BF2S Forums More Rich Americans Renounce U.S. Citizenship for Lower Taxes

Dilbert_X wrote:

Less Malthus more Ming the Merciless.

Socialism inevitably leads to population control, its what no-one wants to talk about.

Capitalism leads to population control through poverty, which apparently everyone likes.....

ORLY?

Look at the poor in the USSR (or Cuba).

Compare to the poor in the US.

Both in number and severity of "poor".

You're confusing wealth disparity with comparative poverty (between socioeconomic models).

Varegg wrote:

USSR or Cuba are communism not socialism FEOS ... I think he refers to socialism as in the current European model ... not sure though ...

The current European model isn't true socialism, it's mixed capitalism/socialism (as is the US, btw).

Communism is a political model. Socialism is an economic model.

I know you realize that, but people often get the two (as well as capitalism/democracy) confused/interchanged.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Less Malthus more Ming the Merciless.

Socialism inevitably leads to population control, its what no-one wants to talk about.

Capitalism leads to population control through poverty, which apparently everyone likes.....

ORLY?

Look at the poor in the USSR (or Cuba).

Compare to the poor in the US.

Both in number and severity of "poor".

You're confusing wealth disparity with comparative poverty (between socioeconomic models).

you are not taking into account the available resources, climate, geographical specifics and population density, dude. even if you hadn't the rest of the world working for you while you simply print money and only relied on your own resources and production capabilities you'd still have a huge advantage over ussr and cuba because of the factors i mentioned above. it has nothing to do with socioeconomic models at all.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Less Malthus more Ming the Merciless.

Socialism inevitably leads to population control, its what no-one wants to talk about.

Capitalism leads to population control through poverty, which apparently everyone likes.....

ORLY?

Look at the poor in the USSR (or Cuba).

Compare to the poor in the US.

Both in number and severity of "poor".

You're confusing wealth disparity with comparative poverty (between socioeconomic models).

you are not taking into account the available resources, climate, geographical specifics and population density, dude. even if you hadn't the rest of the world working for you while you simply print money and only relied on your own resources and production capabilities you'd still have a huge advantage over ussr and cuba because of the factors i mentioned above. it has nothing to do with socioeconomic models at all.

We're not disagreeing, at the macro level. Even though I would argue that the amount of resources available to the USSR (now Russia) far exceeds the amount of resources available to just about any other country on earth. The resource point is valid WRT Cuba, but their population is relatively small, so it likely balances out.

The point I was making was that relative poverty between those two systems (when looking at "pure" socialism vs capitalism) is markedly different. As shown by the backfiring propaganda attempt in the USSR: Back in the 50s-60s, the Soviets went to the poorest parts of the US and filmed the ghettos, with their dirty streets, broken windows, etc. to show the population back home how the population in capitalist US lived. The problem was that in every broken window, you could make out a TV playing if you looked closely enough. The Soviet people noticed that, and it backfired on the propagandists--even the poorest capitalists had TVs, while the average Soviet citizen didn't.

It has to do with a combination of socioeconomic models and political models. Socialism with a democratic political system would probably result in more positive results than a socialist/communist system. Right now, it would appear the most successful model is the democratic/capitalist model, based on GDP.

It's getting the details right that's the bitch.

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i still think that increasing population rates are a product of world-health standards and medicinal breakthroughs in the 21st century, and less to-do with socialist systems upholding everyone and thus stimulating 'growth'. less people are dying and life-expectancies are longer, life is by refraction becoming more comfortable as the standard of life increases, thus --> more children. im not sure any particular political or economic policy is having the same effect on the family-unit, or birth rate. contending that welfare-schemes support people to simply have children, like some form of socialist hatchery, is... tenuous at best.

Yeah?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 010_UN.PNG

Explain that then if a higher standard of living = more children.

that doesn't take in infant mortality rates at all

considering my point was about INCREASING world population, taking from it an increased standard of living in MEDICAL SENSES, showing me the birth-rates around the world (none of which are surprising), doesn't really have much of a point, does it? are you the sort to just rely on statistics and pretty graphs without any real thought? doesn't surprise me. people are living longer and are treated better for life-threatening illnesses and are prepared better for natural common population-curbers e.g. famine, drought, pandemics in the west. just because they're having less children according to birth-rate statistics, doesn't mean shit. the global population rate is rising. third-world countries have lowering infant mortality rates now, too.

if anything your graph supported my argument that out-of-control population growth has little to do with socialism or socialist policy. i bet the most rapidly-growing populations are probably in countries like india.

That wasn't birth rates, that was annual percentage population increase.

This is fertility rates:



Either way, the most 'prosperous' and 'fair' countries are below replacement level.

Uzique wrote:

ah sorry, figured a graph labelled without a % mark anywhere with single digits would be no. children... not my fault.

you really need to collate infant mortality rates with fertility rates to get a 'balanced' view of global population growth.

and also average life expectancy, too. population demographics involve more than just births.

either way, im not seeing a 'trend' for socialist states or ideology leading to a direct rise in global population...

I was simply responding to: "life is by refraction becoming more comfortable as the standard of life increases, thus --> more children."

Uzique wrote:

yes... and i said, your response needs to be measured by infant mortality rates, too.

it's all fine and well with africa having 3x as many children as us, but then 20x more children die...

They still have much larger overall population growth.

The rich want to quit the USA and renounce their citizenship.
I say good riddance as long as they pay their taxes on the way out and their kids and spouses lose their citizenship too.
After all, we don't want any anchor babies. /sarcasm

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i still think that increasing population rates are a product of world-health standards and medicinal breakthroughs in the 21st century, and less to-do with socialist systems upholding everyone and thus stimulating 'growth'. less people are dying and life-expectancies are longer, life is by refraction becoming more comfortable as the standard of life increases, thus --> more children. im not sure any particular political or economic policy is having the same effect on the family-unit, or birth rate. contending that welfare-schemes support people to simply have children, like some form of socialist hatchery, is... tenuous at best.

I disagree, without socialism those hatcheries wouldn't have healthcare, dole or free housing, without those three things they wouldn't be firing out kids like mad.

Idiocracy Paints a picture if you get the chance to watch it.

I dunno if it's the same in the UK, but in the US welfare recipients receive a higher monthly check the more kids they have. Since they already receive free housing from Section 8, food stamps and WIC, the extra money is pure profit for them

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its the same in the UK and Aus, but in Aus we also have the plasma tv Baby Bonus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Bonus

Why is that necessary? Aren't most Aussies of Irish decent? Sneeze on an Irish woman and she'll get pregnant with twins.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its the same in the UK and Aus, but in Aus we also have the plasma tv Baby Bonus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Bonus

Why is that necessary? Aren't most Aussies of Irish decent? Sneeze on an Irish woman and she'll get pregnant with twins.

No, very few Aussies are of Irish descent, thankfully.

English 44%
Irish 12%
Scots 11%
Welsh 1.4%

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free … 3price.pdf

Its not 'necessary', it is a vote winner though.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why is that necessary? Aren't most Aussies of Irish decent? Sneeze on an Irish woman and she'll get pregnant with twins.

No, very few Aussies are of Irish descent, thankfully.

English 44%
Irish 12%
Scots 11%
Welsh 1.4%

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free … 3price.pdf

Its not 'necessary', it is a vote winner though.

Ahh, well there's the problem. Frigid ugly women do not beget children readily.

Most of these Americans renouncing their citizenship have already got citizenship from another country... They probably immigrated long enough and are just pissed off that they're paying taxes for two countries (US law that US citizens have to pay the federal gov taxes despite working in a foreign country).