JF: As I responded earlier today to someone who had a similar reaction:
Your comment demonstrates why population management is such an important issue. It can't be raised without inflaming emotions, so rare is the leader who's willing to raise it. And by going unaddressed, the risk of problems created by overpopluation grow unchecked.
Your heated response is one of the most common and presumes that those who raise the topic are out to create a master class at the expense of the rest of the populace.
I ask you, are these not important questions to consider?
what should our national immigration policy be?
with a continued increasing population (439 million by 2050 estimates the US Census Bureau), when will the US begin hitting unacceptable limits given our finite resources?
presuming we want to avoid a chaotic collision with overpopulation (on both national and global levels), what steps should we be considering today? Which ones achieve the best odds for success, balanced with fairness and respect for human rights?
You may not agree, but I think these are responsible and prudent questions to be raising now. To be unwilling to do so is reckless, in my opinion.
FYI - I do not want this thread to get hijacked by reaction to this emotionally-charged topic and we'll moderate these comments heavily if need be. Chris and I will be tackling population as a topic on the site directly in a few weeks - that will be the right forum for a full-blown discussion on this subject.
Wow, if that's what constitutes a heated response I may need to recalibrate my temperature meter. I think others may call this "prior restraint". Granted, this topic may be better dealt with in a future forum, but let's not shutter reasonable discussion. I get enough of this at lunch in MA.
This election is a tipping point as mentioned earlier. I think many producers will conclude that we have probably past the point of no return and will look for alternatives. I would like to see a thread devoted specifically for discussing alternative locations to wait out the coming storm where harD working people are not vilified and Made to pay for the sins of those who would rather vote for a living. I am personally thinking about Costa Rica…beautiful country with great people who are not looking for a handout, small government, lots of individual freedom, great weather, lots of fresh water and plenty of natural resources and mostly renewable power. I live in Texas which is about as free as any state in the US but until we succeed we are still under the rule of the Federal Government. I am ready to vote with my feet because I can't see any way to win at the ballot box and we have a government that clearly doesnt respect the limits of power defined in our Constitution I look forward to connecting up with others who are looking for alternatives to our current direction.
[quote=Jbarney]Take a look at the history of the income tax. Rates were much higher during the Great Depression and World War II. Just saying.
I cringe at some of the anti-tax currents being voiced here, but have to remember that many of you are posting within the context of what is coming…and I am in fact in the same boat. I don't want my tax dollars just thrown away.
[/quote]
Jbarney,
You are correct that marginal rates were much higher - up to 90%. Unfortunately, the folks who would have been subject to those usurious rates had a myriad of loopholes to crawl into. Can you imagine anyone but a fool paying the top rate? Make sure you count the oranges with the apples.
Reagan lowered the tax rates and closed many of the loopholes. That was a good step. If he hadn't vastly increased (tripled) the national debt in his 8 years, I'd say he was a very good president.
Grover
I get enough of this at lunch in MA.Right on, R. I am pegged for a nutcase. I laugh along with them. Any laugh is a good laugh, even if we are laughing at different things.
Adam, we had this "emotionally charged" discussion before as a member here decided to chastise a member because he gave his opinion about how he would control population growth reduction. This after being prodded to share his opinion is how I interpreted it.
I happen to believe the problem is that we have two camps. Those who know we will have population moderation, and it's impolite to discuss because it makes you look around the room and wonder who will need to go. I'm in this camp, and think it best to avoid and move to more pressing issues as there are many.
Then we have the other camp who get to express how this population management issue could be dealt with in ways not fully imagined, and that would mean eliminating 5 Billion from this planet. That's a lot of Folks and means using some truly horrific weaponry.
So lets muse shall we. We moderate by gassing, nuclear, chemical, biological, and all means necessary and lets get started now. Lets be thoughtful and get on this problem right away. Lets have a lottery, like was done to pick who would be drafted towards the end of the Vietnam conflict, on Nation TV. A committee table will need to be constructed, we use nice comfortable chairs too as this subject requires those making the decision to be attentive. How many members do we think we will need? What are the rules, and will we let the people vote in the end? Perhaps we do it by race. We should start now as we will need to screen these good Folks that would run this program. Didn't we do this before? Genocide it was called, right? Lets call it what it is shall we because that is what it is.
Can we please be polite and just stick our heads in the sand and not deal with this just now? It is too Jim Jones of the famed Kool-aid incident like.
Can we please make this our last choice of discussion, and deal with the Fiscal Cliff, debt ceiling, and all other things first?
If it is necessary to remove this posting then do please cancel my subscription. Nothing personal, it's just I am not dealing with this subject again. I don't mind being the first one eliminated for the cause. Thank you
Respectfully Given
BOB
Charles, I am a big fan and this is known. I thought of you as I read Adams post.I was asked by a friend who simply thinks Obama as "The Prince of Darkness" (I do not), and asked me why Obama was elected. My answer to him I thought was simple. When you have bloated government and want to keep your job as you work for the government or related jobs dependent on government then you vote for the known quantity. When you are benefiting from our entitlement state in the form of welfare, SSI checks and all other pacifying payments you have those receiving these payments as protecting their self interest so vote for a known quantity. This represents 51% of the population with many more Baby Boomers that will soon enter entitlement phase, voting too for a known quantity. So the percentage is actually higher as we Baby Boomers want our entitlements there when we show up to collect. That is why I believe Obama was elected.
I should add too, that 61% of those receiving payments are white, and 33% colored as it is most often thought a racial divide mostly benefiting the Blacks but that is not really correct.
Now you have your blue states locked in as the President (current) is a known quantity. I don't think it goes beyond this.
The next President, and there after just has to assure these folks are taken care of, and the percentage will just grow from here as the Baby Boomers move into entitlement age, and protects their self interests.
How can we balance our Fiscal Issues when pandering to the vote of this most impressive voting block? I just don't think Congress has the brass to tackle this issue without taking great risks of offending an ever growing entitlement class. This has to end badly as Congress, while saying the right things so colorfully, and with a back door opened for quick escape are just locked into the same ole same ole.
I remain hopeful for change but I'll believe it when I see it. We either have cash pumping out by the Trillions until the cash overwhelms the system or retrenchment removes the cash in the system by debt repayment or default. We'll see. I know this though, when push comes to shove that the morality issue is not an issue any longer, and default/bankruptcy will be a valid escape from debt, and running up the last few bucks on the credit card will happen just before this bankruptcy is declared. Human nature when all the leaders are taking similar advantage of this most easy, and legal recourse.
So happy you take the time to comment here often. Good stuff really.
Respectfully Given
BOB
Bank Of England Halts QE After "Potency Questioned"
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/08/2012 07:38 -0500
Bank of EnglandBarclaysBloomberg NewsBOECitigroupEuropean Central BankGross Domestic ProductJapanLloydsMervyn KingMonetary PolicyQuantitative EasingrecoveryUnited Kingdom
In what may be the most disturbing news of the day, moments ago the BOE announced it is halting its own version of QE3, and capping the asset purchase program at £375 billion after "some policy makers questioned its effectiveness in supporting a recovery that remains lackluster." Could it be that even that peculiar Homo Sapiens subspecies known as "economist" is starting to realize that when applying the same "remedy" time after time to absolutely no avail, and where even the market no longer responds to unlimited injections of liquidity, then perhaps it is time to end said "remedy" altogether? And how long until the voodoo shamans in the dark lit room at Marriner Eccles follow through? Sadly, if Japan, and its 9 (so far) rounds of easing, is any indication, we have a lot more pain to go before what has been glaringly obvious to every hotdog vendor and shoeshine boy is also understood by Economics Nobel prize winners.
From Bloomberg:
The nine-member Monetary Policy Committee led by Governor Mervyn King kept its target for asset purchases at 375 billion pounds ($598 billion) today, ending its third round of quantitative easing. The decision was forecast by 35 of 45 economists in a Bloomberg News survey. The remainder had forecast an increase of as much as 50 billion pounds.
Today’s move suggests the London-based central bank may focus on credit-boosting initiatives such as the Funding for Lending Scheme to ignite growth. Increased inflationary pressures may also have prompted policy makers to hold fire even as surveys point to renewed weakness after the U.K. economy surged 1 percent in the third quarter.
BOE Deputy Governors Paul Tucker and Charles Bean both suggested in recent speeches that asset purchases may no longer have the same impact on the economy as when first introduced in 2009. At the same time, Martin Weale has questioned whether loosening policy is right with inflation above the central bank’s 2 percent target.
The UK needs more hedonically edible iPads because inflation appears to be an issue:
Inflation was at 2.2 percent in September and King said last month that recent energy costs increases mean it will stay above the goal “well into next year.” Renewed signs of price pressures combined with the third-quarter gross domestic product data and comments from MPC members led banks including Citigroup Inc. and Barclays Plc to abandon forecasts of more QE today.
“The widespread expectation of unchanged policy marks a sharp turnaround from forecasts just a few weeks ago that QE would be expanded,” said Chris Crowe and Blerina Uruci, economists at Barclays in London. “This is partly due to evidence of firmer inflationary pressures.”
The MPC had new growth and inflation forecasts at today’s meeting, which it will publish next week. Minutes of the meeting, showing how the committee members voted, will be released on Nov. 21.
Finally, since one never says never in Keynesville, it is likely only a matter of time before the insanity returns:
Even with QE halted, the Bank of England still has the FLS, which it set up with the U.K. Treasury and is aimed at boosting lending. The program began in August and as of last month, 30 financial institutions had signed up, including Lloyds Banking Group Plc and Barclays.
“QE still has a benefit and those benefits will stay there – they’re not unwinding any purchases,” said Alan Clarke, an economist at Scotia Capital in London. “And they won’t close the door on it, they’ll leave their options open.”
And now, we look forward to the ECB confirming that when it comes to failed monetary system, for every good cop there is at least one absolutely insane cop.
Am I the only one who sees great irony in Chris and Adam being willing to 'go to the mats' to discuss population control? The only reason population may be a problem in the US is that we consume way more resources per capita than any nation on earth. China and India have about a third of the world's population and will likely grow by the billions by 2050. We have very limited leverage to dictate the population policies of these nations and the rest of the third world where the problem is greatest.
OTOH, Chris and Adam are resolutely unwilling to discuss a far more pressing problem, climate change. We can have a decisive impact in that arena if the political will is there to do something. I would suggest that climate change is far less controversial than population control, and is subject to scientific evidence, unlike population control which has all kinds of religious, ethnic and political overtones.
Just my $.02.
Doug
Doug - Please understand that this is not a poke in the eye.Why do you feel you need Chris or Adam to weigh in on Climate Change? There is a fantastic,data rich, on-going discussion in another thread here on PP.com. Do you feel that what Adam and/or Chris think about climate change would validate what is already there?
I don't. The information already stands on it's own two feet. Jacques Yves Cousteau could show up and throw down and I don't think it would make much difference to the data that speaks volumes without saying anything.
I so agree DOG-in-a-pile as there are many well qualified and intelligent speakers on the subject here at PP that frankly align better with me and how I see things, and they are in the field experts so who am I to question their numbers. Where Adam and Chris are not in their class (meant no disrespect).
Frankly Dog, your views nuclear are clearer thinking than many thoughts Chris has spoken of in the past (again no disrespect to the Professor) and so I weight towards your opinion when you two have your discussions.
Mark Cochrane being the other expert here at PP I found fascinating and extremely giving and bright.
Have a Great Day Folks
BOB
Whatever dark and nefarious forces running amok unchecked on this site that modified my post and added the link to the The Definitive Global Climate Change (aka Global Warming) Thread, hear this…
Thanks.
Now, please tell me how you freakin' did it because every time I try to do that text highlight linky thingie I end up going to an 80s Grateful Dead show and that is quite possibly the worst thing that could happen to anyone.
You're welcome. Figured the post had more punch if folks knew which thread you were referencing.Adding a hyperlink is pretty straightforward:
find the URL you want to link to
copy it
find the menu bar at the top of the Comment box you've written in and find the 'Link' icon (it looks like a globe with a chain link beneath it - I'll post an image below)
highlight the text you want to hyperlink
click the Link icon
a pop-up widow will appear. Paste the url into the provided field.
click OK
Here's the icon to look for in the menu bar in Step 3 (highlighted by the red box):
Sounds like question 7 here in Maryland, where they use casino revenues for education. But that only DISPLACES current funds for education one for one that can then be used for whatever porkbarrel program O'Malley can dream up. I voted for it only because the word cut isn't in our socialist governor's vocabulary, and figure voluntary revenues via gambling is better than yet another tax hike to me. I'm already getting jacked up with about 5 new tax increases between last year and next year. Also, a measure passed in Maryland that gives illegals, I mean "undocumented immigrants" in-state tuition rates…
Adam, that was way cool of you. I used it to get Marks name as it aluded me.
Hey!, can you change the scores of the World Series? Now, that would be cool. Or hook me up and Ill do it!
Still… GRIEVING… here.
BOB
Aaron E. Carroll, MD, MS at Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.
Source Article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/14/how_blue_america_subsidizes_red_america.html
And here's a NATIONAL HEAT MAP OF DEPENDENCY on government benefits…
The Geography of Government Benefits (February 11, 2012)
"The share of Americans’ income that comes from government benefit programs, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, more than doubled over the last four decades, rising from 8 percent in 1969 to 18 percent in 2009."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?ref=us
Check out the interactive chart that breaks it down to the county level.
Note that veterans' benefits only account for 0.4% of personal income. And look at which states need the most income support.
And, here's a MEASURE OF TAX DOLLARS COLLECTED VERSUS RECEIVED…
Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In (February 16, 2012)
"The states that contributed more in taxes than they got back in spending were more likely to have voted for Obama in 2008 and were more likely to be largely urban. (There are some clear exceptions: For instance, New Mexico, a rural, Democratic state, gets more federal money per tax dollar than any other state.)"
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps
So to those of you for whom this is new… Please, adjust the anecdotes that you are telling accordingly.
Poet
Bah humbug! We're going to reduce our world population severely, but not in any thoughtful, organized, compassionate way. We're going to run wilfully into any one of several walls directly ahead of us (war, pestilence, environment, energy) and millions or billions are going to die prematurely. It might be more than "necessary" or it might be less than "enough," but it's coming. The one percent who see it coming won't be able to alter the course sufficiently or measureably, despite the best of intentions and good ideas. Let's be kind to one another as we hurtle toward extinction (or mere Armageddon).
[quote=thc0655]Bah humbug! We're going to reduce our world population severely, but not in any thoughtful, organized, compassionate way. We're going to run wilfully into any one of several walls directly ahead of us (war, pestilence, environment, energy) and millions or billions are going to die prematurely. It might be more than "necessary" or it might be less than "enough," but it's coming. The one percent who see it coming won't be able to alter the course sufficiently or measureably, despite the best of intentions and good ideas. Let's be kind to one another as we hurtle toward extinction (or mere Armageddon).
[/quote]
I'd be curious to hear Arthur's take on this one…
Nice to hear someone else considering Costa Rica. It really is a reasonable alternative for US Citizen. I understand there is already a large expat population from the US and other places there. Perhaps the topic of 'Safe Havens' would make a good Group within the Prepare section of the website.