Larry Blanchard wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The US is alone among Western powers with an almost perfect birth
replacement rate. That's because we encourage immigration and, more
importantly, people still really want to come here to live, work, and
raise their families.

You are correct that the birth rate, at least among the native born, is very
close to replacement rate. But immigration and the higher birth rate among
1st generation immigrants (and maybe 2nd and 3rd) are what have caused the
population to double in sixty-some years. Do you consider this a good thing?

For the moment, yes. A nation's wealth (and thus power/influence) is
driven primarily by its per capita productivity. Immigration is part
(but not remotely all) of the equation to maintaining and growing
productivity. Given that the US will end up being the only significant
Western democracy on the planet in less than a half century (assuming
nothing changes in the Western/Anglo birth rates around the world in the
mean time), we need as many American citizens as possible. But "American
citizen" presumes these new emigre's will follow the path of their
predecessors - they must *assimilate* American ideals, values, and, yes,
language. Thanks to the usual Drooling Idiots, we now see a profoundly
dangerous movement to encourage immigration and *discourage*
assimilation. That could well be a death sentence for American ideals
wherein the US becomes just as balkanized and unable to speak with one
voice (literally) as is the case in Western Europe today.



Of course it doesn't matter what either of us thinks about it. The population
will continue to grow either by birth or immigration because the Ponzi
economy depends on it. Think how few houses, autos, appliances, etc. we'd
need with a stable population.


Your understanding of "economy" is fundamentally broken. It is not a
"Ponzi" scheme of any sort. The "economy" is one measure of national
wealth. And "wealth" grows in proportion to national *productivity* not
on based on the number of toasters and Big Macs that get sold. If this
were not so, nations will little or no natural resources and/or goods
to sell would all be poor. Take even a casual look at Hong Kong,
Singapore, or Japan for some fairly compelling counterexamples. For
a more academic treatise on the matter, you might want to read the
source: Adam Smith's "Wealth Of Nations" and, in particular, his
"Pin Factory" example. He wrote with tremendous insight in the 18th
century. Too bad the modern so-called educated Westerner can't be
bothered to take the time to understand what he wrote.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/