What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[grumbler]

In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.

As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.

  The Roman Empire was not a nation.

[Threviel]

In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.

As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.

  The Roman Empire was not a nation.

Also not a generalized population collapse.

[Razgovory]

 

[Valmy]

In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.

It is generalized though. Practically every country in the world is having the collapse outside of Africa, and even then I think the trajectory is downward. Pretty soon we will wish we had immigrants from Latin America wanting to sneak in.

So I question the idea that a regular flow of immigrants will even be possible in a world where most countries are below replacement level.

[Valmy]

In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.

As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.

I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.

[grumbler]

In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.

As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.

I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.

You appear to understand what Tamas was trying so clumsily to say, so share it with us.  Was he claiming that the Roman Empire was an example of a nation (yeah, I know) that was pulling in a regular flow of immigrants and so avoided stagnation, or that the Roman Empire didn't pull in the immigrants and therefor was stagnant for 600 years or so or something else?

[Valmy]

In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.

As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.

I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.

You appear to understand what Tamas was trying so clumsily to say, so share it with us.  Was he claiming that the Roman Empire was an example of a nation (yeah, I know) that was pulling in a regular flow of immigrants and so avoided stagnation, or that the Roman Empire didn't pull in the immigrants and therefor was stagnant for 600 years or so or something else?

The claim I see tossed around was that the Roman Empire was destroyed because they let all those Germanic "immigrants" move in. They eventually took over, like the recent scourge of Muslim immigrants are soon going to do.

Something like that.

[grumbler]

In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.

As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.

I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.

You appear to understand what Tamas was trying so clumsily to say, so share it with us.  Was he claiming that the Roman Empire was an example of a nation (yeah, I know) that was pulling in a regular flow of immigrants and so avoided stagnation, or that the Roman Empire didn't pull in the immigrants and therefor was stagnant for 600 years or so or something else?

The claim I see tossed around was that the Roman Empire was destroyed because they let all those Germanic "immigrants" move in. They eventually took over, like the recent scourge of Muslim immigrants are soon going to do.

Something like that.

I hope for Tamas's sake it's not something that stupid.  The Romans "welcomed" the German "immigrants" like the Germans "welcomed" the Western Allied "immigrants" at Normandy in June 1944

[Maladict]

In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.

As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.

I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.

You appear to understand what Tamas was trying so clumsily to say, so share it with us.  Was he claiming that the Roman Empire was an example of a nation (yeah, I know) that was pulling in a regular flow of immigrants and so avoided stagnation, or that the Roman Empire didn't pull in the immigrants and therefor was stagnant for 600 years or so or something else?

The claim I see tossed around was that the Roman Empire was destroyed because they let all those Germanic "immigrants" move in. They eventually took over, like the recent scourge of Muslim immigrants are soon going to do.

Something like that.

I hope for Tamas's sake it's not something that stupid.  The Romans "welcomed" the German "immigrants" like the Germans "welcomed" the Western Allied "immigrants" at Normandy in June 1944

By disarming them, and drafting some into their army? And settling the others with their families (that presumably were on the landing craft) into new groups by breaking up family clans?

[grumbler]

In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.

As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.

I mean I don't think anybody has entire mobile countries, complete with military forces capable of defeating theirs in open battle, crossing into their territory en masse.

You appear to understand what Tamas was trying so clumsily to say, so share it with us.  Was he claiming that the Roman Empire was an example of a nation (yeah, I know) that was pulling in a regular flow of immigrants and so avoided stagnation, or that the Roman Empire didn't pull in the immigrants and therefor was stagnant for 600 years or so or something else?

The claim I see tossed around was that the Roman Empire was destroyed because they let all those Germanic "immigrants" move in. They eventually took over, like the recent scourge of Muslim immigrants are soon going to do.

Something like that.

I hope for Tamas's sake it's not something that stupid.  The Romans "welcomed" the German "immigrants" like the Germans "welcomed" the Western Allied "immigrants" at Normandy in June 1944

By disarming them, and drafting some into their army? And settling the others with their families (that presumably were on the landing craft) into new groups by breaking up family clans?

No, by fighting them off as long as possible, and then retreating when forced to.

[crazy canuck]

In an epoch of generalized population collapse, the nations that succeed in pulling in a regular flow of immigrants will have a critical strategic advantage; the rest will stagnate.

As is evidenced by the Roman Empire.

  The Roman Empire was not a nation.

Also not a generalized population collapse.

Well except for a couple of plagues...

[Threviel]

Well except for a couple of plagues...

Well, yeah, the Antonine and Justinian plague hit the empire harder than the barbarians. But it recovered from the Antonine and the Justinian I interpreted as after the fall of the empire in this case, seeing as one often equates the fall of the west as the fall of the whole. The plagues presumably hit Persia just as hard though, and that was the only serious peer enemy.

[Razgovory]

The population of Europe decline by quite a bit in the late classical/early medieval periods.  It didn't recover until the high middle ages.  Plagues don't' hit all areas equally.  Areas that have had significant disruptions of the food supply get hit with plagues much harder than areas where food is plentiful.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Roman Empire doesn't really have anything to do with the issue . . . FWIW 19th century America indicates the advantage of a high immigration industrial economy over slave-based agrarian economies as a general principle. . .

It's hard to talk about immigration in ancient Rome in any meaningful way because the concept of "immigration" doesn't really translate and even if it did we don't have anything resembling useful data to say anything intelligent about it.  What we can say is the the Roman polity lasted as long as it did in significant part because it was very successful in expanding the pool of talent and manpower it drew from. 

[Tamas]

By disarming them, and drafting some into their army? And settling the others with their families (that presumably were on the landing craft) into new groups by breaking up family clans?

No, by fighting them off as long as possible, and then retreating when forced to.

Well, you are both right, aren't you? Both happened.

I agree that Rome's collapse was mostly a military affair. But I think it was also socio-economic in the sense that a lot of the population ruled over had no real investment in the Roman system, since they were not beneficiary of it neither did they identify with it too much culturally.

That still had little to do with immigration but also that could not had helped with these otherwise natural processes.

I just don't think quickly absorbing as many immigrants as possible is such a clear-cut advantage for a political unit as it was made out to be by Minsky's comment. Although, depends on the timeframe as well I guess. e.g. from Hungarian history, letting the Cumans in following the Mongol destruction was a big short-term boost, a lot of medium and long-term problem but eventually a big net positive as it helped the country ("nation" if you will) survive and whatever it meant to be Cuman was eventually (in a space of 500 years) absorbed into what it meant to be Hungarian.  Following the Ottoman destruction a lot of German, Slavic, and Romanian settlers were invited to what was for sure already significant populations of them, since large areas of the country were depopulated. It sure helped but in the meantime what a "nation" meant has switched from subjects of the same crown to ethnic/cultural identities and the increasing problems from these eventually destroyed what at the start of the process was considered the "nation".