Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sneakey pete]

You realize even in itself thats a bad thing, right? If you set aside the xenophobia, you'll find most economists find immigration to be a positive thing for an economy. So its not really in the US' interest to reduce that incentive.

You do realise that a growth based economy has to fail eventually, don't you? most economists don't seem to, or don't care (as they might be long dead by the time it happens)

[Renault]

You realize even in itself thats a bad thing, right? If you set aside the xenophobia, you'll find most economists find immigration to be a positive thing for an economy. So its not really in the US' interest to reduce that incentive.

You do realise that a growth based economy has to fail eventually, don't you? most economists don't seem to, or don't care (as they might be long dead by the time it happens)

Citation needed.

 Thats probably the least-accurate thing I've ever heard all night. First, no. They don't, and people have been looking for evidence of that exact claim for centuries. Good luck finding compelling evidence for it.
In fact, does the fact that economists, the people who specifically study this issue, disagree with you seem even remotely odd to you? Look, we all know you're a smart guy, but when you pit yourself against basically the entirety of economic theory, maybe you're letting your ego get a little out of control.
And Jesus, you think the fact they'll be dead "when it happens" colors their views? I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Do astronomers sort of shrug when they discover new stellar bodies because they'll be dead when we can ever use that knowledge?
In short, no. No, no, no, no. Economic growth has bad consequences and it has good consequences, but it certainly is not structurally insolvent in any way. You're misinterpreting whatever you've read--I'm sure you're basing this off of something, however maimed it's message has been.
And even if that was true, it has nothing to do with immigration because immigrants dont affect the structure of the economy, which is what you're referring to.

[Josephus]

Maybe he's looking at the whole "cyclical recession" thing. I wouldn't know, I'm an historian, not an economist.

[Renault]

I assumed either that or Malthusian economics. Either way he completely missed the point. Its not an issue of growth but of consumption, and the two are entirely different.

[Josephus]

I actually don't see how Malthus' ideas could be relevant here, since this discussion is about immigration, unless we're also talking about GOP opposition to welfare.

[Renault]

Exactly. It's not. But I can see where he'd work it into the idea of a "growth-based economy," one that depends on constantly-expanding resource consumption. It's improperly wielded, though. I guess I shouldn't dig too deep into it, though, without knowing more of what he meant. I don't want to be rude.

[sneakey pete]

Look, we all know you're a smart guy, but when you pit yourself against basically the entirety of economic theory, maybe you're letting your ego get a little out of control.

What the shit are you on about? none of you should know me. for all you know i could be a moron.

Maybe I didn't word my post correctly, but does it not seem odd to you that, if population growth drives an economy, that that economy will fail when there is no more room for population growth? That's all i'm trying to say. Maybe I misunderstand growth based economy (but to me it means, more people buying more services. implying that population growth is nessecary), and should just call it population growth instead. Infact, lets do that

"do you realise that eventually we'll run out of space. Immigration might be good in the short term, but it might mean you run out of space quicker in the long term"

[ChairmanPoo]

Citation needed.

 Thats probably the least-accurate thing I've ever heard all night. First, no. They don't, and people have been looking for evidence of that exact claim for centuries. Good luck finding compelling evidence for it.
In fact, does the fact that economists, the people who specifically study this issue, disagree with you seem even remotely odd to you? Look, we all know you're a smart guy, but when you pit yourself against basically the entirety of economic theory, maybe you're letting your ego get a little out of control.
And Jesus, you think the fact they'll be dead "when it happens" colors their views? I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Do astronomers sort of shrug when they discover new stellar bodies because they'll be dead when we can ever use that knowledge?
In short, no. No, no, no, no. Economic growth has bad consequences and it has good consequences, but it certainly is not structurally insolvent in any way. You're misinterpreting whatever you've read--I'm sure you're basing this off of something, however maimed it's message has been.
And even if that was true, it has nothing to do with immigration because immigrants dont affect the structure of the economy, which is what you're referring to.

Renault, on this issue, which has come forward several times in this forum, you keep stating that economists "are the experts in the matter", while openly disregarding other relevant disciplines. I don't question your formation in economics, but don't you think you should do a better job at pointing out why you are right and the sociologists/political economists/whatnot in question are wrong (in this particular issue, or in general), instead of making a blanket appeal to authority?

[Funk]

dam u.s. and the part of it that whants to shut its self away.

this same part made you late for both ww1 and ww2

[Creamcorn]

I'm starting to have a lot of fun watching this topic.

[Cthulhu]

dam u.s. and the part of it that whants to shut its self away.

this same part made you late for both ww1 and ww2

If we intervene we're meddling world-police, if we don't we're selfish isolationists.

:c  u make me sad

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm starting to think everything relating to America is a lose-lose situation. No one likes any president or any policy we have, including us.

[Sergius]

I'm sure there's a middle ground between saying "fuck the world" and cut off all ties, and dropping thousands of marines to burn oil wells and depose rulers...

[Jreengus]

dam u.s. and the part of it that whants to shut its self away.

this same part made you late for both ww1 and ww2

If we intervene we're meddling world-police, if we don't we're selfish isolationists.

:c  u make me sad

Well how are we supposed to have fun without bashing you Americans?

[Renault]

Look, we all know you're a smart guy, but when you pit yourself against basically the entirety of economic theory, maybe you're letting your ego get a little out of control.

What the shit are you on about? none of you should know me. for all you know i could be a moron.

Maybe I didn't word my post correctly, but does it not seem odd to you that, if population growth drives an economy, that that economy will fail when there is no more room for population growth? That's all i'm trying to say. Maybe I misunderstand growth based economy (but to me it means, more people buying more services. implying that population growth is nessecary), and should just call it population growth instead. Infact, lets do that

"do you realise that eventually we'll run out of space. Immigration might be good in the short term, but it might mean you run out of space quicker in the long term"

Based on your other posts on other topics, you seem like a pretty smart guy. If not, please accept my apologies for assuming. I didn't mean to offend you.
As for the population growth, yeah, thats Malthus speaking. And you're quite right, there is a theoretical carrying capacity for population. So if our economy depended on immigration, I'd agree. Its just that our economy doesnt require immigration, its just a useful boost to have for now. In the near future, perhaps we will reach the point where we can't support more people, I agree. But theres a difference between that and having the economy depend on immigration.

And for the Chairman, thats a completely valid request. Here its a two-part reason. First, I don't see how its relevant to this issue, unless sociologists have a silently-held formula for carrying capacity economists don't know, and second, I think when it comes to issues of hard economics economic models are more potent. Naturally, I wouldn't try to apply economic theory to issues of agency and interaction,  or social stratification, or any of the areas where sociologists tend to excel. It's not that I think they're "wrong" per se, its just that it seems economics is the best lens to view issues of hard economics through, i.e. sustainability models. If sociology presents compelling evidence otherwise that I'm unaware of, naturally I'd be intrigued to see it. I'm not a zealot and I don't really care for politics or ideology. I just argue the facts as I know them.