskilled laborers. Today it has plenty enough of its own, and not enough jobs for them all.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165249)
Date: July 16, 2004 12:51 PM
Author: DaveGillie
Subject: There is ALWAYS work to be done!!
Wow, I thought this was self evident. There may be a problem with impediments to work, thanks to Govt, but there is ALWAYS productive work to be done. This argument you make has been used since the very beginning of this country and has NEVER been more wrong in that NOW there is more potential productive activity available in this counrty than ever before by far.
DaveGillie remember the 1800s famous quote by railroad tycoon about being able to put people productively to work till the last train track was straight and level.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165261)
Date: July 16, 2004 12:32 PM
Author: DaveGillie
Subject: or idealogy
I still view the USA as underpopulated. Have you ever flown over it? Sheeesh, the 2nd least densely populated continant not covered with ice.
AS with the price of land argument, the dense populated areas you talk of are because people WANT to live together!! Don't believe then just DRIVE out in the country.
AS to the natural resources, that's just plain bunk, I remember many posts here with evidence of MUCH greater resources on/in other continents, they just have crappy systems so they can't use it, don't want to accept responsibiity for their bad sytems so jelously CLAIM we have some monopoly on natural resources,
I agree it seems that denser populations seem to give us less freedom, I'm not sure it's true, I can cite many examples showing the other way around. BUT either way, the increased WEALTH from more people is proven and dramatic, and increased wealth gives us more freedom in many ways. for example our enviornment is now far cleaner than it was in our poorer days.
DaveGillie STILL trusting Freedom more than Finster
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165256)
Date: July 16, 2004 12:50 PM
Author: Finster
Subject: The US Is Not Underpopulated!
Stop flying and try driving, like most people do. And where most people drive, the roads are pretty crowded.
You also completely overlook the fact that all that ostensibly "empty" land is supporting hundreds of millions of people. Try walling off New York City for a while - people will starting dying in days, if not hours, as garbage piles up, electricity fails, the water stops running, and the air becomes completely toxic. You city people that think food comes from a grocery store, water from the faucet and electricity from the outlet on the wall will get a big surprise.
As for freedom, it declines with population density as increasing regimentation is required simply because it gets harder to do anything without affecting somebody else. Government tends to impose more forced socialization than population density merits, and when there are so many people that you can't whistle a happy tune without annoying someone else, there will be nothing to be happy about.
Like to go to the beach? Play golf? Quite a few folks do. What percentage do you think will get to when the population quadruples from here? I think it will be only the rich.
And if we're "underpopulated" now, exactly what do you think the ideal population would be?
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165260)
Date: July 16, 2004 01:12 PM
Author: Vangel
Vesovski
I have to go with Dave on this one. Most of the US is under populated; what you are referring to are the large urban areas. Most of these are near the coasts or the Great Lake region. Try taking a drive from Houston to LA and tell me just how overpopulated you are. And people live in densely populated urban areas because these offer the most efficient way of living. You cannot have a nation of 50,000 person towns and still have the same standard of living as you do now; the infrastructure costs and transportation waste would be too great.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165266)
Date: July 16, 2004 03:04 PM
Author: Eleuthero
Subject: I want to go to those "underpopulated" areas.
Vangel,
Most nations in the world feature urban concentration and not a perfectly even distribution of population. People congregate in cities the world over.
Patrick Buchanan called Los Angeles "The Capitol of Mexifornia". He could also say the same of Phoenix and Tucson. Try visiting San Francisco or Seattle and you might feel you're in a suburb of Beijing. You might even feel this in your city of Vancouver.
In San Francisco, if you go to Chinatown, you see that even after three generations, they still have Third World sanitation habits. You have these comical stores with no posters, no aesthetics, dingy/filthy walls and a couple of unclean meat freezers.
You talk to local health inspectors and they all sing the same song about Indian restaurants i.e., that you are crazy to eat in one. They are maggot factories.
Finally, Anglo Californians often humorously speak of DWA -- Driving While Asian. It's considered a comical local truism that these people are utterly clueless behind the wheel of a car in relative terms.
I want to move to one of the Rockie Mountain states where you still feel like you're in America and where you still feel like you're living in a unified society instead of a gaggle of balkanized enclaves. It is well known in the San Francisco Bay Area that foreign communities hate the dominant culture despite their feeble attempts to wave the flag while others are watching.
Hispanics and Blacks look at getting an education as "giving in to The Man". Asian cultures look at the white man as undisciplined and promiscuous -- even though the suckers buy up all the inventions of the white man and they, themselves, are just great copiers but poor innovators.
I've taught these people for 15 years and have learned a lot about their points of view through direct discussion and prolific observation. Finally, I have to say that such balkanization leads to a bland, materialistic culture because, not wanting to add to the Honkie's culture, they are here for economic opportunism ONLY.
America has a lot of bloodless Anglo yuppies but at least the Honkies debate whether these are a spiritually "good" or "bad" stereotype. No doubt that Anglo culture has fallen a long, long way from the Flowering of New England when all our great authors and poets had long walks and long talks about the "great questions".
However, the huge foreign influx, in my opinion, has made "Can I afford a Lexus now?" the predominant mindset in the culture. Get me away from the bastards!!!
E.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165293)
Date: July 16, 2004 03:44 PM
Author: Finster
Subject: More People, Same Resources?
Vangel, did you read my post? I explicitly cited the distribution of population and how those supposedly "underpopulated" areas support those large urban areas. I'm surprised that an energy and resources expert such as yourself could fail to appreciate this. Millions of acres of oil and gas fields, mines, lakes, forests, and farmland are vital to the support of each of those urban areas - if you don't believe it, then why invest in them?
The US, as you yourself have pointed out yourself, is not energy self-sufficent. Are you being heard to say it should become still less so by importing more energy consumers? And champion of freedom that you are, how can you argue that it should become still less free by increasing its population density?
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165307)
Date: July 16, 2004 10:06 PM
Author:
DaveGillie
Subject: the ole zero sum gain
and I thought that type of thinking was passe.
Resources are defined by PEOPLE, not numbers.
The US is only not energy independent because our Govt impedes us using our own, AND because foreigners like sending us energy that they work hard for in exchange for green PAPER called FRNs'. So we can do brain work instead AS we save our energy for future use.
DaveGillie
Knowing I wouldn't be free in a world with Finsters' ideal freedom, cause a world with ONE person in it would mean I'd be so poor I'd die quickly. PEOPLE are wealth, not much else really is.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165453)
Date: July 17, 2004 12:05 PM
Author:
Finster
Subject: Zero Sum
Yes, there is the hard reality that land resources are a zero sum game. Natural resources are not defined by people. Add a hundred million more people and that does not get you another hundred million barrels of oil in the ground, another million square miles of lakes, ten millions acres of farmland.
You can repeat platitudes like "people are wealth" all you like, but that does not change physical reality.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165652)
Date: July 17, 2004 08:57 PM
Author:
DaveGillie
Subject: Yet we inhabit a TINY portion
of the land on this planet.
and high rises prove land is a bit IRRELEVANT to it's people carrying capacity.
We've added many BILLIONS of people to this Earth many times as doomer like you cry.
DaveGillie I prefer enjoying people as you cry about them though
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165859)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:03 PM
Author:
DaveGillie
Subject: Natural resources ARE defined
by people,
by definition.
People are the ONLY thing that gives resources ANY value. You need to read more Julian Simon, resources keep getting cheaper all the time too, because PEOPLE.
And all these many more BILLIONS on Earth are living a better lifestyle than EVER, and BY FAR, and ONLY because so many BILLIONS are here.
You living alone on earth would be poor, AND the supposedly freedom you think that gives you would be worth nothing, and less.
We humans as cavemen were poor and NOT free in my opinion. This wealth of modern huge numbers makes more freedom than it destroys.
Your problem evidently is that you want the kinds of freedoms that allow you to interfere with OTHER people's freedoms. To me, freedom comes with responsiblity AND more importantly teh respecting of other people's EQUAL right to THEIR FREEDOM.
DaveGillie
thinking, maybe not ALL people are wealth, but large numbers on average most assuradley are. And it's not a physical reality, like EVERYTHING, it is a MENTAL attitude that makes me feel good and you so gloomy doomy.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165861)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:25 PM
Author:
Finster
Subject: Freedom
What if the population density is such that each person has six square feet of space to himself? How much freedom do you think each person could have?
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165875)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:37 PM
Author:
DaveGillie
Subject: Talking about EXTREMES is a
worthless and TWO sided argument
What if someone each had a MILLION sq feet?? I bet their freedom would ONLY be to starve to death fast.
six sq feet of land seems like a decent density IF it were in an area of 100 story high rises, cause then it'd be 600 sq feet of space on average. LIKE in the FREEEST areas of this Earth, New York, Hong Kong, many European cities. AS opposed to Saharan desert fascist countries like SUDAN where the density is amoung the lowest in the world.
I really just don't get your correleation of pop density to lack of freedom. I think it more correlates to poverty, WHICH by the way is ANTI-correleated wtih pop density.
DaveGillie
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165880)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:44 PM
Author: Vangel Vesovski
I really just don't get your correleation of pop density to lack of freedom. I think it more correlates to poverty, WHICH by the way is ANTI-correleated wtih pop density.
Reality certainly supports your statement. Western Europe has a higher population density than Africa.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165886)
Date: July 18, 2004 09:31 AM
Author: Finster
Subject: Logical
Error
Association equals cause and effect. One of the oldest logical errors known. I'm disappointed, Vangel.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166014)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:38 PM
Author:
Vangel Vesovski
The Netherlands, UK and Japan are more densely populated than India. Ohio has a higher population density than Indonesia. Population density is simply not the problem that you make it out to be my friend. On this topic you are barking up the wrong tree.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165881)
Date: July 18, 2004 12:50 PM
Author:
Finster
Subject: Natural Resources Versus People
We're ending an era where people's wages have increased in value faster than natural resources. Now natural resources are rising in value faster than human capital.
Just for example, oil has risen faster than the average wage for at least the last couple of years now. The same is true of many other natural commodities. This is only the beginning of the trend, too.
And my mental attitude is just fine, thank you. I'm very pleased to see that not only the majority of those posting on this board on the issue of immigration would prefer to see limits, but that the majority of the American population agrees with me, too.
And I'm also encouraged to see your reference to "anti-immigration wackos". You can always tell when you've won a debate on the merits when your opponent is reduced to name-calling.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166093)
Date: July 18, 2004 04:40 PM
Author:
DaveGillie
I grant you that the majority of Amercians are anti-immigration. Idon't grant you that that in anyway makes them correct.
That mathematical evidence you ask for still seems obvious to me in tracking population density to well being, in any time and any location the correlations is obvious.
I don't think of wacko as a name calling as much as a grouping, for example I'm a positive attitude wacko and very proud of it.
DaveGillie
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166158)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:08 PM
Author:
DaveGillie
Subject: See, that's your whole problem
shortsightedly seeing problems as things like OIL, when it really is what oil gives us. It's energy, not oil. YOU would be the guy in the 1800s crying about our future being bleak because we'd have so many horses and thier refuse. OR a caveman crying about mastadons going extinct. it's food, not the current source. This problem was solved like ALL OTHERS, bye HUMAN BRAINS. Perhaps particular ones that YOU would have not wanted to even EXIST????? sad Fintster, SAD.
think farther ahead and distill to what is really important, then you're find better answers,
especially in that you're realize that LIFE and humans is all that matters, even as you want to degrade that reality by calling it platitudes.
DaveGillie
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165865)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:17 PM
Author:
Finster
Subject: Life
You're only blind because you refuse to see. Humans are not wealth, they have wealth. It's simple arithmetic. If there are one million square miles of Earth surface and one million humans, each can own, enjoy, and live off of a maximum of one square mile. Make that ten million people and each is limited to one tenth square mile. Get it?
Now it takes a certain amount of space just to provide fresh water, raise food, absorb waste disposal, provide shelter, and room for recreation for one person. The more persons, the less each one has.
Techology has allowed us to stretch our resources further than before, but technology cannot make more space. As each of us loses space, we lose natural wealth and freedom.
Now let's just grant for a moment your contention that we could all live with much less space per person we do now. The big unanswered question is: why would we want to???
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165870)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:41 PM
Author:
DaveGillie
Subject: Technology sure HAS made
much more of the Earth inhabitable!
how else would you explain so many humans living in such otherwise inhospitible lands? Only a few eskimos could handle Alaska and Canada before techonology, not it's MILLIONS. Technology DID therefore make more space, in that it made more space available. Harsh climiates, Oceans and in the future it will be off this planet entirely.
And if we DID want to live with more space, WHY the heck do we CHoOSE to life in such densly populated CITIES?????
DaveGillie with BRIGHT views of the future
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165883)
Date: July 16, 2004 10:21 PM
Author: Vangel
Vesovski
Subject: Wrong cause...
Vangel, did you read my post? I explicitly cited the distribution of population and how those supposedly "underpopulated" areas support those large urban areas.
I do not understand your point. Mines, plantations and farms are usually located in rural areas. And they will continue to meet the needs of our society, which is mainly urban in nature. This is to be expected because once the sanitation infrastructure is built it is more efficient if men live in high density areas.
Millions of acres of oil and gas fields, mines, lakes, forests, and farmland are vital to the support of each of those urban areas - if you don't believe it, then why invest in them?
We will not run out of energy; some forms will only become more expensive and we will have to adjust. I do not fear nature or man's ingenuity but I do fear the idiots who will use the power of government to make things worse.
I invest in commodities at this point in time because the fundamentals have never been better. Please note that the shortages I expect will not come because we are running out of commodities but because there has not been sufficient investment in their production (or the production of substitute products).
The US, as you yourself have pointed out yourself, is not energy self-sufficient. Are you being heard to say it should become still less so by importing more energy consumers? And champion of freedom that you are, how can you argue that it should become still less free by increasing its population density?
The problem is not population density but interference with the economy by the government sector. I have no problem with human ingenuity but I do have a problem with rules and regulations that hamper it in the name of somebody's version of the common good.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165457)
Date: July 17, 2004 12:33 PM
Author:
Finster
Subject: Peel Back One More Layer
Mines, plantations and farm are located by definition in rural areas. The point that you miss is that while most people actually may live in urban areas, that rural space is just as crucial to their continued existence as if they actually lived right on it. That precisely because of those mines, farms, lakes, etc. that are available to produce energy, food, water, and even oxygen - not to mention provide space for landfills, waste disposal, etc.
Try a little thought experiment. Picture a wall built around a typical Iowa county. Nothing can go in or out, water, electricity, food, etc. It would make life difficult, right? Next, try the same thing with New York City. Life would not be merely difficult, but would end in death, within days if not hours. Garbage would be piling up almost immediately, while the stores emptied and the all the power went off. The air would quickly become fatally toxic. It would be a grisly scene.
The point is, and if you are intellectually honest with yourself you'll have to agree, that all that "empty" space in the world is one of the prime reasons that, no matter where you live, you can live at all. The people of the United States have so far been relatively comfortable because of a combination of technological advancement and abundant per capita space and resources. And by golly, we want to keep it that way.
Who is we??? You have boasted of Canada being self-sufficient in energy, but we're talking about US immigration here. And what about this Hubbert's peak you have cited numerous times?
You admit that energy will become more expensive and that we will have to adjust. Exactly what "adjustments"? That's a euphemism for limiting our standards of living, reducing resource consumption per capita or devoting more of our incomes to the basics of living. I, and most other Americans, prefer that the "adjustment" we make is to allow fewer immigrations, limit our population growth, and preserve more resources and space for current Americans and their descendants.
And why do you suppose there is so much government interference? You say you want to get to the root cause, but government usually extends its interference somewhere because a lot of people want it to. People want to preserve the environment, and that's not about to change any time soon. Those mining, drilling, farming, and other resource providing enterprises take up a lot of space. The more people, the more resources you need, the more space must be devoted to these activities. The fact that there is immense popular pressure on the government ought to tell us that, in the first instance, people simply do not want to give up open space. And if the US limits immigration, much more open space can be preserved - without increasingly austere lifestyles.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165683)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:13 PM
Author:
DaveGillie
Do you really have ANY idea how little space it would take to store landfill garbage for a BILLION poeple forever? VERY few square miles, in this country where very little land is used for ANY productive use.
also, Somewhat over 85% of Earths' oxygen comes from our OCEANS.
DaveGillie
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165868)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:21 PM
Author:
Finster
Subject: Productive Use?
You overlook the fact that people don't want all the land put to productive use. You may not care, but most of us can think of better things to do with the Grand Canyon than fill it with garbage.
As for oxygen, if 85% comes from the ocean, that leaves 15% from the land. Again, most of us would not be very happy parting with 15% of our oxygen.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165874)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:16 PM
Author:
DaveGillie
How do you account for the most WEALTHY areas of the world being the most densely populated and vice versa????
DaveGillie
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165869)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:18 PM
Author:
Finster
Subject: Easy
The areas that are the most wealthy can support more people.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165871)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:28 PM
Author:
Vangel Vesovski
The point is, and if you are intellectually honest with yourself you'll have to agree, that all that "empty" space in the world is one of the prime reasons that, no matter where you live, you can live at all. The people of the United States have so far been relatively comfortable because of a combination of technological advancement and abundant per capita space and resources. And by golly, we want to keep it that way.
You are missing the point. Most of the world is about to get a loss less crowded as more and more people leave the rural areas and move into urban centres. This will not have any effect on the amount of available resources. To exploit the resources all you simply need the capital and licensing approval. The amount of empty space is actually irrelevant as anyone who has flown over the empty countryside of central, northern and western China can tell you.
You admit that energy will become more expensive and that we will have to adjust. Exactly what "adjustments"? That's a euphemism for limiting our standards of living, reducing resource consumption per capita or devoting more of our incomes to the basics of living. I, and most other Americans, prefer that the "adjustment" we make is to allow fewer immigrations, limit our population growth, and preserve more resources and space for current Americans and their descendants.
You are missing the point again. Your energy problems would not be as great had governments not prevented the construction of coal and nuclear plants or approved more wind farms or hydroelectric dams. It is very obvious that eventually we will have to stop our wasteful use of petroleum for such inefficient functions as transportation fuel or electricity generation. But that will not be the end of the world and not a huge problem if the market were allowed to work.
I do not understand the saving oil for your domestic population argument. Much of your oil is imported from other nations and it matters little if the user lives in China or the US; it will be used just the same.
And if you want to keep your standard of living you better hope that immigration increases; someone has to pay the promised SS and Medicare benefits because there is no way that your current work force can manage it. In a way you have the same problem as Europe; you have too many people that are eligible to retire over the next few years and too few workers to permit a pay as you go system to stay solvent.
The more people, the more resources you need, the more space must be devoted to these activities. The fact that there is immense popular pressure on the government ought to tell us that, in the first instance, people simply do not want to give up open space. And if the US limits immigration, much more open space can be preserved - without increasingly austere lifestyles.
This is a bad argument. The number of people is not relevant. France has less people than the US but it is even more interventionist than you are. All you need do is start to limit government to the powers that are given it in the Constitution. Until then you will stay on the road to ruin.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165876)
Date: July 17, 2004 09:48 PM
Author:
DaveGillie
I thought our demographics was MUCH better than Europes, in that we may need more young to support the old, it will NOT be NEAR the problem Europe will have. This is one reason I don't see real estate crashing here like some say it may in England and elsewhere.
I agree with you on the number of people argument too, we use LESS resource PER capita than in the past, it is the total use of resource AND how efficiently we can produce it.. NOT how much we use. Which is why Moore and Simon won the bet on long term DECREASEs in resource costs.
DaveGillie
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165887)
Date: July 18, 2004 09:05 AM
Author:
Vangel Vesovski
Your demographic picture is clearly better than that of Europe. Japan is in trouble now. Europe will be in trouble soon. Canada and the US will lag Europe by about five years. But the US has a problem that many other nations do not; it spends a great deal to support its military adventurism. It has a presence in more than 130 countries around the world and does not show any signs of slowing the pace of its meddling. The extra burden that is placed on your taxpayers puts you in a similar position as Europe, which has a much higher social benefit burden.
I expect defaults to be the order of the day. Most of the benefits that were promised by governments will not be there when measured in real terms. I suspect that the elderly will find that they will have to modify their expectations as the purchasing power of their SS payments will be much lower than even the pessimists imagined.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166006)
Date: July 18, 2004 12:18 PM
Author: DaveGillie
Subject: Ever
hear the old joke????
that goes: I'm fat you're ugly I can diet".???
We do waste massive amounts of money thru military mis-adventures. But we CAN change, Europe CAN'T change unless they practice massive euthanasia.
I'm optimistic that our system is flexible enough to get us thru future demographic problems.
DaveGillie
course, those anti-immigration wackos don't help
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166083)
Date: July 18, 2004 07:41 AM
Author:
Finster
Subject: Defining The Point
No Vangel, the point is that there is simply an inescapable inverse relationship between population density and natural resources available per person. Image one person occupying the entire land mass of North America. This means that this one person is extremely wealthy in terms of natural resources. Now go to the oppostite extreme. Put ten billion people there. Their living standards are going to be extremely austere in terms of natural resource availability.
This is a simple mathematical relationship and is beyond reasonable debate.
Next, consider the issue of basic liberty. Again, our population of one has zero government by definition. As you add people, the pressure for increase cooperation and socialization increases. Ten billion people occupying the same space are simply going to be much more regimented than ten, ten thousand, or ten million.
Practical examples abound. Let's list four states - New York, California, Wyoming and Alaska. First, put each of these states on a scale of one to ten for population density. Next, put them on a scale of one to ten for socialism.
Of course, the degree of liberty is not only a function of population density, but that does not exclude population density as one of the main determinants. If you are a lover of liberty you owe it to yourself to get your arms around this basic concept, because the more people you pack into a given amount of space, the harder it is going to be fight the erosion of liberty that puts us on the road to ruin.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165984)
Date: July 18, 2004 09:20 AM
Author:
Vangel Vesovski
No Vangel, the point is that there is simply an inescapable inverse relationship between population density and natural resources available per person.
I have heard this before and think that you have yet to realize that Julian Simon won his bet. Do I expect commodity prices to go up? You bet I do. But the reason prices will rise is because of a lack of investment during a two decade bear market in commodities, not because we are running out of iron, copper, zinc, nickel or coal due to population growth. And in cases where we are unable to produce as much of certain commodities at low enough prices the market will find substitutes. I recall that our ancestors switched from whale oil to kerosene when whales became scarce and prices rose to levels that encouraged the production of alternatives.
Put ten billion people there. Their living standards are going to be extremely austere in terms of natural resource availability.
The studies I have looked at project that the global population will stabilize around 11 billion so your 10 billion people living in North America is an exercise in abusrdity. The point is that history shows that an increased standard of living usually leads to an increase in population density.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166011)
Date: July 18, 2004 09:45 AM
Author: Finster
Subject: Julian
Simon
What was the population when it was determined that "Julian Simon won his bet"? And who made this determination?
Do you realize what ridiculous conclusions that kind of logic can lead to? Here's one: Americans have run up more debt than at any time in world history, and nothing bad has happened yet and we are still quite prosperous. Therefore, there is no danger in running up massive debt, and maybe it's even a good thing.
My example of ten billion people living in North America is of course an exaggeration. But it's designed to illustrate a point - that there is an inverse relationship between population density and natural resources wealth per capita. If I use extreme figures, it's only because the effect is more subtle in between and you apparently fail to appreciate the relationship as long as it's not appallingly obvious. Yet it applies across the entire spectrum of population density just as sure as any mathematical equation you can imagine.
And so far, for all of your arguments, you have yet to refute that mathematical relationship. I know why, too.
It is irrefutable.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166020)
Date: July 18, 2004 12:24 PM
Author: Mark Grant
"there is an inverse relationship between population density and natural resources wealth per capita"
But as technology changes, the requirements for resources change. How many people, for example, would have believed you a hundred years ago if you'd told them that one of the most valuable items today would be, essentially, ultra-pure sand (i.e. the silicon wafers used for high-performance chips)?
Equally, it's quite possible that a century from now the most important natural resource will be carbon for nanotech: there's an awful lot of carbon on this planet. Of course we'll also probably be off the planet by then, when all the restrictions on resources will radically change.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166086)
Date: July 18, 2004 02:20 PM
Author: Finster
Subject:
Valuable Resources
I can't agree that the resources and commodities we value changes that much. Gold is one example, oil another, of things that are rising in price. Silicon chips, I believe, have been declining in price for years.
These is one pure sand that continues to become increasingly precious. And that's any on a nice waterfront, especially on the ocean. As population increases, this resource remains constant, making it so that an ever-decreasing proportion of population can enjoy it.
Every common man will be able to have cool electronic gadgetry, but only the very wealthy will enjoy a beautiful mountain or ocean view. Without a doubt it will be the latter that is most prized.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166113)
Date: July 18, 2004 04:48 PM
Author: DaveGillie
Subject:
What's your time frame????
I do agree that resources we value DO change, and often by much. Look at your own example, oil & silican was worthless for 99.99% of human exisitance. Gold is a rare example, however, modern technology makes fake gold look good enough to fool most any of our ancestors.
Do you really want a list of resources thatused to be valuable but are now basically worhtless???? Expand your time frame and see whale oil, mastadon meat and tusks, most wild animal furs, candles, oh you get the idea. We find and MAKE much replacements.
And the people who get to enjoy ocean views etc is VERY much greater now than at anytime in human history, thanks to our wealth. More visit/vacation, and even the poorest human can at least see it via TV etc.
I'ts the POOR PAST when FEW humans could share EMPTY beaches that a MUCH smaller percent could do and afforc visiting them. Sheesh, that seems SO obvious, but I know you'll want some mathematical formula to prove it.
DaveGillie
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166164)
Date: July 18, 2004 04:56 PM
Author: Vangel Vesovski
Subject:
Julian Simon
What was the population when it was determined that "Julian Simon won his bet"? And who made this determination?
Julian Simon was tired of the doom and gloom writings of the Club of Rome and clowns like Paul Ehrlich. The pessimists thought that the end of the world as we knew it was near and that prices of commodities would be driven much higher by the increase in population. Simon thought that human ingenuity would ensure that we would have more production and that prices would decline.
In 1980 Simon bet Ehrlich that the market price of a quantity of any five metals he chose would decline when adjusting for inflation over the next decade. If the metals became scarcer and their price increased, Ehrlich would win. If, the metals became less scarce and the prices of the metals fell after adjusting for inflation Simon would win.
Ehrlich agreed and chose nickel, chrome, tungsten, copper and tin. By 1990 every metal chosen by Ehrlich fell in price with the lowest decline being seen in nickel (around 4%) and the highest in tin (around a 70% drop). The fact that the population of the earth increased from 1980 to 1990 did not make all that much of a difference; what mattered is not population but the amount of investment made in the commodity sector to meet needs.
You are now making the same argument that Ehrlich has made over the last 30 years. You keep arguing that population makes a great difference because there is a limit to the amount of commodities that can be produced. But many of us argue that the problem we face has little to do with population and a lot to do with interference with the market's ability to allocate scarce resources to their most efficient use. Although I am an investor in energy, the forestry sector, base and precious metals I have no illusion of a global scarcity of exploitable resource. There is plenty of coal, uranium nickel, tin, zinc, lead, copper, iron and gold on this planet to meet our needs for centuries. The reason that prices will go up is that the sector does not attract sufficient capital. When the capital flows into the sector and governments allow resources to be developed the prices will fall again. By that time I will be heading for the exit, but not because of anything to do with demographics; other factors are far more important.
And so far, for all of your arguments, you have yet to refute that mathematical relationship. I know why, too.
The mathematical relationship is only irrefutable when you get to absurd values. If you are trying to predict a population of 50 billion than one can make an argument that we would have problems. But a population of 50 billion is absurd and your math does not work well when we get closer to reality. Like I said, you are grasping at straws because you oppose immigration and do not want to sound like some of the rednecks on this board.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166166)
Date: July 16, 2004 11:51 PM
Author: Lucius
Foster
Subject: Pluses or Minuses they are mostly behind
us.
Dear Sir Finster,
I am sorry you are feeling frustrated but each age of mankind goes thru the same trip. One group of my ancestors arrived here as bond servants to a bunch of really uptight religious fanatics. Being a Bond Servant in those days meant that for seven years you got the hell worked out of you and your rewards were table scraps and a semi new suit of clothes once a year. Shoes were optional. But this refugee from the slums of London with teeth to match got smart. He learned the Indian Dialect, checked out their food supplies, picked up a few skills from the natives. I mean his life was really down. Try living with people who invented the bundling board which everytime you lucked out this board would drop down the middle of the bed. Boys one side, girls the other. Sooo he got smart, after all he had been stealing handkerchiefs all over London, so he hung out with the local indigenous and damn, a girl friend, good food and a look at a great country. At the end of seven years he and his true love left and went up to Rhode Island where all the swingers hung out.
So you see each time period has its little problems and you have to adjust. Oh I supose you could buy the Malthus trip and wait for the collapse of the Club at Rome to show you the error of your ways. But, damn it man. It is a fun time. these cultures are kicky. Also wrapped up in them are some very interesting survival tips.
My last, of many daughters is in a Magnet High School. It is loaded with just about every racial ethnic mix you can think of. I have been on the phone twice today cause nobody speaks Albanian (nor wants to) and I do. Seems a mother is annoyed cause the summer school is so short she wants the kid to be there all day. Winter and Summer work work work. So I explain to her that summer school is sort of an extra little thing to help out. "Oh," she says, "This is like the low people in the North of Albania near Elbasan. They are like that. Do nothing, live with sheep. No work in the winter, just lay arounds." I agree with her and point out that things are similar here only we turn them around.
My point Finster, relax lots to learn from these persons. They will inrich us all. Sorry you don't like Indian Food. Try Pakistani food, slightly different. Yes the Maggot can be eaten you pulp them and sauce the hell out of the mix. Then you wrap them in a green leaf and steam them. Once I spent two weeks in a Tiger Cage. Very happy to get them. Serve them like I do to your mother in law. Its a fun thing. If she only knew. Makes fun of my Chinese, says I talk thru my ears. Just trying to get the tones right! She has three dialects and sneers at all us blue eyed freeks.
Cheers Lucius a blue eyed freek
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165501)
Date: July 16, 2004 01:02 PM
Author: The Reaper !
Subject: DaveGillie & Lots Of Land !
Dave we might have a lot of land , but consider this for a moment , two years ago the U.S. almost ran out of natural gas , and out west they are presently running very low on water . Just because we have open land , does not mean we have the resources to build new cities upon them . Our government has let in over 30 million immigrants and have let nearly another 30 million sneak in . and nobody has sat down and figured out how to supply these immigrants with what they will need and take from the system . Just take a look at your utility bills this year , and just wait , your water and sewer bills are also about to explode . It's to late now , just brace yourself for the worst , they are here and there ain't no going back . It's going to get real expensive dude ! The Reaper !
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165265)
Date: July 16, 2004 03:10 PM
Author: Mark Grant
"out west they are presently running very low on water"
A lot of which is because it's diverted and sold to farmers at an insanely low price so they can grow rice in the desert or other equally stupid crops. Stop doing that, and there would be far fewer problems with water supplies.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165294)
Date: July 16, 2004 10:09 PM
Author: DaveGillie
Subject: Resource allocation
is a Govt created problem, NOT market. these Great Lakes could solve that problem fast, but it's illegal.
Remember, water quantity on this Earth does NOT change year to year. Just use it right.
DaveGillie
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165454)
Date: July 16, 2004 10:25 PM
Author: Vangel
Vesovski
out west they are presently running very low on water
What do you expect when the government is subsidizing rice farmers by giving them water at below market prices? And the rise in prices for many goods and services is caused by government interference with the economy and control of the money supply, not because we have too many people. And weren't you the guy that was arguing for deflation a few months ago?
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165460)
Date: July 18, 2004 03:23 PM
Author: William C.
Hampton
Invest in water!! There probably will not be a shortage of plain water, but drinkable water is another story! There is a bit of truth from all posts. In Michigan, the state government just shut down a water-bottling plant in Osceola county that was pumping millions of gallons of water out of the aquifier. Currently many western states are suffering drought, and would love to divert water from the Great Lakes. I see states fighting over water, just as countries fight over oil! I do not have much faith in goverment whether it is the IMF, U.S. but I do think if the goal was to establish clean water, availability of food and shelter in all countries, there would be far less need for immigration of people!
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166132)
Date: July 18, 2004 04:36 PM
Author: DaveGillie
Subject: Water is hard to invest in directly,
however that is one of my criteria for investing in CMS, long term IRA. It's the utility (gas, elect. not water> that serves much of Michigan.
I fear the Great Lakes states will hog, hoard the majority of Great Lakes, want it and you have to come here or live or do business here.
I think the water plant will re-open soon. why didn't STATES fight over oil???
DaveGillie
still thinking the Earth had very much water, just needs tech to use it, which we don't need yet, so we don't have much of yet. Water is a bargain.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166155)
Date: July 17, 2004 12:27 AM
Author: Lucius Foster
Subject: Educator, he who walks the highway of life. Giver of
Knowledge
Eleuthero, Now now. Why should it be any different? What you see is not so strange. You are a teacher go look at Rome and see in its declining days who ran the joint and what was the level of taste? Much less Judgement. I mean when a Counsel corners the grain market and then jumps the price and gets filthy rich. My god sounds like normalacy. When the leading comic of the time is famous for his farts! Come on now give me a break.
The answer is simple, you are a teacher. It is not your job to pass judgement on the little people who gather in your classrooms. Your job is to dig into them and teach. You have chosen a great and noble profession. Underpaid and those in administration are making the big saleries and most of them cannot pick their noses with flair much less class. You have chosen a tough road. But you chose it now damn it man. Do it. Your reward? Every now and then you are instructing away and suddenly you see this light go on in some kids eye. He got it! Greatest pleasure in the world. Don't let the little clerks playing games down at the Board of Education Building prevent that from happening.
You know something, I envy you. There is real purpose in your life. Sometimes I look around and get very discouraged cause I am not always at cause. Money intrudes, games are played and many times no great purpose. Please do not stop you are on the high road of life.
Just my view from the ditch that lines your road.
Lucius
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165506)
Date: July 17, 2004 04:22 AM
Author: Eleuthero
Subject: There are always special students.
No matter how bad the classes get ON AVERAGE, there are always a few special students in every class. I make a point of always letting those people know, and even those with lesser gifts but excellent character, that they put a smile on my face and keep my job worthwhile.
Don't worry, Lucius. In the long run I've been a hard man to take down because I realize that just as markets are cyclical, so are cycles of human enlightenment and dissolution. We just happen to be in rather a down cycle at the moment but nature is always self-correcting.
Indeed, teaching does have a lot of "psychological income". That is the upside of the job. Three months off in the summer ain't too shabby either :-)
E.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165533)
Date: July 17, 2004 12:59 AM
Author: Lucius Foster
Subject: The Magnet Program
Here in LaLa land we have a system of Magnet Schools which were originaly designed to mix the ethnic strains of our school age children. The deal was that special interests like Math and Science or Dramatic Arts etc . would become targets for those students who had an interest.
Ok the Mix is done the whole area is really mixed. Now what is happening is that the Magnets are now true Magnets, the quality of education so much better that people are really trying to get their kids in. Of course they must all pass an intelligence test and as far as I can discover it seems to cut at about 125, with a lot of the 135's and above now in attendence. Lots of college level courses for which they get a college credit. You carry that forward with you to the University of your choice. The scholastic level in these schools is a pleasure to see. The racial mix is complete. You name it they have it. The fun thing is to hear the students talk about their teachers. Have they got them pegged. The teacher who is only a chapter ahead of his class. The kids trying not to embarass the teacher cause he is off page and text. Fun fun.
I have a 15 year old daughter and her first year she makes Varsity Swim team and has straight A's and most of her classes are college level. The competition is so good that she is afraid she might not be good enough to get into UC Berkeley. Now that tells you something. I love it. So much better then my time. They just sent you to UCLA for schooling and you did one class a day at high school. Crummy solution.
This would be a fun system to teach in and almost all of the teachers I have met love the challenge and enjoy the kids.
Cheers Lucius
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165512)
Date: July 16, 2004 06:32 PM
Author: Ronald Swaren
Subject: Western drought
If the present dry spell in the Southwest continues, which according to climatologists is normal weather, we will all find out just how overpopulated the US is, already. Oh well, at least my house price will continue to climb with the drought refugees relocating.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165353)
Date: July 16, 2004 11:02 PM
Author: Lucius Foster
Subject: Water Water everywhere but not a drop to Drink.
Some years ago newly returned from a visit to the Middle East I was in Santa Barbara and they were having a restriction on any more residential development. No it was not a matter of good taste in architecture but a shortage of water.
Any how imbued with the burning desire to solve a problem, oh yes, I owned a small cluster of lots whose value was nada if no building were allowed. Anyway I got on the phone and called Israel and in due time plans and costs arrived for the erection of a water reclaim plant that would convert seawater to drinking water. Not too large a plan and the price of drinking water would go up but not to the level that you might want to date a camel. So after lots of presentation preperation I made the pitch.
Santa Barbara planners said they would get back to me and that was the end. We even made the offer to build the plant at cost and then supply them with water on a cost plus basis subject to yearly review. I mean I did everything but date the lady in charge who resembled a large horse with teeth and ears to match. We were given a final no and went about our lawful occasions which in my case consisted in buying stock in Arrowhead Corp a large supplier of bottled water.
That of course is the answer to our present problem and the installation of Gray Water Systems for those who like to grow green things and enjoy a weekend of mowing.
The Tech is present to solve most of the Wests problems and without stealing from poor Mexico who is now getting a trickle of brownish bottom water from the mighty Colorado. Of course Mexico in Baja have their first pilot seawater to drinking water plant up and working. Really annoying I can forgive them what they did to the French Army at Pueblo but really, the first conversion plant to supply water. Now thats too much. I shall tell the Coyotes to double the cost.
Cheers Lucius
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165476)
Date: July 17, 2004 04:20 AM
Author: James Hyland
Subject: It's the watershed that counts
"without stealing from poor Mexico who is now getting a trickle of brownish bottom water from the mighty Colorado"
I would guesstimate the proportion of the Colorado originating as rain falling in Mexico to be perhaps one thousandth of one percent.
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165532)
Date: July 18, 2004 02:54 AM
Author: Ronald Swaren
Subject: Stealing water
Hey James, I didn't steal the Columbia R. My government did!
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165958)
Date: July 18, 2004 03:33 AM
Author: James Hyland
Subject: My point is:
The Colorado wasn't stolen! Except maybe from 'nature.'
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=165966)
Date: July 18, 2004 02:20 PM
Author: Ronald
Swaren
Subject: Thanks any way, eh?
Just kidding Jim. We appreciate any natural resources you Canadians want to send us. (Well, not Celine Dion!) Can your Vancouverite friends send down some wacky tobacky?
(http://65.88.90.51/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=3&Message_ID=166114)