Who the hell is an immigrant?

[crazy canuck]

I have both given and received points on this forum.

I award one Crazy Canuck point for clarity of thought above and beyond the norm of Languish.

I also award JR 1,000,000 points for causing Pat to suggest that JR deserves a point.

[The Brain]

[crazy canuck]

No points for you!

[Barrister]

Don't worry Brain - I hereby award you a Res Ipsa Loquitor point, of which I haven't handed any out for several years.

Which reminds me - they were set up to see if people could guess on what basis they were being handed out, but the whole point thing in particular just died out...

[crazy canuck]

Don't worry Brain - I hereby award you a Res Ipsa Loquitor point, of which I haven't handed any out for several years.

I dont think it is obvious that Brain breached a duty of care but you are by nature a prosecutor and so more harsh in your judgments at times.

[The Minsky Moment]

. And let me make this clear so even Americans can understand it, although that is probably beyond my powers: I am using the term loosely to refer to population-resource dynamics and not in reference to every single thing Malthus said or did.

But what is meant by "population-resource dynamics"?
The only hint is your agreement with Slargos' statement that "[A]s long as you have population growth, you're eventually going to run into the wall. Unless of course the wall can be moved."

That statement is turn is explained by Slargos' explanation: "Social and technological evolution has averted the problem for now. However, this social progress has not taken place in the second and third world, and it has certainly not taken place in a vacuum. It relies on resource extraction from outside the West and Western economies as they look today will certainly not be able to survive the evolution of overcrowded third world countries into first world."

This is nonsense.  The wall "moves" not because of "resource extraction from outside the West" but because technical progress facilitates greater levels of output and more efficient mobilization and allocation of available inputs.  The proof is that the rise in living standards in Western Europe dates from before imperial expansion and accelerates at the very time that imperial exploitation retracts.  Another proof is the present rise of much of the third world into relative affluence while the former first world still retains its own affluence in absolute terms.

[Razgovory]

I have both given and received points on this forum.

So, you're both catcher and pitcher?

[Eddie Teach]

I'm not sure the act is in any way analogous to either baseball or sex.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not sure the act is in any way analogous to either baseball or sex.

But it does give some insight into how Raz views both.

[Barrister]

Don't worry Brain - I hereby award you a Res Ipsa Loquitor point, of which I haven't handed any out for several years.

I dont think it is obvious that Brain breached a duty of care but you are by nature a prosecutor and so more harsh in your judgments at times.

I think your law latin is a bit rusty.

[crazy canuck]

I think your law latin is a bit rusty.

Actually your point would have been better if you had left out the word "law".  It is the legal meaning of those words which animates my comment.

[Pat]

. And let me make this clear so even Americans can understand it, although that is probably beyond my powers: I am using the term loosely to refer to population-resource dynamics and not in reference to every single thing Malthus said or did.

But what is meant by "population-resource dynamics"?
The only hint is your agreement with Slargos' statement that "[A]s long as you have population growth, you're eventually going to run into the wall. Unless of course the wall can be moved."

That statement is turn is explained by Slargos' explanation: "Social and technological evolution has averted the problem for now. However, this social progress has not taken place in the second and third world, and it has certainly not taken place in a vacuum. It relies on resource extraction from outside the West and Western economies as they look today will certainly not be able to survive the evolution of overcrowded third world countries into first world."

This is nonsense.  The wall "moves" not because of "resource extraction from outside the West" but because technical progress facilitates greater levels of output and more efficient mobilization and allocation of available inputs.  The proof is that the rise in living standards in Western Europe dates from before imperial expansion and accelerates at the very time that imperial exploitation retracts.  Another proof is the present rise of much of the third world into relative affluence while the former first world still retains its own affluence in absolute terms.

SIGH. I dumb it down all I can and still...

It is meant exactly what it says. I use the term to refer to population in relation to resources and I use the term loosely. That I use the term loosely means that I won't specify it in detail so that the term becomes a narrow one. What exactly is it that you don't undertand?

And what's up with deliberately misconstruing and putting words in my mouth (agreeing with one thing is agreeing with everything? really? ). Seriously, wtf? Sorry, I would've been glad to have had a fair and open discussion because I've had those before with you and I've even changed my mind during those discussions so you know I'm not impossible to talk to but this is just rediculous and I'm not playing along with this bullshit...

[crazy canuck]

I'm not playing along with this bullshit...

Dont let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

[The Minsky Moment]

It is meant exactly what it says. I use the term to refer to population in relation to resources and I use the term loosely. That I use the term loosely means that I won't specify it in detail so that the term becomes a narrow one. What exactly is it that you don't undertand?

I apologize then.

I had understood that you were trying to say something of substance.  Now that it is clear that you weren't actually saying anything determinate at all, I realize that was an error to attempt any substantive response.

[crazy canuck]

It is meant exactly what it says. I use the term to refer to population in relation to resources and I use the term loosely. That I use the term loosely means that I won't specify it in detail so that the term becomes a narrow one. What exactly is it that you don't undertand?

I apologize then.

I had understood that you were trying to say something of substance.  Now that it is clear that you weren't actually saying anything determinate at all, I realize that was an error to attempt any substantive response.

Dont let the door hit you in the ass on your way out sounds better.