Should People With Low IQ's Be Allowed To Vote?

Quasar

Population growth in order to foster market growth is a very shortsighted proposition, because it means endless growth. That is so obviously unsustainable that it would make the OP the subject of his own discrimination: a lack of understanding of consequences that is dangerous in the voter.

Never ending growth is not possible in a finite world with finite resources, and all major economies are beginning to feel the effect of myopic strategies. We need to develop national and global economy that are not based on ever increasing capital, increasing prices and increasing consumption, ie. inflation. We also need to find a sustainable level of world population and remain there, in order to reach a dynamic yet stable economic system that affords everyone a decent living standard without shafting one to enrich the other (no I'm not a communist, quite the opposite) and irreversibly ruining our planetary habitat along the way.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Quasar wrote: »

We also need to find a sustainable level of world population and remain there, .

That fallacy been answered so many times on this board of late I'm not going to bother answering in detail again.

Suffice it to say that even when global population stabilises, there will still be competition amongst countries to be the biggest, best and most successful.

And a population consisting of 5 pensioners for every 1 worker, rather than 1 pensioner for every 5 workers, would be just as doomed as it is today.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And back to Kabayiri's repeated assertions about technology.

There are no significant economic disadvantages to EU immigration, but there are many significant economic advantages.

And it in no way stops any of the things Kabayiri promotes.

We can attract anyone we like, from anywhere in the world, if we choose to do so. We can invest in technology, if we choose to do so.

So why the hostility to immigration I wonder, as it doesn't stop us doing anything that wants done?

Quasar

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That fallacy been answered so many times on this board of late I'm not going to bother answering again.

An answer, or a million answers, does not a truth make. You can answer a zillion times according to your own world view, but that is still answering according to your world view. That is not necessarily a recommendation of rightness.

You cannot grow anything indefinitely on finite resources.

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

is this a universal economic law that applies to all countries?

is the UK per capita poorer when old people go and live in Spain?

is Spain per capita richer?

It's no economic law whatsoever.

If it were true we could achieve super growth by attracting an additional 50 million inhabitants.

Except it wouldn't work. There are finite resource constraints to consider.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And back to Kabayiri's repeated assertions about technology.

There are no significant economic disadvantages to EU immigration, but there are many significant economic advantages.

And it in no way stops any of the things Kabayiri promotes.

We can attract anyone we like, from anywhere in the world, if we choose to do so. We can invest in technology, if we choose to do so.

So why the hostility to immigration I wonder, as it doesn't stop us doing anything that wants done?

You have never attempted to consider the use of technology in any of your posts. This is because you probably don't understand what it offers; where it is going; and what it will take for our nation to profit from it.

Arrogance is assuming that only you know the best economic direction for our country.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Quasar wrote: »

You cannot grow anything indefinitely on finite resources.

We're nowhere near those constraints yet, and wont be in any of our lifetimes.

In the meantime, avoiding an inversion of the demographic pyramid is a far more pressing matter.

It is the natural order of things, and has been for millennia, that there must be more young and productive workers than old and infirm pensioners for society to function.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

You have never attempted to consider the use of technology in any of your posts. This is because you probably don't understand what it offers; where it is going; and what it will take for our nation to profit from it.

Arrogance is assuming that only you know the best economic direction for our country.

No, arrogance is assuming that technology can solve what are financial and demographic problems with an aging population and increasing dependency ratio.

And you're still sidestepping the question.

Increased use of technology and increased population are not mutually exclusive.

So why are you against immigration?

Quasar

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We're nowhere near those constraints yet, and wont be in any of our lifetimes.

In the meantime, avoiding an inversion of the demographic pyramid is a far more pressing matter.

Oh I see: it doesn't affect us NOW in our lifetimes, so we're allright jack and, presumably, stuff future generations who will have to pick up what pieces we have left. Yep, a definite winner for your voter cull.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Quasar wrote: »

Oh I see: it doesn't affect us NOW in our lifetimes, so we're allright jack and stuff future generations. Yep, a definite winner for your voter cull.

Future generations will be infinitely more stuffed if we leave them with a burden of 5 pensioners for every 1 worker, rather than 5 workers for every 1 pensioner as the system was designed for.