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 (9635)	3/11/2010 12:38:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15994

If that were true places like Gaza and Ethiopia would be wealthy. No that would not be the case, as I quite exhaustively demonstrated. Message 26377538 "Sure citizenship usually has a value to the citizen, but it isn't a zero sum game. That value isn't taken from anyone else, it doesn't reduce the value available to others, in fact it tends to increase it." does not in any way shape or form imply or suggest "places like Gaza and Ethiopia would be wealthy" The two statements have just about no connection to each other. If fact places like the US tend to have lower birth rates. Greater wealth tends to reduce birthrates, not so much the other way around. Extreme cases of high birth rates might reduce wealth, but in countries like the US, lowering our birthrate would not increase wealth, or more directly to the point each additional birth does not tend to reduce wealth (even in a per capita sense, in a total sense it tends to increase wealth). Until recent welfare changes the type of person trying to get into the Us was the highly motivated. 1 - Not that I'm making an argument against immigration, but I wasn't making an argument for it. Births and immigration are different issues. 2 - Again your talking about the problems of the welfare state, not of births or immigration.