Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (9630)	3/11/2010 10:35:26 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15994

"I must have missed the announcements that most of the wealth in the world was in the Arab occupied areas of Israel and similar areas with excessive reproduction and propagandistic "education"." Isn't a rational response to "Individuals tend to be a benefit to society not a cost to society." "Tend to" does not equal "always are". And even "always are" wouldn't support your response. Always are would indicate that extra people where always a plus (which is not what I said), but not that having high birth rates makes you the most wealthy in the world. The plus from each is different in different places (and since I didn't say "always are" it could be negative). And even moving further from what I said, in an attempt to make it something that would support your statement. If each additional person automatically added an additional amount (which is really getting in to the realm of nonsense), it still wouldn't support your claim. None of the Arab countries are among the top countries by population. And if you mean population density, well Gaza is densely populated (the West Bank no so much) its much less than say Manhattan. So lets move even further in to the realm of imaginary statemens, and further away from what I actually said. Imagine I had said that the birth rate determines how much wealth had been added. Even that wouldn't support your statement. Because how much is added describes a changes in wealth, not the resultant total wealth (which would largely depend on the initial base). So moving even further away from what I said, if I had said higher birth rates make you wealthier... Well now your getting close, but if it isn't the only factor, the "propagandistic education" and the violence and corruption could still keep the Palestinians from being wealthy. One more step away and we finally have it. If I had said "The higher a country or area's birth rate the more wealthy its people will be", full stop, than your response would be reasonable. Now please tell me how "Individuals tend to be a benefit to society not a cost to society", resembles "The higher a country or area's birth rate the more wealthy its people will be". Really Peter you're engaging in argument by non-sequitur.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (9630)	3/11/2010 10:55:37 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 15994

Of course that must be due to the laws that require parents to keep their children off the streets and out of the parks, etc. They aren't presenting you with a bill for the streets or the parks, the government is. If the streets or the parks are crowded (causing traffic, waiting, crowded uncomfortable conditions, etc.) than in a sense they are imposing a cost by their presence, but no more than you are imposing a cost on them. But they do so by being criminals, not by merely existing. When a person lives in society they use common resources. And they create resources (and in a certain sense are a resource). Cut the US population in half and it will have less resources to use not more (and I'm ignoring transition problems when making this statement). If the US was totally isolated from the world (so it couldn't draw on the ideas and resources of the other 6 and a half billion people), than cutting the US's population in half would (even ignoring transition problems) not only make the US poorer in terms of gross production and wealth but in terms of per capita production and wealth. See worldofquotes.com cafehayek.com juliansimon.org masterresource.org "What does not charging for births, while also not giving tax credits of children, have to do with people being uneducated?" Because it is either specious or not related to what I posted. No its directly related to what you posted (whether or not it was related to what you meant to say) I posted (and you quoted in your reply) "if you want to remove the distortions you would neither charge for the birth, nor provided benefits because of it." You replied - "Uneducated people do not produce as much as educated ones on average." Message 26373343 Your statement is true, but irrelevant unless you can show a connection between "not charging for births, while also not giving tax credits of children" and " people being uneducated" If you don't charge or reward birth's there is no reason to think that more people will be uneducated that are uneducated now, or than will be uneducated if you charge for births. Also even relatively uneducated people can be pluses not minuses, they produce less, but they still produce. (Minimum wages and welfare programs can get in the way of that, but those are the creations of the state, not something intrinsic to the uneducated person, or the result of a policy of neither subsidizing or penalizing births.)