Thats what analysts are saying about the Arab Spring, at least before Syria started getting all the attention. It wasn't that people across the middle east wanted democracy or to get rid of the dictator, it was the economic stress of the recession. Food prices especially, I think they said, played a big role in Egypt.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
all that leads to essentially is a geopolitical situation in which all the rich, having-benefited nations shut their doors and enjoy a life of luxury, whilst the rest of the globe are expected to sit as second-rate citizens, stitching clothes and growing food. that is not an arrangement or power-balance that will last long, without major upheaval.
ya i just posted that about 8 posts ago. it's just a study/theory from an MIT-affiliated think-tank.
ironically the massive increase in food prices, hypothetically leading towards those revolts... was because of a failure of the corn-crop in the US mid-west.
ironically the massive increase in food prices, hypothetically leading towards those revolts... was because of a failure of the corn-crop in the US mid-west.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-29 06:20:19)
Depends if those 2nd-3rd generations are cutting heads off, planting bombs or generally not assimilating too well.Spearhead wrote:
All it takes is 2 or 3 generations for those who are immigrants and completely foreign to become adapted to whatever country they move to. The nation state as a whole benefits. Even if those people do not reach oligarch status the cultural value they create is enormous. I think the anti-immigrant people deeply underestimate the benefits of having them. For one thing, diplomatic status. And that comes with the perks of being able to spy on whoever you want. Thousands of people with families in two different countries... assuming they are well adjusted and are patriotic, goes a long way in terms ofbilateral influence.
Fuck Israel
So I guess all those business migrants (who bring AT LEAST 5 million aussie) and skilled migrants don't count right? Australia just lets anybody in. Yeah we should bring back white australia policy and let all the white trash with no skills in vs the asian with a trade skill. good logic there dilderp.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm not making the argument that unproductive members of the economy need to be culled, I'm saying we need to figure out how to run economies when a large proportion of people are unproductive. not go into a Malthusian death-spiral of overpopulation simply because we can't face facts.
how many 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants to western countries are "cutting heads off" or "planting bombs"?Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends if those 2nd-3rd generations are cutting heads off, planting bombs or generally not assimilating too well.Spearhead wrote:
All it takes is 2 or 3 generations for those who are immigrants and completely foreign to become adapted to whatever country they move to. The nation state as a whole benefits. Even if those people do not reach oligarch status the cultural value they create is enormous. I think the anti-immigrant people deeply underestimate the benefits of having them. For one thing, diplomatic status. And that comes with the perks of being able to spy on whoever you want. Thousands of people with families in two different countries... assuming they are well adjusted and are patriotic, goes a long way in terms ofbilateral influence.
are you really this deluded about the 'threat' posed by multiculturalism? regressive little englander arguments about the loss of some imagined 'olde england' i can almost sympathize with - even if the england imagined never actually existed, or if it did, it was never that romantically ideal, anyway - but to suggest that multiculturalism is actually leading to violence and misery is another matter altogether. quite divorced from reality. even if 'multiculturalism' is starting to seem more like 'tolerance and plurality', with imperfect "assimilation", rather living side-by-side in adjoining neighborhoods than in a giant stew... i don't see the problem with that. it doesn't necessarily mean disharmony.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-29 06:47:00)
it's funny how violent crime for western countries have plummeted yet somehow its the immigrants fault for it being high.
dilbert is offended that asians don't assimilate into his 'local' white-aussie culture, even though his only involvement in 'culture' is consuming homogeneous, internationalized lady gaga music, driving japanese cars around, and shooting american guns dilbert is clearly a patron of australian culture.
Answer : Probably near zeroUzique The Lesser wrote:
how many 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants to western countries are "cutting heads off" or "planting bombs"?
i guess the fact we've had a highly-publicized, possibly race/religion-based stabbing in the UK recently means that bigots can now recast the entire history of multicultural britain as one of violent beheadings and frequent islamic assassinations
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-29 07:57:26)
You know what would remove the threat of aging populations? Getting rid of ponzi scheme retirement benefits and lowering income tax rates so people are better able to save for themselves. Do this and you remove dependence on population growth.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
wat. I remeber you said something about how awesome australia's superannuation is. Income tax is a lot lower than the US and there's lots of middle class welfare going on (make under 50k a year collect benefits if you have kids).Jay wrote:
You know what would remove the threat of aging populations? Getting rid of ponzi scheme retirement benefits and lowering income tax rates so people are better able to save for themselves. Do this and you remove dependence on population growth.
come on jay, you can do better. you know people just dont want to have as many kids anymore.
Superannuation is just a national 401k, it's dependent on the markets. It wouldn't be necessary if inflation weren't a goal of our national governments. People could just park their money in a savings account and let it accrue interest if inflation was flat. Governments don't want people to save though, they want them to spend spend spend and build up that GDP, even if its built on stealing from tomorrow via debt.Cybargs wrote:
wat. I remeber you said something about how awesome australia's superannuation is. Income tax is a lot lower than the US and there's lots of middle class welfare going on (make under 50k a year collect benefits if you have kids).Jay wrote:
You know what would remove the threat of aging populations? Getting rid of ponzi scheme retirement benefits and lowering income tax rates so people are better able to save for themselves. Do this and you remove dependence on population growth.
come on jay, you can do better. you know people just dont want to have as many kids anymore.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And what has that got to do with having kids? surely youre not gonna argue that central banking an monetary policy has an effect on having kids do you?Jay wrote:
Superannuation is just a national 401k, it's dependent on the markets. It wouldn't be necessary if inflation weren't a goal of our national governments. People could just park their money in a savings account and let it accrue interest if inflation was flat. Governments don't want people to save though, they want them to spend spend spend and build up that GDP, even if its built on stealing from tomorrow via debt.Cybargs wrote:
wat. I remeber you said something about how awesome australia's superannuation is. Income tax is a lot lower than the US and there's lots of middle class welfare going on (make under 50k a year collect benefits if you have kids).Jay wrote:
You know what would remove the threat of aging populations? Getting rid of ponzi scheme retirement benefits and lowering income tax rates so people are better able to save for themselves. Do this and you remove dependence on population growth.
come on jay, you can do better. you know people just dont want to have as many kids anymore.
Read the two posts I wrote again.Cybargs wrote:
And what has that got to do with having kids? surely youre not gonna argue that central banking an monetary policy has an effect on having kids do you?Jay wrote:
Superannuation is just a national 401k, it's dependent on the markets. It wouldn't be necessary if inflation weren't a goal of our national governments. People could just park their money in a savings account and let it accrue interest if inflation was flat. Governments don't want people to save though, they want them to spend spend spend and build up that GDP, even if its built on stealing from tomorrow via debt.Cybargs wrote:
wat. I remeber you said something about how awesome australia's superannuation is. Income tax is a lot lower than the US and there's lots of middle class welfare going on (make under 50k a year collect benefits if you have kids).
come on jay, you can do better. you know people just dont want to have as many kids anymore.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
aging population for Australia is more of a labour force issue than people having enough money to retire or government paying people's pensions.
They are inextricably linked. When you have an aging population, your tax base shrinks and you end up with pensioners being supported by less and less taxpayers each. This causes debt or tax rates to go up. This is why population growth rates are watched so closely, and the entire point of this conversation.Cybargs wrote:
aging population for Australia is more of a labour force issue than people having enough money to retire or government paying people's pensions.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's not just tax base though, your overall GDP output shrinks as well. I find that a larger concern than having a smaller tax base.Jay wrote:
They are inextricably linked. When you have an aging population, your tax base shrinks and you end up with pensioners being supported by less and less taxpayers each. This causes debt or tax rates to go up. This is why population growth rates are watched so closely, and the entire point of this conversation.Cybargs wrote:
aging population for Australia is more of a labour force issue than people having enough money to retire or government paying people's pensions.
Not necessarily. There are many tasks that can be automated or streamlined to at least maintain GDP output. If overall GDP shrinks, so what? You're looking at higher GDP-per-capita for those that are working, which is all that really matters. Unfunded pension liabilities, social security, and medicare are absolutely going to crush my generation and my childrens' generation here in America. We're going to have fewer and fewer people paying into the system and many more people drawing from it. If you think our debt is bad now, look at it again in 25 years. Debt is ultimately a greater drag on economic output than anything else.Cybargs wrote:
It's not just tax base though, your overall GDP output shrinks as well. I find that a larger concern than having a smaller tax base.Jay wrote:
They are inextricably linked. When you have an aging population, your tax base shrinks and you end up with pensioners being supported by less and less taxpayers each. This causes debt or tax rates to go up. This is why population growth rates are watched so closely, and the entire point of this conversation.Cybargs wrote:
aging population for Australia is more of a labour force issue than people having enough money to retire or government paying people's pensions.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I see, so if I choose to live in a prosperous, white anglo-saxon country I'm a white, bigoted racist - which is bad.Cybargs wrote:
get the fuck out dilbert you refo. fuck off where you came from.
But if you choose not to live amongst asians and move to a nice white country that makes you a dynamic little yellow entreprenerd - which is good?
What was wrong with asians and Asia? Why Australia?
Fuck Israel
Its not clear to me why politicians have plumped for MBA-centric measurables like GDP. GDP is a bogus figure.Jay wrote:
Superannuation is just a national 401k, it's dependent on the markets. It wouldn't be necessary if inflation weren't a goal of our national governments. People could just park their money in a savings account and let it accrue interest if inflation was flat. Governments don't want people to save though, they want them to spend spend spend and build up that GDP, even if its built on stealing from tomorrow via debt.Cybargs wrote:
wat. I remeber you said something about how awesome australia's superannuation is. Income tax is a lot lower than the US and there's lots of middle class welfare going on (make under 50k a year collect benefits if you have kids).Jay wrote:
You know what would remove the threat of aging populations? Getting rid of ponzi scheme retirement benefits and lowering income tax rates so people are better able to save for themselves. Do this and you remove dependence on population growth.
come on jay, you can do better. you know people just dont want to have as many kids anymore.
If they can increase GDP by 5% through a population increase of 10% they are pleased with themselves, when in fact the country has gone backwards when you look at GDP/capita or liabilities.
Would I get raise if I doubled production by 50% through doubling the workforce? No, I'd be fired on the spot if I suggested it, and yet politicians slap themselves on the back for foisting increased congestion and fewer resources on us.
Fuck Israel
You're more of a migrant than most of the Asians that I know, who were born and raised in Australia. Whats wrong with Brits with Britain? Why Australia? Some dumb questions you're asking dilderp.Dilbert_X wrote:
I see, so if I choose to live in a prosperous, white anglo-saxon country I'm a white, bigoted racist - which is bad.Cybargs wrote:
get the fuck out dilbert you refo. fuck off where you came from.
But if you choose not to live amongst asians and move to a nice white country that makes you a dynamic little yellow entreprenerd - which is good?
What was wrong with asians and Asia? Why Australia?
Britain is full of bloody immigrants, derp.
Now answer the question, why do you prefer a white country to Asia?
Now answer the question, why do you prefer a white country to Asia?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-30 03:48:58)
Fuck Israel
this is the part where he's going to tell you that whites are inherently and genetically better than asians, because we have driven a 300-year lead above most asian countries and industrialized/democratized quicker, and you can measure inbred advantage in the space of centuries, trust me, dilbert knows, he did an engineering degree, that's practically biology, only a few modules away...Dilbert_X wrote:
Britain is full of bloody immigrants, derp.
Now answer the question, why do you prefer a white country to Asia?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-30 03:52:36)
master race not so master anymore with rising yellow power.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
this is the part where he's going to tell you that whites are inherently and genetically better than asians, because we have driven a 300-year lead above most asian countries and industrialized/democratized quicker, and you can measure inbred advantage in the space of centuries, trust me, dilbert knows, he did an engineering degree, that's practically biology, only a few modules away...Dilbert_X wrote:
Britain is full of bloody immigrants, derp.
Now answer the question, why do you prefer a white country to Asia?
dilderp my families been in aussieland for 9 generations. if anyone can bitch about immigrants, it shouldn't be a recent migrant themselves. kinda ironic.
9 generations? are you from aboriginal stock or something? wasn't australia only colonized by non-native peoples at the end of the 18th century? 9 generations? what was the average lifespan? 35?