Giving the lie to the "we must have more immigrants" mantra
Robert Henderson
The idea that a country must continue to grow its economy through
immigration without regard to the social consequences of doing so is
reckless in the extreme. It is also economically illiterate.
The weakness of the pro-immigrant argument that we must have more
immigrants to maintain our society and compete with other societies can
be seen simply by asking what would happen if no immigration took
place.
In the case of the general economy, that would soon adjust to a
shortage of labour. It would do this by using labour more efficiently,
shifting labour to the jobs which are deemed most valuable, utilising
the labour of those sections of the population currently underemployed
or unemployed, eg those over the age of fifty, and introducing ever
more efficient machines. Longer term, we can improve the quality of the
workforce generally by providing meaningful education and training for
all. There is currently, in Marx's words, a very large reserve army of
labour, for there are probably in excess of 3 million people unemployed.
The labour force survey of the unemployed - the international most used
standard - shows 1.8 million seeking work. To that may be added a large
number of people who have retired early but who would probably welcome a
job if they could get one and the many people in higher education who
are effectively delaying their entry into the labour market for no good
reason.
Who would do the menial jobs? Many are unnecessary. Take cleaning. With
the proper equipment, one person may do what six do with a dustpan and
brush. yet many industrial cleaning jobs are still undertaken with
pretty rudimentary equipment. Where mechanisation is impossible, the
pay for such jobs would have to be raised to a level where they attract
sufficient workers or, where the jobs are not essential, not done at
all.
But, we are told, to compete with other countries we must grow our
economies to become larger and larger. In fact, even with a stable or
declining population, it does not follow that the country will go to
rack and ruin. All it means is that the country will have to adjust to
the new circumstances, which of course will occur very gradually and
thus give time for a gentle transition.
The idea that a country can only survive by having an ever increasing
workforce can be seen from the fraud it is by pointing to the example of
most of the First World economies, including Britain, whose populations
have grown very slowly over the past fifty years, the very period when
the greatest expansion of their economies has taken place.
As for the pensions scare, demographic projections are notoriously
unreliable. It is quite possible hat in ten years time the birth rate
will be above replacement level again - just looking at the population
in the street, I suspect that the tide may already have turned because
there do seem to be an awful lot of young children around. But even if
the present demographic projections are correct, the decline can be
managed by making provsion now. That should be done by setting up a
national pension fund into which each year 1% of GDP should be invested
- at present that would mean £10 billion pa and adjusting retirement
ages where necessary.
The other great lie of the immigration propagandists is that
immigrants are an economic boon to the recipient country and that they
pay their way through taxes. A little thought will show this is a
nonsense in a country such as Britain which has a fully fledged welfare
system.
Any legal immigrant coming into Britain will immediately be eligible
for the full range of state provision, including healthcare, without
ever having paid a penny in tax. If the immigrant has dependants they
will have the same eligibility. Should the children be of school age,
they will receive education free. Moreover, a large proportion of
those of working age coming to Britain remain unemployed for a
considerable time, or work in the black economy where they pay no tax or
NI and most probably draw benefits at the same time.
The disadvantage to the country is carried through to subsequent
generations. We know from the statistics constantly thrust at us by
government and agencies such as the CRE, that second and subsequent
generation immigrants, and particularly black and Asian immigrants, are
more likely than the native population to be (1) unemployed, (2) earn
less on average, (3) have a higher incidence of benefit take-up, (4) are
more likely to occupy social housing and (5) commit more crime. Thus,
immigrants overall down the generations do not pull their economic
weight.
Immigration on a large scale will always mean that the overall quality
of the immigrants is mediocre. That is so, simply because there are not
that many people with scarce and desirable skills and abilities. Most
who come will be unskilled, poorly educated, none-too-bright and
probably without adequate English. They will place stress on our
welfare state and schools. They will take low skilled jobs or be
unemployed. Their availability will allow employers to remain
inefficient and depress the wages of the native population who still
need the jobs the immigrants compete for. Immigrants also compete for
housing, both private and public. This can have a dramatic effect as
those in London are already discovering as private housing become
absurdly expensive and social housing in ever shorter supply because
of the pressure of immigrants.
All of these things are a cause of social disruption and expense and a
good reason for not permitting mass immigration in themselves. However,
there is a larger reason, namely, mass immigration is a form of conquest
and should be resisted as vigorously as a military invasion.
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Heretic
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y2vcBWBx...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
limbic
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y2vcBWBx...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
Excellent Rob. Well done.
The Technical Manager
Do you allow me to distribute this splendid article providing I acknowledge
you as its author ?
adrian
but what happens when these imigrants become pensioners do we keep on
letting more and more in to pay a bill we can't pay. This is simply
government passing the buck onto a future generation.
Robert Henderson
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes
>Do you allow me to distribute this splendid article providing I acknowledge
>you as its author ?
>
Please do. Use this version though. RH
Giving the lie to the "we must have more immigrants" mantra
Robert Henderson
The idea that a country must continue to grow its economy through
immigration without regard to the social consequences of doing so is
reckless in the extreme. It is also economically illiterate.
The weakness of the pro-immigrant argument - that we must have more
immigrants to maintain our society and compete with other societies -
can be seen simply by asking what would happen if no immigration took
place.
In the case of the general economy, that would soon adjust to a
shortage of labour. It would do this by using labour more efficiently,
shifting labour to the jobs which are deemed most valuable, utilising
the labour of those sections of the population currently underemployed
or unemployed, eg those over the age of fifty, and by introducing ever
more efficient machines.
In the longer term, we can improve the quality of the
workforce generally by providing meaningful education and training for
all. Presently, large numbers of our children emerge from school
with precious little evidence that they had spent at least 11 years
there.
Perhaps the most important thing to realise is that no person or group
are indispensable to an economy. England's history has a first rate
example of how people are replaced when necessity arises. In 1290 Edward
I expelled the Jews from England. They were not officially re-admitted
until the 1650s. Received wisdom amongst modern British historians would
have it that England should have suffered for that act, the Jews being
counted as an asset to a country. In fact, in the 350 years they were
absent, England became one of the richest and most influential
countries in Europe and laid the foundations for the industrial
revolution. The Jews in England were replaced by Christian bankers,
Christian merchants and Christian artisans. That is not to deny the
abilities of Jews merely to point out that their skills are far from
unique or irreplaceable.
There is in Britain currently, in Marx's words, a very large reserve
army of labour, there being probably in excess of 3 million people
unemployed. The labour force survey of the unemployed - the
internationally most used standard - shows 1.8 million seeking work. To
that may be added a large number of people who have retired early but
who would probably welcome a job if they could get one and the many
people in higher education who are effectively delaying their entry into
the labour market for no good reason.
Who would do the menial jobs if immigrants ceased to come? Many of these
jobs are unnecessary. Take cleaning. With the proper equipment, one
person may do what six do with a dustpan and brush. yet many industrial
cleaning jobs are still undertaken with pretty rudimentary equipment.
Where mechanisation is impossible, the pay for such jobs would have to
be raised to a level where they attract sufficient workers or, where
the jobs are not essential, not done at all.
Bringing cheap labour into a country is a sure road to ruin for an
industry in the long run. Cheap labour may get employers out of an
immediate hole, but in a free trading world the advantage will soon be
undercut by even cheaper labour in other less developed economies and
increased mechanisation in advanced countries which do not allow
imported cheap labour. This is precisely what happened to the British
textile industry. In the late fifties and early sixties they important
cheap labour from the sub-continent. Within 15 years most of the labour
was no longer employed in the trade because the British mills had not
modernised and British Mill wages although low were still nothing like
as low as those in the Third World.
The future is of course always uncertain, but it is arguably more
uncertain now than ever before. In the lifetimes of most people now
living it is probable that genetic engineering will be used to both
significantly increase average lifespans and alter the qualities and
abilities of the population. To that may be added the near certainty of
advances in artificial intelligence within the next half century which
will produce robots that can do most of the jobs men now do. Either of
those new technologies will revolutionise society and produce great
social stresses. The last thing any society will need at such times is
the additional burden of racial and cultural division.
We are told that to compete with other countries we must grow our
economies to become larger and larger. In fact, even with a stable or
declining population, it does not follow that the country will go to
rack and ruin. All it means is that the country will have to adjust to
the new circumstances, which of course will occur very gradually and
allow for a for a gentle transition.
The idea that a country can only survive by having an ever increasing
workforce can be seen for the fraud it is by simply pointing to the
example of most of the First World economies, including Britain, whose
populations have grown very slowly over the past fifty years. During
that period the greatest ever expansion of their economies has taken
place.
As for the pensions scare, demographic projections are notoriously
unreliable. It is quite possible that in ten years time the birth rate
will be above replacement level again - just looking at the people I
see in the street, I suspect that the tide may already have turned
because there do seem to be an awful lot of young children around. But
even if the present demographic projections are proven to be correct,
the decline can be managed by making provision now. That should be done
by setting up a national pension fund into which each year 1% of GDP
should be invested - at present that would mean £10 billion pa - and
adjusting retirement ages where necessary.
The other great lie of the immigration propagandists is that
immigrants are an economic boon to the recipient country and that they
pay their way through taxes. A little thought will show this is a
nonsense in a country such as Britain which has a fully fledged welfare
system.
Any legal immigrant coming into Britain will immediately be eligible
for the full range of state provision, including healthcare, without
ever having paid a penny in tax. If the immigrant has dependants they
will have the same eligibility. Should the children be of school age,
they will receive education free. Moreover, a large proportion of
those of working age coming to Britain remain unemployed for a
considerable time, or work in the black economy where they pay no tax or
NI and frequently draw benefits at the same time.
The economic disadvantage to the country is carried through to
subsequent generations. We know from the statistics constantly thrust at
us by government and agencies such as the CRE, that second and
subsequent generation immigrants, and particularly black and Asian
immigrants, are more likely than the native population to be (1)
unemployed, (2) earn less on average, (3) have a higher incidence of
benefit take-up, (4) are more likely to occupy social housing and (5)
commit more crime. Thus, immigrants overall down the generations do not
pull their economic weight.
Immigration on a large scale will always mean that the overall quality
of the immigrants is mediocre. That is so simply because there are not
that many people with scarce and desirable skills and abilities. Most
who come will be unskilled, poorly educated, none-too-bright and
probably without adequate English. They will place pressure on our
welfare state and schools by creating additional demand. They will take
low skilled jobs or be unemployed. Their availability will allow
employers to remain inefficient and depress the wages of the native
population who still need the jobs the immigrants compete for.
Immigrants also compete for housing, both private and public. This can
have a dramatic effect as those in London are already discovering as
private housing become absurdly expensive and social housing in ever
shorter supply because of the pressure of immigrants.
All of these things are a cause of social disruption and expense and a
good reason for not permitting mass immigration in themselves. However,
there is a larger reason, namely, mass immigration is a form of conquest
and should be resisted as vigorously as a military invasion.
The logic of the "ever growing need for immigrants to feed the
economy" argument is that the economy is all. It assumes that men have
no other concern than to grow ever richer, that the problems of race and
culture are unimportant, that Man's tribalism can be ignored. It is a
recipe for incessant conflict.
--
RH
Steve Smith
news:463826e2.02052...@posting.google.com...
Yes. You heard of pyramid letters? Well, we will have pyramid pensioners!
And we all know what happens to pyramid schemes don't we? Guess who will end
up paying........?
Steve
Jon°
and should be resisted as vigorously as a military invasion."
What a tremendous post, your coup de grace, to those who forget what
nationality means, which I have repeated above........Sums it all up.
Of course mass immigration is similar in it's repercussions to a military
conquest. The immigrant population enjoy imposing their culture and way of
life on the host nation. It can be compared to a take-over in the commercial
world. It may be reported as a merger but the company with the clout, soon
let the directors of the smaller fry know whose boss.
I do hope you have sent this letter to a national newspaper ?
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y2vcBWBx...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>
Nicolas Garcia
blame the government, then!!!!!!
The Technical Manager
Labour is short termist and refuses to listen to the British people or
respect their wishes.
Mark
> This is simply
> government passing the buck onto a future generation.
Which is precisely what governments have been doing for decades now;
the "poor pensioners" have voted themselves more and more perks which
have been either paid for by borrowing money which future generations
are expected to pay back, or are unfunded and future generations are
expected to pay them out of their wages. Sooner or later such pyramid
schemes will always collapse.
Mark
Joseph Hutcheon
>adr...@bonni.freeserve.co.uk (adrian) wrote in message news:<463826e2.02052...@posting.google.com>...
>> This is simply
>> government passing the buck onto a future generation.
>
>Which is precisely what governments have been doing for decades now;
>the "poor pensioners" have voted themselves more and more perks
Be fair, it's more that successive govts have played to the gallery
about helping the poor old pensioners, with no political party
prepared to call a halt because of the resulting poor publicity. This
particular bullet should have been bitten years ago.
>which
>have been either paid for by borrowing money which future generations
>are expected to pay back, or are unfunded and future generations are
>expected to pay them out of their wages. Sooner or later such pyramid
>schemes will always collapse.
Especially when the old people live longer and the number of young
people starts to decrease.
Emas Refugee
> Giving the lie to the "we must have more immigrants" mantra
>
> Robert Henderson
>
> The idea that a country must continue to grow its economy through
> immigration without regard to the social consequences of doing so is
> reckless in the extreme. It is also economically illiterate.
That's a pretty sweeping statement. What makes it particularly funny
is that, once you analyse some of Bob's economics it becomes obvious
that the Nobel Prize Committee (Economics Scetion) isn't likely to be
on the phone to Chez Henderson any time soon
> In the case of the general economy, that would soon adjust to a
> shortage of labour.
It would most likely adjust by growing at less than its trend rate. We
will see the consequences of this later.
> Perhaps the most important thing to realise is that no person or group
> are indispensable to an economy. England's history has a first rate
> example of how people are replaced when necessity arises.
This assumes that there are replacements to be had. To give a counter
example,
two hundred years of immigration into America took it from a country
whose economy's main product was buffalo skins to the world's largest
economy, capable of putting a man on the moon.
>
> There is in Britain currently, in Marx's words, a very large reserve
> army of labour, there being probably in excess of 3 million people
> unemployed.
'probably', in other words, you're making this number up.
> The future is of course always uncertain, but it is arguably more
> uncertain now than ever before. In the lifetimes of most people now
> living it is probable that genetic engineering will be used to both
> significantly increase average lifespans and alter the qualities and
> abilities of the population.
'probable' in this case meaning 'I hope otherwise my argument falls
apart'.
> To that may be added the near certainty of
> advances in artificial intelligence within the next half century which
> will produce robots that can do most of the jobs men now do.
Sadly the great leap forward in AI remains firmly in the realm of
prediction. In any case, without a functioning economy to build these
miracle machines your fantasy remains just that.
> As for the pensions scare, demographic projections are notoriously
> unreliable.
They are in fact stunningly reliable. The simple fact here is that you
can apply actuarial projections to the current population and work out
where you will be in the future, pace such awkward events as an
outbreak of major war or plague.
> It is quite possible that in ten years time the birth rate
> will be above replacement level again
All the current evidence suggests precisely the opposite. The trend is
for smaller families and is continuing downwards.
>- just looking at the people I
> see in the street, I suspect that the tide may already have turned
> because there do seem to be an awful lot of young children around.
Thankfully social and economic policy in this country is based on
something a little more concrete that what you see.
> But even if the present demographic projections are proven to be correct,
> the decline can be managed by making provision now. That should be done
> by setting up a national pension fund into which each year 1% of GDP
> should be invested - at present that would mean £10 billion pa - and
> adjusting retirement ages where necessary.
And this is where your ignorance of basic economics becomes most
glaringly obvious. What do you intend to do with this money while you
wait for people to retire? If we invest it in an economy that is
hampered by a shortage of labour then it will not do us much good. And
when we come to spend the cash we will find that an economy requires
capital and labour. Capital alone will only push up the prices of a
shrinking pool of goods and services.
> Moreover, a large proportion of
> those of working age coming to Britain remain unemployed for a
> considerable time, or work in the black economy where they pay no tax or
> NI and frequently draw benefits at the same time.
An excellent argument for allowing legal immigration so that skilled
workers can settle here and contribute fully to the wealth, both
social and economic, of the nation.
> This can
> have a dramatic effect as those in London are already discovering as
> private housing become absurdly expensive and social housing in ever
> shorter supply because of the pressure of immigrants.
Private housing in London is expensive largely because of the effect
of large bonus payments to workers in the financial sector.
> The logic of the "ever growing need for immigrants to feed the
> economy" argument is that the economy is all. It assumes that men have
> no other concern than to grow ever richer, that the problems of race and
> culture are unimportant, that Man's tribalism can be ignored.
Man's tribalism cannot be ignored. However, like all Man's baser
instincts it should not be pandered to.
stuart...@nospam.hotmail.com
Are they? They are too keen to listen to focus groups (people) for my
liking.
Stu
The Technical Manager
> Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bMW8fIAW...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> > Giving the lie to the "we must have more immigrants" mantra
> >
> > Robert Henderson
> >
> > The idea that a country must continue to grow its economy through
> > immigration without regard to the social consequences of doing so is
> > reckless in the extreme. It is also economically illiterate.
>
> That's a pretty sweeping statement. What makes it particularly funny
> is that, once you analyse some of Bob's economics it becomes obvious
> that the Nobel Prize Committee (Economics Scetion) isn't likely to be
> on the phone to Chez Henderson any time soon
Does a Nobel Prize in economics really mean anything. There seems to have been a trend in giving Nobel Prizes to
economists with laissez faire viewpoints as opposed to more protectionist or isolationist viewpoints.
>
>
> > In the case of the general economy, that would soon adjust to a
> > shortage of labour.
>
> It would most likely adjust by growing at less than its trend rate. We
> will see the consequences of this later.
Manpower isn't everything. If it were then many African and South Asian countries would be richer and more
powerful than some advanced contries with small populations.
>
> > Perhaps the most important thing to realise is that no person or group
> > are indispensable to an economy. England's history has a first rate
> > example of how people are replaced when necessity arises.
>
> This assumes that there are replacements to be had. To give a counter
> example,
> two hundred years of immigration into America took it from a country
> whose economy's main product was buffalo skins to the world's largest
> economy, capable of putting a man on the moon.
This is a different case. America prior to European immigration had a miniscule population and a technically and
economically backwards society and economy compared to Europe. Britain in the 2nd half of the 20th century has
functioned as a reasonably advanced economy with a significant population.
>
> >> There is in Britain currently, in Marx's words, a very large reserve
> > army of labour, there being probably in excess of 3 million people
> > unemployed.
>
> 'probably', in other words, you're making this number up.
Nobody knows the true figure for underemployed people or those opting for early retirement due to losing their job
but 3 million is a reasonable ballpark figure.
>
> > The future is of course always uncertain, but it is arguably more
> > uncertain now than ever before. In the lifetimes of most people now
> > living it is probable that genetic engineering will be used to both
> > significantly increase average lifespans and alter the qualities and
> > abilities of the population.
>
> 'probable' in this case meaning 'I hope otherwise my argument falls
> apart'.
>
> > To that may be added the near certainty of
> > advances in artificial intelligence within the next half century which
> > will produce robots that can do most of the jobs men now do.
>
> Sadly the great leap forward in AI remains firmly in the realm of
> prediction. In any case, without a functioning economy to build these
> miracle machines your fantasy remains just that.
What about Japan with their ageing population and zero immigration policy. They are investing in and developing
robotics. True AI may be some way off of never achievable but robots for industry already exist and are used.
>
> > As for the pensions scare, demographic projections are notoriously
> > unreliable.
>
> They are in fact stunningly reliable. The simple fact here is that you
> can apply actuarial projections to the current population and work out
> where you will be in the future, pace such awkward events as an
> outbreak of major war or plague.
>
> > It is quite possible that in ten years time the birth rate
> > will be above replacement level again
>
> All the current evidence suggests precisely the opposite. The trend is
> for smaller families and is continuing downwards.
Thats largely due to economics. High housing costs, poor salaries in relation to the cost of living, and lack of
support from the government makes having babies expensive so birth rates have declined. A change in economics or
the taxation and benfits system could encourage a higher birth rate. Some European countries are coming up with
proposals on this.
>
> >- just looking at the people I
> > see in the street, I suspect that the tide may already have turned
> > because there do seem to be an awful lot of young children around.
>
> Thankfully social and economic policy in this country is based on
> something a little more concrete that what you see.
>
> > But even if the present demographic projections are proven to be correct,
> > the decline can be managed by making provision now. That should be done
> > by setting up a national pension fund into which each year 1% of GDP
> > should be invested - at present that would mean £10 billion pa - and
> > adjusting retirement ages where necessary.
>
> And this is where your ignorance of basic economics becomes most
> glaringly obvious. What do you intend to do with this money while you
> wait for people to retire? If we invest it in an economy that is
> hampered by a shortage of labour then it will not do us much good. And
> when we come to spend the cash we will find that an economy requires
> capital and labour. Capital alone will only push up the prices of a
> shrinking pool of goods and services.
Depends on whether a Labour shortage really does exist. Already new technology and methods of production have
dispensed with many jobs and will continue to do so in the future. In Britain pockets of unemployment exist where
as many as 25% of residents of working age and not in education are out of work because no jobs exist there. I
will only believe a labour shortage (on a national scale) really does exist until I see such a thing in reality.
Britain has never managed zero or near zero unemployment in the past 50 or so years.
>
> > Moreover, a large proportion of
> > those of working age coming to Britain remain unemployed for a
> > considerable time, or work in the black economy where they pay no tax or
> > NI and frequently draw benefits at the same time.
>
> An excellent argument for allowing legal immigration so that skilled
> workers can settle here and contribute fully to the wealth, both
> social and economic, of the nation.
Quite the opposite. Priority must be given to ensuring British citizens get quality jobs rather than being stuck
on the dole rather than bringing in foreigners.
>
> > This can
> > have a dramatic effect as those in London are already discovering as
> > private housing become absurdly expensive and social housing in ever
> > shorter supply because of the pressure of immigrants.
>
> Private housing in London is expensive largely because of the effect
> of large bonus payments to workers in the financial sector.
Housing costs reflect demand and not salaries or incomes. In London an acute housing shortage exists thus driving
up prices so that only the most wealthy can afford it - for example those with big bonus payments.
>
> > The logic of the "ever growing need for immigrants to feed the
> > economy" argument is that the economy is all. It assumes that men have
> > no other concern than to grow ever richer, that the problems of race and
> > culture are unimportant, that Man's tribalism can be ignored.
>
> Man's tribalism cannot be ignored. However, like all Man's baser
> instincts it should not be pandered to.
Most people prefer to associate with those of their own cultural background. Thats why London isn't really a
multicultural society but a collection of ghettoes each with their own ethnic group. Those from different
backgrounds rarely socialise with each other and prefer their own types.
stvfrmco
> Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bMW8fIAW...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> > Giving the lie to the "we must have more immigrants" mantra
> >
> > Robert Henderson
> >
> > The idea that a country must continue to grow its economy through
> > immigration without regard to the social consequences of doing so is
> > reckless in the extreme. It is also economically illiterate.
>
> That's a pretty sweeping statement. What makes it particularly funny
> is that, once you analyse some of Bob's economics it becomes obvious
> that the Nobel Prize Committee (Economics Scetion) isn't likely to be
> on the phone to Chez Henderson any time soon
>
Well, that's encouraging. The Nobel family is taking legal measures
to have their families' name removed from the so-called Nobel Prize in
Economics because it is not formally associated with the Nobel Prize
Committee. The Nobel Prize in Economics is a rip-off of the Nobel
name and is unrelated to the real Nobel Committee. The family takes
issue with how the Prize in Economics is awarded and wants their name
completely removed from the endeavor. Robert Henderson would perhaps
be supportive of their efforts.
> > In the case of the general economy, that would soon adjust to a
> > shortage of labour.
>
> It would most likely adjust by growing at less than its trend rate. We
> will see the consequences of this later.
>
> > Perhaps the most important thing to realise is that no person or group
> > are indispensable to an economy. England's history has a first rate
> > example of how people are replaced when necessity arises.
>
> This assumes that there are replacements to be had. To give a counter
> example,
> two hundred years of immigration into America took it from a country
> whose economy's main product was buffalo skins to the world's largest
> economy, capable of putting a man on the moon.
>
Then there are nations like Pakistan who have accepted millions of
refugees from Afghanistan for decades and about all they have to show
for the population increase is some crude weapons of mass destruction
and some fancy new rockets to use as delivery vehicles. Argentina
offers a different vision of what two hundred years of immigration can
do to a country -- with the better-off people leaving in droves for
Spain, Israel, and the United States to escape the economic collapse.
> >
> > There is in Britain currently, in Marx's words, a very large reserve
> > army of labour, there being probably in excess of 3 million people
> > unemployed.
>
> 'probably', in other words, you're making this number up.
>
Yes, usually those round numbers like 3 million are approximations and
are used in government circles and at universities all the time.
> > The future is of course always uncertain, but it is arguably more
> > uncertain now than ever before. In the lifetimes of most people now
> > living it is probable that genetic engineering will be used to both
> > significantly increase average lifespans and alter the qualities and
> > abilities of the population.
>
> 'probable' in this case meaning 'I hope otherwise my argument falls
> apart'.
>
Wow -- what dark sarcasm. Mr. Henderson's argument does not fall
apart at all. In a discussion group it is accepted practice to offer
intelligent and well-reasoned speculation concerning the future. It
is done all the time in journals, magazines, and in academic circles.
> > To that may be added the near certainty of
> > advances in artificial intelligence within the next half century which
> > will produce robots that can do most of the jobs men now do.
>
> Sadly the great leap forward in AI remains firmly in the realm of
> prediction. In any case, without a functioning economy to build these
> miracle machines your fantasy remains just that.
>
> > As for the pensions scare, demographic projections are notoriously
> > unreliable.
>
> They are in fact stunningly reliable.
'reliable' in this case meaning 'I hope otherwise my argument falls
apart'.
>The simple fact here is that you
> can apply actuarial projections to the current population and work out
> where you will be in the future, pace such awkward events as an
> outbreak of major war or plague.
>
> > It is quite possible that in ten years time the birth rate
> > will be above replacement level again
>
> All the current evidence suggests precisely the opposite. The trend is
> for smaller families and is continuing downwards.
'current evidence suggests' in this case meaning 'I hope otherwise my
argument falls apart'.
>
> >- just looking at the people I
> > see in the street, I suspect that the tide may already have turned
> > because there do seem to be an awful lot of young children around.
>
> Thankfully social and economic policy in this country is based on
> something a little more concrete that what you see.
>
'something a little more concrete' in this case meaning 'I hope
otherwise my argument falls apart'.
> > But even if the present demographic projections are proven to be correct,
> > the decline can be managed by making provision now. That should be done
> > by setting up a national pension fund into which each year 1% of GDP
> > should be invested - at present that would mean £10 billion pa - and
> > adjusting retirement ages where necessary.
>
> And this is where your ignorance of basic economics becomes most
> glaringly obvious. What do you intend to do with this money while you
> wait for people to retire? If we invest it in an economy that is
> hampered by a shortage of labour then it will not do us much good.
How do you explain the prosperity that Britain has had since Thatcher
was PM while hundreds of thousands of coal miners and factory workers
lost their jobs? There appeared to be a surplus of workers, not a
shortage. North Sea oil offered a temporary boost to the economy more
than lots of unemployed workers. Once the oil revenue is gone Britain
will return to its pre-Thatcher level of economic malaise.
> when we come to spend the cash we will find that an economy requires
> capital and labour. Capital alone will only push up the prices of a
> shrinking pool of goods and services.
>
> > Moreover, a large proportion of
> > those of working age coming to Britain remain unemployed for a
> > considerable time, or work in the black economy where they pay no tax or
> > NI and frequently draw benefits at the same time.
>
> An excellent argument for allowing legal immigration so that skilled
> workers can settle here and contribute fully to the wealth, both
> social and economic, of the nation.
>
> > This can
> > have a dramatic effect as those in London are already discovering as
> > private housing become absurdly expensive and social housing in ever
> > shorter supply because of the pressure of immigrants.
>
> Private housing in London is expensive largely because of the effect
> of large bonus payments to workers in the financial sector.
>
> > The logic of the "ever growing need for immigrants to feed the
> > economy" argument is that the economy is all. It assumes that men have
> > no other concern than to grow ever richer, that the problems of race and
> > culture are unimportant, that Man's tribalism can be ignored.
>
> Man's tribalism cannot be ignored. However, like all Man's baser
> instincts it should not be pandered to.
The baser instincts of persons such as Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Saddam
Hussein, or Augusto Pinochet are always going to be with us. You are
a Pollyanna. Al Qada drove home the point recently in America.
The Technical Manager
They seem to listen to all sorts of strange advisory panels and similar groups
as NuLab really doesn't really know what to do with itself and considers
democracy a blot on its horizon.
Robert Henderson
<stvf...@email.msn.com> writes
>
>> That's a pretty sweeping statement. What makes it particularly funny
>> is that, once you analyse some of Bob's economics it becomes obvious
>> that the Nobel Prize Committee (Economics Scetion) isn't likely to be
>> on the phone to Chez Henderson any time soon
>>
>
>Well, that's encouraging. The Nobel family is taking legal measures
>to have their families' name removed from the so-called Nobel Prize in
>Economics because it is not formally associated with the Nobel Prize
>Committee. The Nobel Prize in Economics is a rip-off of the Nobel
>name and is unrelated to the real Nobel Committee. The family takes
>issue with how the Prize in Economics is awarded and wants their name
>completely removed from the endeavor. Robert Henderson would perhaps
>be supportive of their efforts.
I would be supportive of any effort to abolish Nobel prizes, official or
otherwise. The science prizes are frequently dubious in the choice of
those whom they honour for particular work - often dozens of scientists
have been on the same track - while the non-science prizes are bogus.
Tom Lehrer gave up perfuming after Kissinger was awarded the Peace Prize
- he said satire couldn't compete with reality any more. RH
Emas Refugee
> Emas Refugee wrote:
> Manpower isn't everything. If it were then many African and South Asian countries would be richer and more
> powerful than some advanced contries with small populations.
It certainly isn't everything but it is a necessary condition.
> > This assumes that there are replacements to be had. To give a counter
> > example,
> > two hundred years of immigration into America took it from a country
> > whose economy's main product was buffalo skins to the world's largest
> > economy, capable of putting a man on the moon.
>
> This is a different case.
Hence my using it as a counter-example.
>America prior to European immigration had a miniscule population
My point exactly.
> > Sadly the great leap forward in AI remains firmly in the realm of
> > prediction. In any case, without a functioning economy to build these
> > miracle machines your fantasy remains just that.
>
> What about Japan with their ageing population and zero immigration policy. They are investing in and developing
> robotics. True AI may be some way off of never achievable but robots for industry already exist and are used.
And have to be built and maintained by people.
> Thats largely due to economics. High housing costs, poor salaries in relation to the cost of living, and lack of
> support from the government makes having babies expensive so birth rates have declined. A change in economics or
> the taxation and benfits system could encourage a higher birth rate. Some European countries are coming up with
> proposals on this.
It may also be largely due to women prefering a career instead of
raising children.
> Depends on whether a Labour shortage really does exist. Already new technology and methods of production have
> dispensed with many jobs and will continue to do so in the future. In Britain pockets of unemployment exist where
> as many as 25% of residents of working age and not in education are out of work because no jobs exist there. I
> will only believe a labour shortage (on a national scale) really does exist until I see such a thing in reality.
> Britain has never managed zero or near zero unemployment in the past 50 or so years.
There is certainly a shortage of skilled labour. The IT company where
I work recruits programmers from India because we can't get people to
do well-paid work here.
> > > Moreover, a large proportion of
> > > those of working age coming to Britain remain unemployed for a
> > > considerable time, or work in the black economy where they pay no tax or
> > > NI and frequently draw benefits at the same time.
> >
> > An excellent argument for allowing legal immigration so that skilled
> > workers can settle here and contribute fully to the wealth, both
> > social and economic, of the nation.
>
> Quite the opposite. Priority must be given to ensuring British citizens get quality jobs rather than being stuck
> on the dole rather than bringing in foreigners.
> Housing costs reflect demand and not salaries or incomes.
Oh dear, no economics Nobel Prize for you either. The cost of any
commodity is a function of a person's ability to pay and their demand
for it.
>In London an acute housing shortage exists thus driving
> up prices so that only the most wealthy can afford it - for example those with big bonus payments.
Which is what I said when Bob the Bigot claimed that immigrant labour
was driving up the price.
Emas Refugee
> ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bMW8fIAW...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> > > Giving the lie to the "we must have more immigrants" mantra
> > >
>Argentina
> offers a different vision of what two hundred years of immigration can
> do to a country -- with the better-off people leaving in droves for
> Spain, Israel, and the United States to escape the economic collapse.
The problems in Argentina are due to the government debasing the
currency and have nothing to do with immigration.
> Wow -- what dark sarcasm. Mr. Henderson's argument does not fall
> apart at all. In a discussion group it is accepted practice to offer
> intelligent and well-reasoned speculation concerning the future. It
> is done all the time in journals, magazines, and in academic circles.
Nope, what Henderson offers is a mixture of bigotry and wishful
thinking. All he has done is take the racist creed of "Wogs out" and
tried to pretend that it is the cure for all problems.
> > > As for the pensions scare, demographic projections are notoriously
> > > unreliable.
> >
> > They are in fact stunningly reliable.
>
> 'reliable' in this case meaning 'I hope otherwise my argument falls
> apart'.
Reliable in this case meaning 'Look up the word Actuary in a
dictionary and try and understand how pensions actually work.'
> > > It is quite possible that in ten years time the birth rate
> > > will be above replacement level again
> >
> > All the current evidence suggests precisely the opposite. The trend is
> > for smaller families and is continuing downwards.
>
> 'current evidence suggests' in this case meaning 'I hope otherwise my
> argument falls apart'.
'Current evidence suggest' in this case means 'The last published
survey showing the birthrate still on a downwards trend.'
> > Thankfully social and economic policy in this country is based on
> > something a little more concrete that what you see.
> >
>
> 'something a little more concrete' in this case meaning 'I hope
> otherwise my argument falls apart'.
Oh dear, you sem to be getting stuck in something of a rut. Time for
some new 'witty' comebacks.
> How do you explain the prosperity that Britain has had since Thatcher
> was PM while hundreds of thousands of coal miners and factory workers
> lost their jobs? There appeared to be a surplus of workers, not a
> shortage. North Sea oil offered a temporary boost to the economy more
> than lots of unemployed workers. Once the oil revenue is gone Britain
> will return to its pre-Thatcher level of economic malaise.
The oil revenue is largely gone. There is a shortage of skilled
workers. Sadly there is no shortage of idiots.
> > Man's tribalism cannot be ignored. However, like all Man's baser
> > instincts it should not be pandered to.
>
> The baser instincts of persons such as Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Saddam
> Hussein, or Augusto Pinochet are always going to be with us.
Interesting that you mention Robert Mugabe. Now that's what happens
when a racist gets hold of a country and throws out the most skilled
part of the workforce.
> You are a Pollyanna.
Better a Pollyanna than a bigot.
Aramis Gunton
Refugee <ema...@lycos.co.uk> writes
>There is certainly a shortage of skilled labour. The IT company where
>I work recruits programmers from India because we can't get people to
>do well-paid work here.
Does your company pay the Indian programmers exactly the same rate as
they would indigenous programmers?
--
Aramis Gunton
Emas Refugee
> > Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bMW8fIAW...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> > > Giving the lie to the "we must have more immigrants" mantra
> > >
> > > Robert Henderson
> > >
> > > The idea that a country must continue to grow its economy through
> > > immigration without regard to the social consequences of doing so is
> > > reckless in the extreme. It is also economically illiterate.
> >
> > That's a pretty sweeping statement. What makes it particularly funny
> > is that, once you analyse some of Bob's economics it becomes obvious
> > that the Nobel Prize Committee (Economics Scetion) isn't likely to be
> > on the phone to Chez Henderson any time soon
>
> Well, that's encouraging. The Nobel family is taking legal measures
> to have their families' name removed from the so-called Nobel Prize in
> Economics because it is not formally associated with the Nobel Prize
> Committee. The Nobel Prize in Economics is a rip-off of the Nobel
> name and is unrelated to the real Nobel Committee.
Unfortunately it *is* associated with the Nobel Committee:
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/
Still on the basis of what he's posted in this and other groups I
doubt that Bob the Bigot would scrape a GCSE in Economics anyway.
Emas Refugee
> > All the current evidence suggests precisely the opposite. The trend is
> > for smaller families and is continuing downwards.
>
> 'current evidence suggests' in this case meaning 'I hope otherwise my
> argument falls apart'.
Current evidence being the Office for National Statistics:
"The Office for National Statistics released provisional figures for
last year showing the fertility rate sank to 1.64 children per woman,
compared with a peak of 2.93 in 1964.
The figure finally laid to rest the popular myth that the average
family has 2.4 children - although this had not been true since 1970
when the trend for women to delay raising a family began to develop.
The latest figures were well below the average family size of 2.1
children per woman needed for the population to replace itself in the
long term without inward migration."
> > >- just looking at the people I
> > > see in the street, I suspect that the tide may already have turned
> > > because there do seem to be an awful lot of young children around.
> >
> > Thankfully social and economic policy in this country is based on
> > something a little more concrete that what you see.
>
> 'something a little more concrete' in this case meaning 'I hope
> otherwise my argument falls apart'.
See 'Office for National Statistics' above.
Concrete enough for you, shithead?
Emas Refugee
> > Sadly the great leap forward in AI remains firmly in the realm of
> > prediction. In any case, without a functioning economy to build these
> > miracle machines your fantasy remains just that.
>
> What about Japan with their ageing population and zero immigration policy.
A fascinating account of the trouble that the Japanese are in due to
exactly these factors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4348775,00.html
Robert Henderson
>
>> > Sadly the great leap forward in AI remains firmly in the realm of
>> > prediction. In any case, without a functioning economy to build these
>> > miracle machines your fantasy remains just that.
>>
>> What about Japan with their ageing population and zero immigration policy.
>
>A fascinating account of the trouble that the Japanese are in due to
>exactly these factors:
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4348775,00.html
The Jap economic trouble began when they exported jobs. RH
Robert Henderson
>
>"The Office for National Statistics released provisional figures for
>last year showing the fertility rate sank to 1.64 children per woman,
>compared with a peak of 2.93 in 1964.
>
>The figure finally laid to rest the popular myth that the average
>family has 2.4 children - although this had not been true since 1970
>when the trend for women to delay raising a family began to develop.
>
>The latest figures were well below the average family size of 2.1
>children per woman needed for the population to replace itself in the
>long term without inward migration
That is just a snapshot. Irrelevant to the long term. Not only that,
even if population falls, it does not mean that immigrants are needed.
Here is the latest version of the piece I originally posted:
stvfrmco
You disprove your own claim with the above URL. Thanks for making it
easy for us. The Nobel Prize in Economics is associated with the Bank
of Sweden, not the Nobel Committee. "In memory of Alfred Nobel" is
very tangential. Your name-calling, i.e., "bigot", is typical of
pro-immigrant hate speech. It is the liberal equivalent of "nigger"
or "spic" when applied to those who oppose your agenda. You make the
white person the hated ethnic group and feel a sense of pride as you
spew out your venom.
The Technical Manager
> stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > All the current evidence suggests precisely the opposite. The trend is
> > > for smaller families and is continuing downwards.
> >
> > 'current evidence suggests' in this case meaning 'I hope otherwise my
> > argument falls apart'.
>
> Current evidence being the Office for National Statistics:
>
> "The Office for National Statistics released provisional figures for
> last year showing the fertility rate sank to 1.64 children per woman,
> compared with a peak of 2.93 in 1964.
>
> The figure finally laid to rest the popular myth that the average
> family has 2.4 children - although this had not been true since 1970
> when the trend for women to delay raising a family began to develop.
>
> The latest figures were well below the average family size of 2.1
> children per woman needed for the population to replace itself in the
> long term without inward migration."
Whats wrong with more babies and less immigrants ? Financial assistance should be made available for couples
wishing to start families earlier on in life.
Joseph Hutcheon
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>Emas Refugee wrote:
>
.
>>
>> The latest figures were well below the average family size of 2.1
>> children per woman needed for the population to replace itself in the
>> long term without inward migration."
>
>Whats wrong with more babies and less immigrants ? Financial assistance should be made available for couples
>wishing to start families earlier on in life.
It's not (just) financial. Women are putting off starting families
for longer and longer for many reasons, including but not limited to
loss of personal freedom; toll on personal health both mental and
physical; fear of 'growing up'. Financial incentives might help to an
extent, but in any case we need to review the whole tax/benefits
system to ensure we're not just taking money with one hand and passing
it back with the other.
Emas Refugee
I have no idea. That's management stuff and I am a programmer.
Steve Smith
news:98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com...
Aren't you even a teeny weeny bit curious? After all if they are really
cheap your job may be on the line.
Steve
The Technical Manager
Its the sort of thing a left wing newspaper like the Guardian would come up with. It still doesn't imply that
Britain needs any more immigrants.
stuart...@nospam.hotmail.com
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>Whats wrong with more babies and less immigrants ? Financial assistance should be made available for couples
>wishing to start families earlier on in life.
There are numerous tax incentives for families.
Singles will start marching in the street if there is more.
Stu
The Technical Manager
> On Wed, 29 May 2002 14:36:25 +0100, The Technical Manager
> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Whats wrong with more babies and less immigrants ? Financial assistance should be made available for couples
> >wishing to start families earlier on in life.
>
> There are numerous tax incentives for families.
True, but not really enough, especially for those who have or propose to have a larger number of children.
> Singles will start marching in the street if there is more.
I happen to be single myself.
>
>
> Stu
stuart...@nospam.hotmail.com
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>stuart...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 May 2002 14:36:25 +0100, The Technical Manager
>> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Whats wrong with more babies and less immigrants ? Financial assistance should be made available for couples
>> >wishing to start families earlier on in life.
>>
>> There are numerous tax incentives for families.
>
>True, but not really enough, especially for those who have or propose to have a larger number of children.
?? I have two children. I get about £100 a month in Child Benefit and
the Tax Credit stuff that came in this year. Sound bloody generous to
me. But if you have ever had to buy a pair of childrens shoes, you
realise that it doesn't go far.
>> Singles will start marching in the street if there is more.
>
>I happen to be single myself.
And are you not pissed off with the emphasis on families?
Stu
Aramis Gunton
stuart...@nospam.hotmail.com writes
>>I happen to be single myself.
>
>And are you not pissed off with the emphasis on families?
Why?
Surely that is traditionally how we propagate the species.
Radical stuff I realise but possibly a reasonable requirement for
continuance.
--
Aramis Gunton
Emas Refugee
Stick to the Daily Mail then. If you don't think that the example of
Japan applies then why did you bring it up?
Emas Refugee
Well I am and I did find out. The funny thing is they cost *more* than the UK guys.
Emas Refugee
> ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bMW8fIAW...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> > Unfortunately it *is* associated with the Nobel Committee:
> >
> > http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/
> >
>
> You disprove your own claim with the above URL.
Nope I don't. That's the Nobel Committee web site and listing the
prize-winners clearly makes an association. If you have trouble with
the definition of the word I suggest you stop kacking off to your copy
of 'The Bell Curve' and consult a dictionary.
> You make the
> white person the hated ethnic group and feel a sense of pride as you
> spew out your venom.
LOTFPMKOL - You misunderstand. I don't hate white people, I hate
bigots and racists. My use of the word is accurate.
Emas Refugee
> In article <98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>, Emas
> Refugee <ema...@lycos.co.uk> writes
> >Current evidence being the Office for National Statistics:
> >
> >"The Office for National Statistics released provisional figures for
> That is just a snapshot. Irrelevant to the long term.
It's actually the latest in a long-term trend. Sorry if the facts are
so confusing to you.
> Not only that,
> even if population falls, it does not mean that immigrants are needed.
They are if you want to the economy to continue to grow at its trend
rate.
Robert Henderson
Refugee <ema...@lycos.co.uk> writes
>"Steve Smith" <SteveS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<ad2ue4$steh0$1...@ID-123292.news.dfncis.de>...
>> "Emas Refugee" <ema...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com...
>> > Aramis Gunton <Ara...@nink.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:<qtwtmBH5$J98...@nink.demon.co.uk>...
>> > > In article <98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>, Emas
>> > > Refugee <ema...@lycos.co.uk> writes
>> > > >There is certainly a shortage of skilled labour. The IT company where
>> > > >I work recruits programmers from India because we can't get people to
>> > > >do well-paid work here.
>> > >
>> > > Does your company pay the Indian programmers exactly the same rate as
>> > > they would indigenous programmers?
>> >
>> > I have no idea. That's management stuff and I am a programmer.
>>
>> Aren't you even a teeny weeny bit curious? After all if they are really
>> cheap your job may be on the line.
>
>Well I am and I did find out. The funny thing is they cost *more* than the UK
>guys.
So, you will now be lobbying to be paid the same? RH
Emas Refugee
> In article <98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>, Emas
> Refugee <ema...@lycos.co.uk> writes
> >The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3CF3A82
> >A.DEA...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
> >
> >> > Sadly the great leap forward in AI remains firmly in the realm of
> >> > prediction. In any case, without a functioning economy to build these
> >> > miracle machines your fantasy remains just that.
> >>
> >> What about Japan with their ageing population and zero immigration policy.
> >
> >A fascinating account of the trouble that the Japanese are in due to
> >exactly these factors:
> >
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4348775,00.html
>
> The Jap economic trouble began when they exported jobs. RH
The economic trouble in Japan really kicked off with the bubbles in
the stock and property markets. Having large chucks of the banking and
construction industries run by gangsters doesn't help either.
With an ageing population and no sign of Henderson's miracle machines
it looks pretty bleak for the Japanese. Still as one of the most
racist nations on earth they serve as a warning to us all of what
happens when you follow the bigot line.
Joseph Hutcheon
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 May 2002 20:00:35 +0100, The Technical Manager
><tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>stuart...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 May 2002 14:36:25 +0100, The Technical Manager
>>> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Whats wrong with more babies and less immigrants ? Financial assistance should be made available for couples
>>> >wishing to start families earlier on in life.
>>>
>>> There are numerous tax incentives for families.
>>
>>True, but not really enough, especially for those who have or propose to have a larger number of children.
>
>?? I have two children. I get about £100 a month in Child Benefit and
>the Tax Credit stuff that came in this year. Sound bloody generous to
>me. But if you have ever had to buy a pair of childrens shoes, you
>realise that it doesn't go far.
Tell me about it. It doesn't buy much gin either.
>
>>> Singles will start marching in the street if there is more.
>>
>>I happen to be single myself.
>
>And are you not pissed off with the emphasis on families?
Maybe singles realise that they'll need some young people around to
lend a hand (metaphorically) as they get older
carldent
news:<3CF4FC0B...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
> Emas Refugee wrote:
>
> > The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<3CF3A82A...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
> >
> > > > Sadly the great leap forward in AI remains firmly in the realm of
> > > > prediction. In any case, without a functioning economy to build
these
> > > > miracle machines your fantasy remains just that.
> > >
> > > What about Japan with their ageing population and zero immigration
policy.
Yes. but we must find the cash this exciting way forward in technology
cannot be side lined any longer, nano tech is the future and what a future,
when back in the forties and fifties they speculated on human beings having
unlimited leisure time, the garden of Eden, well I feel nano will do it for
us, the foundations are there the feasibility studies have been done, our
computers are now upto it, it will effect every area of human existence,
food for life, and possibly a disposal system for death, from computers to
apples and clothing all waiting for a nano machines to be put into
operation, our very lives may well depend on it, it is the overall miracle
we have been waiting for.
The Technical Manager
Get this into your head. Population and economic strength are NOT related !!
Advanced nations function using brainpower and technology. Not manpower and sweatshop style labour.
The Technical Manager
Not really. I am a strong believer in the family being the bedrock of society. I'm not some gay activist or
something like that.
Emas Refugee
> Emas Refugee wrote:
> > > Not only that,
> > > even if population falls, it does not mean that immigrants are needed.
> >
> > They are if you want to the economy to continue to grow at its trend
> > rate.
>
> Get this into your head. Population and economic strength are NOT related !!
Get this into *your* head, you can't have productive economy that
supports a large number of older people without a working population.
The demographics are quite clear on this one.
> Advanced nations function using brainpower and technology. Not manpower and sweatshop style labour.
Sadly brainpower is a scarce commodity amongst the racist community.
And I think it's been some time since Bob the Bigot did anything
productive.
Emas Refugee
> In article <98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>, Emas
> Refugee <ema...@lycos.co.uk> writes
> >"Steve Smith" <SteveS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:<ad2ue4$steh0$1...@ID-123292.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> "Emas Refugee" <ema...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com...
> >> > Aramis Gunton <Ara...@nink.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<qtwtmBH5$J98...@nink.demon.co.uk>...
> >> > > In article <98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>, Emas
> >> > > Refugee <ema...@lycos.co.uk> writes
> >> > > >There is certainly a shortage of skilled labour. The IT company where
> >> > > >I work recruits programmers from India because we can't get people to
> >> > > >do well-paid work here.
> >> > >
> >> > > Does your company pay the Indian programmers exactly the same rate as
> >> > > they would indigenous programmers?
> >> >
> >> > I have no idea. That's management stuff and I am a programmer.
> >>
> >> Aren't you even a teeny weeny bit curious? After all if they are really
> >> cheap your job may be on the line.
> >
> >Well I am and I did find out. The funny thing is they cost *more* than the UK
> >guys.
>
> So, you will now be lobbying to be paid the same? RH
No, they do a different job and have different skills.
Joseph Hutcheon
wrote:
>And I think it's been some time since Bob the Bigot did anything
>productive.
He's written some very stern letters to the press. And we anticipate
further revelations of 'elite mischief' real soon now.
Robin
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes
>Get this into your head. Population and economic strength are NOT related !!
>
>Advanced nations function using brainpower and technology. Not manpower and
>sweatshop style labour.
But you have to have plenty of plebs ever ready to buy the useless crap
turned out by your factories.
For that you need people, earning money to buy them.
It's called capitalism I believe, and the whole system comes crashing
down if there is not continual growth.
--
Robin Muskett
stuart...@nospam.hotmail.com
Hutcheon) wrote:
>>?? I have two children. I get about £100 a month in Child Benefit and
>>the Tax Credit stuff that came in this year. Sound bloody generous to
>>me. But if you have ever had to buy a pair of childrens shoes, you
>>realise that it doesn't go far.
>
>Tell me about it. It doesn't buy much gin either.
My kids have moved onto Alcho pops (Joke!!)
Stu
stuart...@nospam.hotmail.com
I didn't suggest you were, but the demographics of all western
societies have changed enormously in the last 50yrs.
Stu
stuart...@nospam.hotmail.com
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>> They are if you want to the economy to continue to grow at its trend
>> rate.
>
>Get this into your head. Population and economic strength are NOT related !!
Not related but closely interlinked.
>Advanced nations function using brainpower and technology. Not manpower and sweatshop style labour.
Yes but they outsource the sweatshops to third world countries.
Stu
The Technical Manager
> The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3CF5F40A...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
> > Emas Refugee wrote:
> > > > Not only that,
> > > > even if population falls, it does not mean that immigrants are needed.
> > >
> > > They are if you want to the economy to continue to grow at its trend
> > > rate.
> >
> > Get this into your head. Population and economic strength are NOT related !!
>
> Get this into *your* head, you can't have productive economy that
> supports a large number of older people without a working population.
> The demographics are quite clear on this one.
I didn't say "without a working population". I stated there would be a smaller working population than today and
possibly a smaller population in general. I did not say that Britains population would dwindle to the point where
there was nobody of working age left. Much of this demographic timebomb is a result of the post war baby boomers
entering retirement age. Once they die off the population will shrink somwhat but after that it will remain stable
- in effect if there was no post war baby boom. There is no hard evidence that the British population is in danger
of dying out altogether. It is unlikely to shrink below 40 million and Britain with a population stabilised at 40
million could well result in a more productive economy with a higher standard of living than today.
>
>
> > Advanced nations function using brainpower and technology. Not manpower and sweatshop style labour.
>
> Sadly brainpower is a scarce commodity amongst the racist community.
> And I think it's been some time since Bob the Bigot did anything
> productive.
What a naive comment. !!!
1. Do you consider someone who is opposed to immigration a racist ?
2. Do you think that those opposed to immigration are uneducated and possess little in the way of qualifications ?
Steve Smith
Why do you believe that this will continue? Wipro seem to cover most areas.
Or is your area one that only white europeans can do?
Steve
stvfrmco
That's what export markets are for. Boeing, Nissan, Ford,
Daimler-Chrysler have growing markets despite some local decline in
population because they have a world market. Germany and Korea which
were divided in half after 1945 by the Cold War continued to prosper
-- at least the capitalist halves of those countries. So by cutting
their populations effectively in half they prospered enormously
anyway. So much for the theory that a decline in population is a
death sentence for a country's economy, eh?
stvfrmco
> stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bMW8fIAW...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> real Nobel Committee.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it *is* associated with the Nobel Committee:
> > >
> > > http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/
> > >
> >
> > You disprove your own claim with the above URL.
>
> Nope I don't. That's the Nobel Committee web site and listing the
> prize-winners clearly makes an association. If you have trouble with
> the definition of the word I suggest you stop kacking off to your copy
> of 'The Bell Curve' and consult a dictionary.
>
No you're wrong. It's the Bank of Sweden that gives out the Economic
Prize. The URL you posted proves that I am right.
It states very clearly the following:
The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred
Nobel 2001
Quit making a complete ass of yourself and admit you cannot read.
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/
stvfrmco
> stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bMW8fIAW...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> real Nobel Committee.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it *is* associated with the Nobel Committee:
> > >
> > > http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/
> > >
> >
> > You disprove your own claim with the above URL.
>
> Nope I don't. That's the Nobel Committee web site and listing the
> prize-winners clearly makes an association. If you have trouble with
> the definition of the word I suggest you stop kacking off to your copy
> of 'The Bell Curve' and consult a dictionary.
>
prize, not the Nobel Committee which is working to have the "Nobel"
name removed from the Economics Prize.
> > You make the
> > white person the hated ethnic group and feel a sense of pride as you
> > spew out your venom.
>
> LOTFPMKOL - You misunderstand. I don't hate white people, I hate
> bigots and racists. My use of the word is accurate.
Yes, you hate, thanks for admitting it. You use the words "bigot" and
"racist" to broadly mean anyone who opposes your agenda with regards
to immigration. You are therefore full of hate just like those poor
whites in the American South portrayed so well in movies like
"Mississippi Burning". How does it feel to carry around that hatred
with you all of the time?
People like you have "found" a moral equivalency between the murder of
6 million jews or slavery in the American South with limiting illegal
immigration (or all immigration). What a stupid comparison which
trivializes the holocaust and the horrors of slavery.
Robert Henderson
<robin....@ntlworld.com> writes
No it doesn't. All that happens is a period of recession. it is called
the Trade Cycle. RH
Emas Refugee
> ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bMW8fIAW...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> real Nobel Committee.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately it *is* associated with the Nobel Committee:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/
> > > >
> > >
> > > You disprove your own claim with the above URL.
> >
> > Nope I don't. That's the Nobel Committee web site and listing the
> > prize-winners clearly makes an association. If you have trouble with
> > the definition of the word I suggest you stop kacking off to your copy
> > of 'The Bell Curve' and consult a dictionary.
> >
>
> Go back and look again. It is the Bank of Sweden that gives out the
> prize, not the Nobel Committee which is working to have the "Nobel"
> name removed from the Economics Prize.
If that's so then why is it on (And hence associated with) the Nobel
Prize Committee's official site? And why do you not understand the
meaning of the word 'Associate'?
> Yes, you hate, thanks for admitting it. You use the words "bigot" and
> "racist" to broadly mean anyone who opposes your agenda with regards
> to immigration.
I use the words 'racist' and 'bigot' to mean, well, 'racists' and
'bigots'.
> People like you have "found" a moral equivalency between the murder of
> 6 million jews or slavery in the American South with limiting illegal
> immigration (or all immigration).
I think you're getting a touch over-excited here. I never mentioned
the Holocaust, slavery or any of the other acts that racism and
bigotry have inflicted on humanity.
> What a stupid comparison which
> trivializes the holocaust and the horrors of slavery.
And you're the one who made it. I guess that makes you, as if we
didn't have enough evidence already, stupid.
Emas Refugee
> ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bMW8fIAW...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> real Nobel Committee.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately it *is* associated with the Nobel Committee:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/
> > > >
> > >
> > > You disprove your own claim with the above URL.
> >
> > Nope I don't. That's the Nobel Committee web site and listing the
> > prize-winners clearly makes an association. If you have trouble with
> > the definition of the word I suggest you stop kacking off to your copy
> > of 'The Bell Curve' and consult a dictionary.
> >
>
> No you're wrong. It's the Bank of Sweden that gives out the Economic
> Prize. The URL you posted proves that I am right.
>
> It states very clearly the following:
>
> The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred
> Nobel 2001
>
> Quit making a complete ass of yourself and admit you cannot read.
You still haven't figured out what 'Associated' means have you? Do you
have a dictionary? It's near the front.
Emas Refugee
> Emas Refugee wrote:
> I didn't say "without a working population". I stated there would be a smaller working population than today
Supporting a larger retired population. Not a very attractive scenario
for either group.
> Once they die off the population will shrink somwhat but after that it will remain stable
But before they do someone will have to look afetr them.
> - in effect if there was no post war baby boom. There is no hard evidence that the British population is in danger
> of dying out altogether.
Nobody said there was.
>could well result in a more productive economy with a higher standard
of living than today.
'Could', so we're back to wishful thinking again.
> > Sadly brainpower is a scarce commodity amongst the racist community.
> > And I think it's been some time since Bob the Bigot did anything
> > productive.
>
> What a naive comment. !!!
>
> 1. Do you consider someone who is opposed to immigration a racist ?
It's a fair bet.
> 2. Do you think that those opposed to immigration are uneducated and possess little in the way of qualifications ?
I refer the honourable gentleman to my answer above. However it's
sadly true that intolerance and perjudice are not limited to the
lumpen proles.
Emas Refugee
'Wipro'?
Steve Smith
Very big Indian body shop. www.wipro.com
Steve Smith
Elitist.
Emas Refugee
> Emas Refugee wrote:
>
> > The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3CF3A82A...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
> >
> > > > Sadly the great leap forward in AI remains firmly in the realm of
> > > > prediction. In any case, without a functioning economy to build these
> > > > miracle machines your fantasy remains just that.
> > >
> > > What about Japan with their ageing population and zero immigration policy.
> >
> > exactly these factors:
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4348775,00.html
>
> Britain needs any more immigrants.
Perhaps you would prefer The Spectator:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002-06-01&id=1914
Emas Refugee
Thank you.
Emas Refugee
> > > Why do you believe that this will continue? Wipro seem to cover most
> areas.
> > > Or is your area one that only white europeans can do?
> >
> > 'Wipro'?
>
> Very big Indian body shop. www.wipro.com
As long as there's a shortage of competent IT people and I keep my own
skills up to date I'm not worried. The alternative is the Henderarse
option where we kick out everyone who isn't white and sulk from the
rest of the world. I think the status quo is much more atractive.
Robin
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <gt6XmnAv...@robin.muskett>, Robin
><robin....@ntlworld.com> writes
>>In article <3CF5F40A...@niobiumfive.co.uk>, The Technical Manager
>><tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes
>>>Get this into your head. Population and economic strength are NOT related !!
>>>
>>>Advanced nations function using brainpower and technology. Not manpower and
>>>sweatshop style labour.
>>
>>But you have to have plenty of plebs ever ready to buy the useless crap
>>turned out by your factories.
>>
>>For that you need people, earning money to buy them.
>>
>>It's called capitalism I believe, and the whole system comes crashing
>>down if there is not continual growth.
>
>No it doesn't. All that happens is a period of recession. it is called
>the Trade Cycle. RH
Tell that to the Japanese. You'll know that they've been quite
literally, giving money away, to no avail.
Tell that to shareholders who expect continual growth and desert in
droves when that fails to materialise.
If people don't buy the baubles all the card houses start to look very
flimsy indeed.
--
Robin Muskett
stvfrmco
> stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.02053...@posting.google.com>...
> > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bMW8fIAW...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> real Nobel Committee.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately it *is* associated with the Nobel Committee:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You disprove your own claim with the above URL.
> > >
> > > Nope I don't. That's the Nobel Committee web site and listing the
> > > prize-winners clearly makes an association. If you have trouble with
> > > the definition of the word I suggest you stop kacking off to your copy
> > > of 'The Bell Curve' and consult a dictionary.
> > >
> >
> > No you're wrong. It's the Bank of Sweden that gives out the Economic
> > Prize. The URL you posted proves that I am right.
> >
> > It states very clearly the following:
> >
> > The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred
> > Nobel 2001
> >
> > Quit making a complete ass of yourself and admit you cannot read.
>
> You still haven't figured out what 'Associated' means have you? Do you
> have a dictionary? It's near the front.
I had only suggested that Alfred Nobel's descendents are attempting to
remove the name "Nobel" from the Prize in Economics. See this URL
please.
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/nobel.htm
and this:
MARK JOHNSON
should be made available for couples
> wishing to start families earlier on in life."
"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3CF4D959...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> Emas Refugee wrote:
>
> > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message
news:<e90063c1.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message
news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > > All the current evidence suggests precisely the opposite. The trend
is
> > > > for smaller families and is continuing downwards.
> > >
> > > 'current evidence suggests' in this case meaning 'I hope otherwise my
> > > argument falls apart'.
> >
> > Current evidence being the Office for National Statistics:
> >
> > "The Office for National Statistics released provisional figures for
> > last year showing the fertility rate sank to 1.64 children per woman,
> > compared with a peak of 2.93 in 1964.
> >
> > The figure finally laid to rest the popular myth that the average
> > family has 2.4 children - although this had not been true since 1970
> > when the trend for women to delay raising a family began to develop.
> >
> > The latest figures were well below the average family size of 2.1
> > children per woman needed for the population to replace itself in the
> > long term without inward migration."
Robert Henderson
<robin....@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>>>It's called capitalism I believe, and the whole system comes crashing
>>>down if there is not continual growth.
>>
>>No it doesn't. All that happens is a period of recession. it is called
>>the Trade Cycle. RH
>
>Tell that to the Japanese. You'll know that they've been quite
>literally, giving money away, to no avail.
>
Japan is still the second largest economy in the world by a long chalk.
RH
>Tell that to shareholders who expect continual growth and desert in
>droves when that fails to materialise.
>
>If people don't buy the baubles all the card houses start to look very
>flimsy indeed.
--
Marc Living
wrote:
>As a Conservative. Hear Hear.
More likely to be a rather obvious Milbank parody. No genuine party
supporter puts "as a [whatever]" in every post he makes.
--
Marc Living (remove "bounceback" to reply)
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make
Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or
diminish trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)
Emas Refugee
> ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.02053...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > stvf...@email.msn.com (stvfrmco) wrote in message news:<e90063c1.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > ema...@lycos.co.uk (Emas Refugee) wrote in message news:<98f13f40.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > > Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bMW8fIAW...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> real Nobel Committee.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately it *is* associated with the Nobel Committee:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2001/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You disprove your own claim with the above URL.
> > >
> >
> > You still haven't figured out what 'Associated' means have you? Do you
> > have a dictionary? It's near the front.
>
>
> I had only suggested that Alfred Nobel's descendents are attempting to
> remove the name "Nobel" from the Prize in Economics.
No you didn't. In your own words: "it is not formally associated with
the Nobel Prize Committee." I've never argued that Nobel's descendants
were atempting to remove the name from the prize. What I have pointed
out, and this is fairly obvious to most people with a
kindergarten-level understanding of English is that, while the prize
is not an original Nobel bequest it is associated with the committee.
It's quite revealing that your entire response to this thread has not
been to try and defend Bob the Bigot's nuthouse economics, but rather
to try and ambush my argument on a technicality. Is that the best you
can do?
stvfrmco
Your point is well-taken. Sorry.
Joseph Hutcheon
<black...@ntlworld.BOUNCEBACK.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 May 2002 20:03:58 +0100, "MARK JOHNSON" <mm...@aber.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>As a Conservative. Hear Hear.
>
>More likely to be a rather obvious Milbank parody. No genuine party
>supporter puts "as a [whatever]" in every post he makes.
As an unaligned member of the Neither of the Above (Apathetic Faction)
Party, I have to agree.