Mass immigration & economic problems in USA and Europe

[CharonY]

Are you seriously going to start denying one of the central tennents of economic theory that pretty much everyone DOES agree with?

 

If you increase the demand on a finite resource then you increase the price.

 

 

You really should provide evidence rather than making this general statements. I really want to have satellite on my own. Did I just increase the price for it?

Obviously I would only increase the demand if I actually started buying them.

 

Come on, this is not the first thread where you use these kind of tactics (moving goalposts, building strawmen, appeal to authority). Try to keep the premises right, adjust them to real data, then build an opinion up on it, which we can discuss.

 

Right now the only thing to do is pointing out errors in reasoning, which I assume no one particularly enjoys.

Edited August 12, 2011 by CharonY

[jackson33]

He is talking "supply and demand", if supply decrease or demand increases, price/cost will increase or of course if supply increases or demand decreases price cost generally go down. Can anybody deny this principle?

 

 

You really should provide evidence rather than making this general statements. I really want to have satellite on my own. Did I just increase the price for it?[/Quote]

 

CharonY; Try using a home, think that's what this is about, then yes. If your trying to rent/buy a home and others want that home, they will likely offer more.

 

Obviously I would only increase the demand if I actually started buying them.[/Quote]

 

Not necessarily; Real Estate agents generally work for the seller and those renting homes always try for the best price, often one home can have many offers or bids well surpassing the asking price, then those non buyers simply raising the price. This was VERY common, during the US Housing Boom, when and as Government regulations brought millions of otherwise unqualified buyers into the market, by guaranteeing their loans.

[swansont]

I would now like to see my detractors provide me with some evidence (other than per capita immigration figures) to back up their claim that increased economic activity due to immigration ALWAYS brings net economic gain to the host population.

Who made this claim?

[Greg Boyles]

Who made this claim?

 

The claim is implicit in all who support immigration driven population growth at the expense of environmental and social degradation.

 

Otherwise I can see no other reason why they would advocate it, other than blind herd mentality perhaps.

 

Please point me to where ecological factors were part of your original post.

 

Your objections to using per-capita numbers apply to using total numbers. More so, it would seem. Maybe it would be best to start over with a hypothesis that actually includes all of factors you deem important.

 

 

You have a point 'swansont'. Perhaps there is indeed some merrit in starting over with a full description of my hypothesis.

 

But as you say it is complicated and I might have to spend a bit of time in private trying to formulate it in as clear and consise a way as possible.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

The claim is implicit in all who support immigration driven population growth at the expense of environmental and social degradation.

 

Otherwise I can see no other reason why they would advocate it, other than blind herd mentality perhaps.

So nobody has actually taken this position.

 

I think anyone is free to find any flaws in your position that they want to. It's not your province to tell them what position they must take, especially when the justification is argument from personal incredulity.

 

I think the fundamental issue here is that you can't assume your position it the truth — you have to back it up. Population growth is one thing, but "population growth at the expense of environmental and social degradation" is quite another. What about people who support population growth, but not at the expense of environmental and social degradation? You are creating a false dichotomy.

[Greg Boyles]

So nobody has actually taken this position.

 

I think anyone is free to find any flaws in your position that they want to. It's not your province to tell them what position they must take, especially when the justification is argument from personal incredulity.

 

I think the fundamental issue here is that you can't assume your position it the truth — you have to back it up. Population growth is one thing, but "population growth at the expense of environmental and social degradation" is quite another. What about people who support population growth, but not at the expense of environmental and social degradation? You are creating a false dichotomy.

 

I am not telling you what their implicit position should be 'swansont', I am telling you what it is based on all the evidence from polticians and business leaders in the media day in day out.

 

 

If this was not the implicit assumption in economic theory, and by all who follow it, then why is there NEVER a suggestion that perhaps their might be some long term benefit in a period of economic/population contraction?????

 

Name a single politician or business leader that has ever suggested this!

 

So nobody has actually taken this position.

 

I think anyone is free to find any flaws in your position that they want to. It's not your province to tell them what position they must take, especially when the justification is argument from personal incredulity.

 

I think the fundamental issue here is that you can't assume your position it the truth — you have to back it up. Population growth is one thing, but "population growth at the expense of environmental and social degradation" is quite another. What about people who support population growth, but not at the expense of environmental and social degradation? You are creating a false dichotomy.

 

The global population and our consumption is of a magnitude that further population expansion cannot occur without major and unrecoverable (in the short term) environmental degradation.

 

"What about people who support population growth, but not at the expense of environmental and social degradation?"

 

Perhaps several hundred years ago this might be a valid option. But today it is a fairytale that needs to be challenged where ever it is raised.

[swansont]

I am not telling you what their implicit position should be 'swansont', I am telling you what it is based on all the evidence from polticians and business leaders in the media day in day out.

 

 

If this was not the implicit assumption in economic theory, and by all who follow it, then why is there NEVER a suggestion that perhaps their might be some long term benefit in a period of economic/population contraction?????

 

Name a single politician or business leader that has ever suggested this!

 

You aimed this claim at your detractors, 'Greg Boyles,' not politicians or business leaders.

 

The global population and our consumption is of a magnitude that further population expansion cannot occur without major and unrecoverable (in the short term) environmental degradation.

 

"What about people who support population growth, but not at the expense of environmental and social degradation?"

 

Perhaps several hundred years ago this might be a valid option. But today it is a fairytale that needs to be challenged where ever it is raised.

Still, the burden of proof is yours.

[Greg Boyles]

You aimed this claim at your detractors, 'Greg Boyles,' not politicians or business leaders.

 

Some of my detractors are clearly followers of economic doctrine.

[swansont]

Some of my detractors are clearly followers of economic doctrine.

 

Sorry, not good enough. Evaluate the arguments they make on their merits, not on perceptions. Pointing out flaws in your arguments does not require subscribing to any alternative models/doctrines/trains of thought.