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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arun gera who wrote (79676)	9/16/2011 1:27:18 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218863

Arun, the debating point was to demonstrate the paucity of the idea that having more people makes things better per person. While wealth is to a large extent a function of talent and effort, there is still the limited supply of natural resources such as low cost water supplies, spectrum, clean air, fish in the sea and wild forests to wander in and enjoy in peace and quiet. With a billion people, even with accounting amortization jargon, the shortage of water becomes a problem, as I explained. A road cannot take a billion people and it is not sensible to simply build more roads when there isn't any more room to do so. It was nothing to do with emotional buttons other than to use a place with which you would be familiar and might recognize that my point was valid. I built a dam, roads and other things, and paid for a lot more and do not wish to simply hand over those assets to free-lunch newcomers any more than I wish to simply open my front door and have another 10 people to come in and start crowding my house, even if they do amortize the original cost and amortize the contents of the fridge and eat the fruit off the trees. But I might consider selling my house to the highest bidder, complete with contents of fridge, ripe fruit on tree and pleasant lawns to enjoy. I'll move somewhere else. Same with my citizenship. I'll might decide to sell to the highest bidder and buy an Indian one, or simply get a free one if they are on offer and they want to amortize their remaining assets built over centuries [such as the railways provided by the wonderful British]. Yes, not all Indians are retarded or dying of starvation. But your point that a very few are supremely superlative is also irrelevant. <New Zealand must be looking for workforce otherwise the immigrants would not be there. Are they not paying their rent to the landlords?> Swarms of immigrant welfare beneficiaries deplete taxes. Even those who are earning a small living do not pay for the roads, water supplies and other public assets. Yes, the privately owned assets are not an issue and they pay for those at the going rate. It's the public assets, represented by Tradable Citizenship, which is at issue and the point of the discussion. The NZ immigration managers are hopeless and in some instances criminal. The policies are foolish and short sighted. Making a market in citizenship would solve the problems. There wouldn't be somebody to take a bribe because the sale would be to the highest bidder. Mqurice