Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Thomas Malthus today

Expand Messages
  • Fred Elbel
    Abernethy, Virginia Deane virginia.abernethy@Va... wrote to the energyresources daily digest on Mar 28, 2013 ... natural environment increases when
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 28, 2013
      "Abernethy, Virginia Deane" virginia.abernethy@Va... wrote to the
      energyresources daily digest on Mar 28, 2013
      > Frosty Wooldridge... need only have added that pressure on the
      natural environment increases when immigrants move from the Third
      World, where their consumption and emissions are relatively low, to a
      developed country such as the United States... it is folly to allow
      immigration which both raises population numbers in the developed
      county and where the immigrant's objective is to raise his consumption pattern.


      Hi, Virginia:

      As we are aware, mass immigration is driving US population to double
      within the lifetimes of children born today. We take in a million
      legal immigrants each year and three to four million illegal aliens each year.

      There are two major components to halting illegal immigration: 1)
      secure our border against unarmed invasion. 2) enforce existing laws
      making it illegal for employers to hire illegal aliens. Do that and
      the illegal aliens who are here will voluntarily return home to
      reunite with their families.

      It is common knowledge that Democrats want an unlimited supply of
      undocumented democrats, so they (the Democrats) push for amnesty for
      illegal aliens. Similarly, Republicans want an unending supply of
      cheap, foreign labor for their corporate constituents.

      Both parties are falling over themselves to enact yet a seventh
      amnesty for illegal aliens - against the wishes of the American people.

      For more information, see www.CAIRCO.org.
      People can also send free faxes to Congress on the issue at
      www.NumbersUSA.com.

      By the way, see Frosty Wooldridge's site:
      http://www.howtolivealifeofadventure.com

      Fred
    • Gerry Agnew
      Hello Fred! In my newsletter of a few weeks ago I did a study on US immigration and what is likely to happen. Given that corporations will be screaming for
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 28, 2013
        Hello Fred!

        In my newsletter of a few weeks ago I did a study on US immigration and what
        is likely to happen. Given that corporations will be screaming for qualified
        workers in perhaps 15-20 years, we are going to see MASSIVE US immigration
        as I see things.

        In part, the following is what I wrote. I hope you find it interesting.

        Gerry

        ************************************************************************


        One of the things immigration policy is supposed to do is to make sure that
        the population of a given country stays steady and that the "bumps" which
        are associated with the usual ups and downs of population growth and decline
        are evened out. In a nation such as the USA, which has historically prided
        itself on admitting giant flows of people at various times in its history,
        the question today carries with it a much greater urgency than before. Have
        a look at this URL, from USA Today, which assesses what American women are
        doing (or not).
        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/12/us-births-decline/1880231/ .
        I note that in the 1970s, in the period referred to back then as "Women's
        Lib", vast numbers of the female population went to work for whatever reason
        you can name: getting ahead, showing that women can do the work, bringing
        home a paycheque etc. One of the oft used excuses was "I have a degree in
        Anthropology from Bryn Mawr. Why should I be raising kids and cooking steaks
        for my husband"?



        Have a look at the USA Today article referred to above. Note carefully the
        sentence or so in particular regarding workers and their availability. It
        reads-
        "One of the most important strategies is invest in the younger generation,
        the human capital," Myers says. "We can actually survive with fewer kids but
        we need to bring them along ... At the end of the decade, when Baby Boomer
        retirement hits us really hard, at that point we'll be begging for workers."



        Note the last five words and then have a look at what the US Congress has
        been doing for so many years: issuing visas for experienced and willing
        workers, again and again. The article notes that the US (and most of the
        rest of the world for that matter) needs new workers to be able to provide
        the tax base that the retiring Boomers need. Speaking candidly, I do not
        believe a word of this. As can be seen (follow the money), US corporations
        need workers from overseas to fill skilled posts for which they are
        currently having a hard time doing anything about. They have needed these
        workers for many decades now (as can be seen from the endless requests for
        new visa programmes) so that they can "remain competitive". I suspect that
        their strategic planners have been looking at the same figures which I have,
        and that they have been assessing these for a long time (as have I). They
        look at the newspaper stories which come out from time to time (probably
        planted by them as well) about how "California is going to be more
        brown-skinned than white by 2030" or "California will be predominately
        Spanish speaking by 2030". I have also seen long articles in the US national
        press about how, by the 22nd Century, the US as a whole will be only about
        50% white, or words to that effect.



        The unseen comment in all of these headlines is that "California will be
        brown-skinned - unless something is done". The underlying idea must be that
        "White girls, get to work and produce skilled employees". (Racist or not,
        this is how the Deep Thinkers there apparently think, so we must be prepared
        to see initiatives supporting these beliefs to be presented and then
        enacted). What else CAN be done in this sort of environment when "alarm
        bells are being rung"? I do not see anything apart from one: mass
        immigration. If we return to East Asia (and the TPP) we should make a
        definite note about the island state of Singapore. This tiny state on the
        Straits of Johore opposite Malaysia has done very well indeed since Malaysia
        turfed it out in 1965. The population is currently about 5.3 million in a
        small area of about 275 square miles (say 3.5 times the area of Washington
        DC). Singapore knows full well that it has suffered from the "Women's Lib
        Syndrome" and is going to see a severe generational imbalance starting
        literally NOW. What they have decided to do is to plan for a mass
        immigration flow by 2030 (only seventeen years from now) to bring this
        population up to 6.9 million. This is a gain of about 30% in a shortish
        period of time and native Singaporeans are not happy with the implications
        for housing costs, job opportunities, you name it. Nevertheless, the
        agencies involved are going to go ahead with this strategy and have
        apparently told their population simply as a matter of course.



        Now the cat is out of the bag. Singapore is saying that they need workers,
        and need them badly - to maintain their competitive position but also to
        provide the requisite tax base for elder care. Their Confuciusan ethic
        compels them to look after their elders, and they will. What they propose is
        the societal cost which must be paid. An article on CNBC questioned the 6.9
        figure which they said was a dramatic overshoot. I disagree. It stands to
        reason (which the CNBC "expert commentator" did not address) that if
        Singapore is going to roll out the welcome mat for skilled overseas workers,
        then other nations will do the same thing to Singaporean workers. Net,
        therefore, they believe that planning for 6.9 million population (that is a
        population density of 25,000 people per square mile) is probably the correct
        way to proceed.



        What happens to the USA (the theme of this article let us not forget!) with
        its similar problems? I believe that what we have seen in the past is the
        wave of the future. If what Singapore is doing is indeed the wave of the
        future, then the USA can look forward to an immigration intake of perhaps
        90-95 million people!! The Conservatives among the existing US population
        will rant and rave at this, but where are the workers going to come from
        anyway, in a moderately short period of time? If US women really get going
        and start producing babies, these children will not be old or experienced
        enough to take up the growing labour slack by 2030. If the US is going to
        experience a collapse in its major companies because they cannot get enough
        of the workers which they require, then these companies will REALLY agitate
        for "visa reforms" - call it what you will. Maybe the idea is that the US
        will "only" need 70-75 million workers (using Singaporean reasoning) but
        that is still a huge number or people. These new arrivals will need housing.
        With US Fertility Rates so low, US housing developers are soon going to
        start screaming for assistance; if they aren't already. This assistance will
        take the form of increasing overall demand - by immigration!

        Gerry

        **********************************************************************************************

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Fred Elbel" <felbel@...>
        To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:56 PM
        Subject: [energyresources] Re: Thomas Malthus today


        > "Abernethy, Virginia Deane" virginia.abernethy@Va... wrote to the
        > energyresources daily digest on Mar 28, 2013
        > > Frosty Wooldridge... need only have added that pressure on the
        > natural environment increases when immigrants move from the Third
        > World, where their consumption and emissions are relatively low, to a
        > developed country such as the United States... it is folly to allow
        > immigration which both raises population numbers in the developed
        > county and where the immigrant's objective is to raise his consumption
        > pattern.
        >
        >
        > Hi, Virginia:
        >
        > As we are aware, mass immigration is driving US population to double
        > within the lifetimes of children born today. We take in a million
        > legal immigrants each year and three to four million illegal aliens each
        > year.
        >
        > There are two major components to halting illegal immigration: 1)
        > secure our border against unarmed invasion. 2) enforce existing laws
        > making it illegal for employers to hire illegal aliens. Do that and
        > the illegal aliens who are here will voluntarily return home to
        > reunite with their families.
        >
      • Abernethy, Virginia Deane
        What do you recommend for the 50% of young American college graduates who cannot find work at the level for which they are trained, or even find work at all.
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 28, 2013
          What do you recommend for the 50% of young American college graduates who cannot find work at the level for which they are trained, or even find work at all.



          Should they go to Singapore?

          V.

          ________________________________
          From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com [energyresources@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Gerry Agnew [gaea@...]
          Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:23 PM
          To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Thomas Malthus today/fe + va



          Hello Fred!

          In my newsletter of a few weeks ago I did a study on US immigration and what
          is likely to happen. Given that corporations will be screaming for qualified
          workers in perhaps 15-20 years, we are going to see MASSIVE US immigration
          as I see things.

          In part, the following is what I wrote. I hope you find it interesting.

          Gerry

          ************************************************************************

          One of the things immigration policy is supposed to do is to make sure that
          the population of a given country stays steady and that the "bumps" which
          are associated with the usual ups and downs of population growth and decline
          are evened out. In a nation such as the USA, which has historically prided
          itself on admitting giant flows of people at various times in its history,
          the question today carries with it a much greater urgency than before. Have
          a look at this URL, from USA Today, which assesses what American women are
          doing (or not).
          http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/12/us-births-decline/1880231/ .
          I note that in the 1970s, in the period referred to back then as "Women's
          Lib", vast numbers of the female population went to work for whatever reason
          you can name: getting ahead, showing that women can do the work, bringing
          home a paycheque etc. One of the oft used excuses was "I have a degree in
          Anthropology from Bryn Mawr. Why should I be raising kids and cooking steaks
          for my husband"?

          Have a look at the USA Today article referred to above. Note carefully the
          sentence or so in particular regarding workers and their availability. It
          reads-
          "One of the most important strategies is invest in the younger generation,
          the human capital," Myers says. "We can actually survive with fewer kids but
          we need to bring them along ... At the end of the decade, when Baby Boomer
          retirement hits us really hard, at that point we'll be begging for workers."

          Note the last five words and then have a look at what the US Congress has
          been doing for so many years: issuing visas for experienced and willing
          workers, again and again. The article notes that the US (and most of the
          rest of the world for that matter) needs new workers to be able to provide
          the tax base that the retiring Boomers need. Speaking candidly, I do not
          believe a word of this. As can be seen (follow the money), US corporations
          need workers from overseas to fill skilled posts for which they are
          currently having a hard time doing anything about. They have needed these
          workers for many decades now (as can be seen from the endless requests for
          new visa programmes) so that they can "remain competitive". I suspect that
          their strategic planners have been looking at the same figures which I have,
          and that they have been assessing these for a long time (as have I). They
          look at the newspaper stories which come out from time to time (probably
          planted by them as well) about how "California is going to be more
          brown-skinned than white by 2030" or "California will be predominately
          Spanish speaking by 2030". I have also seen long articles in the US national
          press about how, by the 22nd Century, the US as a whole will be only about
          50% white, or words to that effect.

          The unseen comment in all of these headlines is that "California will be
          brown-skinned - unless something is done". The underlying idea must be that
          "White girls, get to work and produce skilled employees". (Racist or not,
          this is how the Deep Thinkers there apparently think, so we must be prepared
          to see initiatives supporting these beliefs to be presented and then
          enacted). What else CAN be done in this sort of environment when "alarm
          bells are being rung"? I do not see anything apart from one: mass
          immigration. If we return to East Asia (and the TPP) we should make a
          definite note about the island state of Singapore. This tiny state on the
          Straits of Johore opposite Malaysia has done very well indeed since Malaysia
          turfed it out in 1965. The population is currently about 5.3 million in a
          small area of about 275 square miles (say 3.5 times the area of Washington
          DC). Singapore knows full well that it has suffered from the "Women's Lib
          Syndrome" and is going to see a severe generational imbalance starting
          literally NOW. What they have decided to do is to plan for a mass
          immigration flow by 2030 (only seventeen years from now) to bring this
          population up to 6.9 million. This is a gain of about 30% in a shortish
          period of time and native Singaporeans are not happy with the implications
          for housing costs, job opportunities, you name it. Nevertheless, the
          agencies involved are going to go ahead with this strategy and have
          apparently told their population simply as a matter of course.

          Now the cat is out of the bag. Singapore is saying that they need workers,
          and need them badly - to maintain their competitive position but also to
          provide the requisite tax base for elder care. Their Confuciusan ethic
          compels them to look after their elders, and they will. What they propose is
          the societal cost which must be paid. An article on CNBC questioned the 6.9
          figure which they said was a dramatic overshoot. I disagree. It stands to
          reason (which the CNBC "expert commentator" did not address) that if
          Singapore is going to roll out the welcome mat for skilled overseas workers,
          then other nations will do the same thing to Singaporean workers. Net,
          therefore, they believe that planning for 6.9 million population (that is a
          population density of 25,000 people per square mile) is probably the correct
          way to proceed.

          What happens to the USA (the theme of this article let us not forget!) with
          its similar problems? I believe that what we have seen in the past is the
          wave of the future. If what Singapore is doing is indeed the wave of the
          future, then the USA can look forward to an immigration intake of perhaps
          90-95 million people!! The Conservatives among the existing US population
          will rant and rave at this, but where are the workers going to come from
          anyway, in a moderately short period of time? If US women really get going
          and start producing babies, these children will not be old or experienced
          enough to take up the growing labour slack by 2030. If the US is going to
          experience a collapse in its major companies because they cannot get enough
          of the workers which they require, then these companies will REALLY agitate
          for "visa reforms" - call it what you will. Maybe the idea is that the US
          will "only" need 70-75 million workers (using Singaporean reasoning) but
          that is still a huge number or people. These new arrivals will need housing.
          With US Fertility Rates so low, US housing developers are soon going to
          start screaming for assistance; if they aren't already. This assistance will
          take the form of increasing overall demand - by immigration!

          Gerry

          **********************************************************************************************

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Fred Elbel" <felbel@...<mailto:felbel%40ecofuture.org>>
          To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com<mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com>>
          Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:56 PM
          Subject: [energyresources] Re: Thomas Malthus today

          > "Abernethy, Virginia Deane" virginia.abernethy@Va... wrote to the
          > energyresources daily digest on Mar 28, 2013
          > > Frosty Wooldridge... need only have added that pressure on the
          > natural environment increases when immigrants move from the Third
          > World, where their consumption and emissions are relatively low, to a
          > developed country such as the United States... it is folly to allow
          > immigration which both raises population numbers in the developed
          > county and where the immigrant's objective is to raise his consumption
          > pattern.
          >
          >
          > Hi, Virginia:
          >
          > As we are aware, mass immigration is driving US population to double
          > within the lifetimes of children born today. We take in a million
          > legal immigrants each year and three to four million illegal aliens each
          > year.
          >
          > There are two major components to halting illegal immigration: 1)
          > secure our border against unarmed invasion. 2) enforce existing laws
          > making it illegal for employers to hire illegal aliens. Do that and
          > the illegal aliens who are here will voluntarily return home to
          > reunite with their families.
          >




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Abernethy, Virginia Deane
          Hi, Fred, Take the argument straight to the folks who act as though we can afford population growth forever. Advocate an immigration MORATORIUM, until
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 28, 2013
            Hi, Fred,
            Take the argument straight to the folks who act as though we can afford population growth forever.

            Advocate an immigration MORATORIUM, until population growth stabilizes and we understand the limits of US carrying capacity.
            V.


            ________________________________________
            From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com [energyresources@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Fred Elbel [felbel@...]
            Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:56 PM
            To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [energyresources] Re: Thomas Malthus today

            "Abernethy, Virginia Deane" virginia.abernethy@Va... wrote to the
            energyresources daily digest on Mar 28, 2013
            > Frosty Wooldridge... need only have added that pressure on the
            natural environment increases when immigrants move from the Third
            World, where their consumption and emissions are relatively low, to a
            developed country such as the United States... it is folly to allow
            immigration which both raises population numbers in the developed
            county and where the immigrant's objective is to raise his consumption pattern.


            Hi, Virginia:

            As we are aware, mass immigration is driving US population to double
            within the lifetimes of children born today. We take in a million
            legal immigrants each year and three to four million illegal aliens each year.

            There are two major components to halting illegal immigration: 1)
            secure our border against unarmed invasion. 2) enforce existing laws
            making it illegal for employers to hire illegal aliens. Do that and
            the illegal aliens who are here will voluntarily return home to
            reunite with their families.

            It is common knowledge that Democrats want an unlimited supply of
            undocumented democrats, so they (the Democrats) push for amnesty for
            illegal aliens. Similarly, Republicans want an unending supply of
            cheap, foreign labor for their corporate constituents.

            Both parties are falling over themselves to enact yet a seventh
            amnesty for illegal aliens - against the wishes of the American people.

            For more information, see www.CAIRCO.org.
            People can also send free faxes to Congress on the issue at
            www.NumbersUSA.com.

            By the way, see Frosty Wooldridge's site:
            http://www.howtolivealifeofadventure.com

            Fred



            ------------------------------------

            Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
            Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...! Groups Links
          • Richard Pelto
            Hello Gerry Agnew. There is a saying that we are what we eat. It s logic might also be applied to we believe what we read.  You are surrounded by the
            Message 5 of 16 , Mar 29, 2013
              Hello Gerry Agnew. There is a saying that we are what we eat. It's logic might also be applied to "we believe what we read."� You are surrounded by the business/economic flow of selective perception, and you have repeatedly supplied informed and well-stated commentary on this site.
              What has to be understood about any business community discussion of the future, whether in Singapore or in the U.S./Canada is that its underlying assumption is that unlimited growth is possible, and it is preferably achieved by having access to as much cheap labor as possible.
              What is not considered is unsustainability resulting from resource depletion and ecological degradation— and resources and viable ecology are the two factors most necessary for true sustainability. Thus sustainable has been defined in oxymoronic ways repeatedly in the U.S, such as sustainable growth.
              The frightening world of "elders no longer being sustained by younger workers"�, and stories of "desperate shortages of workers"� proliferate despite huge numbers of unemployed in every sociologic cohort. So "evidence"� abounds but rationality at all levels of the economic/political paradigm continues diminishing, and unsustainable practices continue getting only limited academic attention.
              Richard

              Hello Fred!

              In my newsletter of a few weeks ago I did a study on US immigration and what
              is likely to happen. Given that corporations will be screaming for qualified
              workers in perhaps 15-20 years, we are going to see MASSIVE US immigration
              as I see things.

              In part, the following is what I wrote. I hope you find it interesting.

              Gerry


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Fred Elbel
              Gerry Agnew gaea@tel... wrote to the energyresources daily digest ... sure that the population of a given country stays steady and that the bumps which are
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 29, 2013
                "Gerry Agnew" gaea@tel... wrote to the energyresources daily digest
                on Mar 28, 2013:

                > One of the things immigration policy is supposed to do is to make
                sure that the population of a given country stays steady and that the
                "bumps" which are associated with the usual ups and downs of
                population growth and decline are evened out.

                Gerry:

                I'm not sure where that premise was contrived. However, let's assume
                for a moment that it is the basis upon which the American people do
                wish to base their immigration policy. We must immediately conclude
                that as a nation, we have failed that premise.

                At the end of WWII, US population was approximately 150 million - a
                population which was at the high end of sustainability (Pimentel, et.
                al.). Fertility drove up population to the point at which American
                women voluntarily achieved replacement level fertility (2.1 children
                per woman).

                Subsequently, Congress passed seven amnesties for illegal aliens, and
                immigration - both legal and illegal - is now driving US population
                to double within the lifetimes of children born today.

                Immigration policy first and foremost must be established in the
                long-term interest of the country. America is past the point of
                sustainability; we're drawing down not only our own resources but
                resources from other countries - such as petroleum. No need to
                further grow our population.



                > As can be seen (follow the money), US corporations need workers
                from overseas to fill skilled posts for which they are currently
                having a hard time doing anything about.

                That is absolute hogwash. Sorry you were taken in by it. The
                "shortage" of high-tech workers was conjured by corporate interests
                (with Micro$oft at the apex of the pack) who do not want to pay a
                fair wage to American workers to do high tech work in America. So
                they convinced Congre$$ to bring in cheap, foreign H-1B labor.

                These foreign workers are not smarter or better-educated than
                American workers. They are cheaper - typically half the price. They
                are generally nice people, but self-serving, as I found when I was
                forced to train my H-1B foreign replacement many years ago.



                > I believe that what we have seen in the past is the wave of the
                future. If what Singapore is doing is indeed the wave of the
                future, then the USA can look forward to an immigration intake of
                perhaps 90-95 million people!.. This assistance will take the form of
                increasing overall demand - by immigration!

                Golly, what a Ponzi scheme! Let's bring in nearly 100 million people
                within 50 years. We'll have to build houses for them, feed them, and
                import oil to run the cars we import for them. But who will support
                them when they are 50? Ohhh - I get it - we'll bring in another 100
                million people, and another 100 million after that.

                We simply can not grow infinitely within the borders of a finite
                country. Or for that matter on a finite planet.


                Fred
              • Gerry Agnew
                Thank you Fred for this! Yes, I remember the H1b visas and all of this but I also remember an old friend who used to work in Intelligence. He told me once that
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 30, 2013
                  Thank you Fred for this!

                  Yes, I remember the H1b visas and all of this but I also remember an old
                  friend who used to work in Intelligence. He told me once that US planners
                  were desperately bad at what they did and could only plan a few years ahead
                  at best. This being so, it stands to reason that US corporations (with their
                  eyes glued firmly on the bottom line for the rest of this year, and maybe
                  next) will scream for new and trained workers to be imported to enable them
                  to meet corporate objectives ASAP. In all probability this is where the 90
                  million workers will be placed when they arrive on these shores. They will
                  be cheap (if they come from places such as the Philippines, Viet Nam etc.)
                  and that is all that matters - as you stated with MSFT and their ilk many
                  years ago. They want quality and cheapness and I do not see this apart from
                  a few cases. It is still their driving force in my experience.

                  It is the corporate demand which will drive this immense demand for foreign
                  workers. It is often said that corporations drive Congress and based on what
                  I have seen and heard so many times in the past, I believe this. What about
                  new workers coming in when they retire? Well, that is a problem for then and
                  not now. We'll figure something out, or some such. My wife, when I told her
                  about your letter agreed completely with you. She asked about subsidiary
                  things such as trees and plants and suppliers of Oxygen and the like? She
                  wondered about quality food and so forth. Correct, but that is probably a
                  question for "somebody else" to worry about.

                  The US seems to revolve around "the here and now". Workers are needed very
                  shortly and given the deplorable state of the US school system, they will be
                  coming from overseas. With so many workers about to retire, they have jobs
                  which must be filled and filled literally on the day when they retire (or
                  shortly after). Note that the US Immigration Department is starting to
                  clamour for visas for nations with which the US has Free Trade Agreements
                  with. The EU is working on one with the US at breakneck speed even as I
                  write this, and Obama wants one with various Asian nations - the so-called
                  Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The groundwork is being laid because
                  Washington knows full well that very soon we shall be seeing strong demand
                  for foreign workers.

                  It is coming sir! Your common sense remarks will fall on the stony ground of
                  "gotta have it now".

                  Gerry

                  ********************************************************

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Fred Elbel" <felbel@...>
                  To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 7:46 AM
                  Subject: [energyresources] Re: Thomas Malthus today/fe + va


                  > "Gerry Agnew" gaea@tel... wrote to the energyresources daily digest
                  > on Mar 28, 2013:
                  >
                  > > One of the things immigration policy is supposed to do is to make
                  > sure that the population of a given country stays steady and that the
                  > "bumps" which are associated with the usual ups and downs of
                  > population growth and decline are evened out.
                  >
                  > Gerry:
                  >
                  > I'm not sure where that premise was contrived. However, let's assume
                  > for a moment that it is the basis upon which the American people do
                  > wish to base their immigration policy. We must immediately conclude
                  > that as a nation, we have failed that premise.
                  >
                  > At the end of WWII, US population was approximately 150 million - a
                  > population which was at the high end of sustainability (Pimentel, et.
                  > al.). Fertility drove up population to the point at which American
                  > women voluntarily achieved replacement level fertility (2.1 children
                  > per woman).
                  >
                  > Subsequently, Congress passed seven amnesties for illegal aliens, and
                  > immigration - both legal and illegal - is now driving US population
                  > to double within the lifetimes of children born today.
                  >
                  > Immigration policy first and foremost must be established in the
                  > long-term interest of the country. America is past the point of
                  > sustainability; we're drawing down not only our own resources but
                  > resources from other countries - such as petroleum. No need to
                  > further grow our population.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > As can be seen (follow the money), US corporations need workers
                  > from overseas to fill skilled posts for which they are currently
                  > having a hard time doing anything about.
                  >
                  > That is absolute hogwash. Sorry you were taken in by it. The
                  > "shortage" of high-tech workers was conjured by corporate interests
                  > (with Micro$oft at the apex of the pack) who do not want to pay a
                  > fair wage to American workers to do high tech work in America. So
                  > they convinced Congre$$ to bring in cheap, foreign H-1B labor.
                  >
                  > These foreign workers are not smarter or better-educated than
                  > American workers. They are cheaper - typically half the price. They
                  > are generally nice people, but self-serving, as I found when I was
                  > forced to train my H-1B foreign replacement many years ago.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > I believe that what we have seen in the past is the wave of the
                  > future. If what Singapore is doing is indeed the wave of the
                  > future, then the USA can look forward to an immigration intake of
                  > perhaps 90-95 million people!.. This assistance will take the form of
                  > increasing overall demand - by immigration!
                  >
                  > Golly, what a Ponzi scheme! Let's bring in nearly 100 million people
                  > within 50 years. We'll have to build houses for them, feed them, and
                  > import oil to run the cars we import for them. But who will support
                  > them when they are 50? Ohhh - I get it - we'll bring in another 100
                  > million people, and another 100 million after that.
                  >
                  > We simply can not grow infinitely within the borders of a finite
                  > country. Or for that matter on a finite planet.
                  >
                  >
                  > Fred
                  >
                  >
                • Gerry Agnew
                  Good morning Virginia and good to read your letters again! Yes, we have a problem with US graduates, but do we not have this today? How many stories have you
                  Message 8 of 16 , Mar 30, 2013
                    Good morning Virginia and good to read your letters again!

                    Yes, we have a problem with US graduates, but do we not have this today? How many stories have you read about US college graduates who are busy waiting tables because they do not have the skills to do anything of consequence in the world? I remember when I obtained my BA in 1970, the first words out of anyone's mouth were something along the lines "Well done! So, you want to wait tables the rest of your life now"? (Sadly, this is now true today). Why is this? Companies are telling us, perhaps not loudly, that the skill sets coming out of fancy colleges in the US today are simply not worth anything in the real world. Who needs a degree in Paleolithic Studies (as an example)? What is it worth anyhow to a bottom line? The answer is, not surprisingly, zilch!

                    Graduates in computer science and foreign languages will obtain some positions but the message seems to be that all a college degree really means is that you have an ability to think and absorb information. That used to mean something, Virginia, but now it is a question of "What can you do for me when you sit down at a desk here tomorrow morning"? In other words, what a US corporation wants and needs is to have a trained worker ready to go immediately after being hired so that expensive training is not needed. (Cost to corporate profits, and we can't have that now, can we?!). In other words, if I have a nicely minted BA or some such it really is worth nothing at all. If I have a degree in Mandarin and can speak the language fairly well, then maybe I have a decent chance. If I am studying Chinese (PRC) law, then this is probably very good. But, bottom line here, I must have something to show to personnel manager "A" if I want to even get to the next interview level!

                    So, what do American high school leavers and university grads do - the essence of your question? As they have little to offer employers in "The new global economy", I would say there is nothing for them to do. McDonald's is always hiring and I have seen graduates working the night shift at 7-11. The only other thing I can suggest would be for these people to go into some sort on "hands on training" and learn how to rebuild an engine or some such. However it seems that schools seem to inculcate students with the idea that "If you work hard and get a degree you can get a good job". It is almost as if they were having a birthright confirmed! Of course this is absolute rubbish as we are seeing.

                    Singapore has what I believe is a decent school system. Even with this, they are planning for a vast influx of new workers. This must say something. If Singapore workers cannot get decent jobs then they will apply to come to the US, among other places. With the growing shortage of workers because of the retirement of the Baby Boomers, this will be made available - starting with the TPP. Singapore workers will have English and Chinese language skills (and Malay if that is required, there being three official languages in Singapore) and a Confucian work ethic. Why won't they be hired if Obama is looking at establishing the TPP and a relaxed (for now) visa requirement?

                    In plain English, US graduates cannot compete in the least. Maybe the Armed forces? Maybe DHS if some of the more extreme views which I read these days come to pass? The 90 million new immigrants will need lots of new police to watch them!

                    Gerry

                    *********************************************************************************************

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Abernethy, Virginia Deane
                    To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:31 PM
                    Subject: RE: [energyresources] Re: Thomas Malthus today/fe + va



                    What do you recommend for the 50% of young American college graduates who cannot find work at the level for which they are trained, or even find work at all.

                    Should they go to Singapore?

                    V.

                    ________________________________



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Gerry Agnew
                    Hello Richard and I thank you for your well considered words. All that you have written is quite correct, BUT (there s always one of those) we have the
                    Message 9 of 16 , Mar 30, 2013
                      Hello Richard and I thank you for your well considered words.

                      All that you have written is quite correct, BUT (there's always one of those) we have the problems of corporate demand. There is no corporate CEO who would, for one instant, pass up the opportunity to get as much profit as he can for the next quarter/fiscal year so as to keep his share price high and his executive bonus as high as possible. We also have the problem of shareholder lawsuits in that a group of disgruntled shareholders can sue their board of directors if the price of the company stock does not keep pace with a competitor's. If a decision is made by the affected board which brings the price of the stock down, well the lawyers will be rubbing their hands!

                      It is easier, by far to "go along to get along" and generate profits for the here and now.

                      Does this deplete the environment (as my wife has screamed at me for so many years now)? Sure it does, but so what? It is the corporate mindset at work here. This runs along the lines of "We have free enterprise here. Free enterprise always provides solutions when they are required. We can do what we want now and something will turn up because it always does". You cannot defeat this rationale because it is so ingrained in the main.

                      Therefore, it is corporate interests which will rule the roost. If we all go over the cliff together then no one gets sued! I do not see this changing in account of "Some whacko talking aabout things thirty years down the road which ain't never gonna happen". How do you break this mindset is your problem now Richard. What DO you do anyhow?

                      Gerry

                      ********************************************************************************************************
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Richard Pelto
                      To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 7:42 AM
                      Subject: [energyresources] RE:Re: Thomas Malthus today/fe + va



                      Hello Gerry Agnew. There is a saying that we are what we eat. It's logic might also be applied to "we believe what we read."� You are surrounded by the business/economic flow of selective perception, and you have repeatedly supplied informed and well-stated commentary on this site.
                      What has to be understood about any business community discussion of the future, whether in Singapore or in the U.S./Canada is that its underlying assumption is that unlimited growth is possible, and it is preferably achieved by having access to as much cheap labor as possible.
                      What is not considered is unsustainability resulting from resource depletion and ecological degradation— and resources and viable ecology are the two factors most necessary for true sustainability. Thus sustainable has been defined in oxymoronic ways repeatedly in the U.S, such as sustainable growth.
                      The frightening world of "elders no longer being sustained by younger workers"�, and stories of "desperate shortages of workers"� proliferate despite huge numbers of unemployed in every sociologic cohort. So "evidence"� abounds but rationality at all levels of the economic/political paradigm continues diminishing, and unsustainable practices continue getting only limited academic attention.
                      Richard

                      Hello Fred!

                      In my newsletter of a few weeks ago I did a study on US immigration and what
                      is likely to happen. Given that corporations will be screaming for qualified
                      workers in perhaps 15-20 years, we are going to see MASSIVE US immigration
                      as I see things.

                      In part, the following is what I wrote. I hope you find it interesting.

                      Gerry

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                      No virus found in this message.
                      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                      Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6214 - Release Date: 03/30/13


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Dell Erickson
                      I am always delighted to read Gerry s economic comments and to understand his fine insights. But this time he ventures into areas practicing ill-thought
                      Message 10 of 16 , Mar 30, 2013
                        I am always delighted to read Gerry's economic
                        comments and to understand his fine insights.

                        But this time he ventures into areas practicing ill-thought through economics.

                        Economics is considered a social science, yet
                        it’s neither a science nor genuinely social.
                        Economists only believe in places and corporate
                        thinking rather than of nations or of culture or
                        its environmental platform. At the onset, it is
                        important to keep in mind, the economy is a
                        “wholly owned subsidiary of the environment”
                        (Gaylord Nelson, et al). That is to say, its
                        ecological and genuine natural resources.

                        I'll briefly mention two fundamental economic
                        constructs as illustrations. First, economists
                        crave at least 5% endless growth. Yet, these
                        overachievers cannot grasp compounding or limits
                        and the, literally, suicidal implications of even
                        our current 1% - 2% annual growth rates. Second,
                        an economist might argue there is enough fresh
                        water that everyone should have a swimming pool
                        in their backyard. Then say the development will
                        create millions of jobs ­mass immigration!, end
                        unemployment, and cure world hunger!

                        Obviously, an overarching characteristic of the
                        economic profession is that it often avoids the
                        whole truth. Poor thinking is exacerbated by Sins
                        of Omission. These are every bit a lie as any
                        other. So in this post let’s examine several of the errors and omissions.

                        Begin with the big one, U.S. (and world)
                        overpopulation. When will there be enough
                        Americans? World passengers? When will an
                        economist and the Powers say “enough”? There can never be too many people.

                        Yet, when things started unraveling and hitting a
                        wall in the late 1960's, they and the general
                        public denied reality, ignored numerous studies
                        (Forrester, Ehrlich, Rockefeller, et al) and as a
                        consequence borrowed heavily in order to maintain
                        the status quo; literally moving reality out a
                        generation. Now it's due. And opened our borders.

                        On the other hand, for more than fifty years many
                        informed people understood that the U.S. is
                        overpopulated and further growth is ill-advised.
                        Yes, an overpopulated U.S. because of mass
                        immigration, importing poverty, lockstep
                        declining living standards, growing class
                        warfare, declining resources, and increasing pollution. It's not 1850.

                        I.e., immigration, legal and not, is the only
                        reason the U.S. cannot meet the Kyoto Protocols
                        and the only reason for increasing U.S. Greenhouse emissions.

                        Flash back to the later 1960s and 1970s. Two
                        children were the norm and immigration was well
                        controlled at historical levels of approximately
                        150-250,000 annually. Unemployment was small.
                        Even illegal aliens demonstrated some respect for
                        Americans, they were very few; fertility was in
                        decline, below 2, reaching 1.7 in 1972. For a
                        good historical summary, see, “Little Known
                        Presidential Population Leadership”, Otis L.
                        Graham, NPG Forum Series, January 2013. See <
                        http://www.npg.org/forum_series/Little_Known_Presidential_Population_Leadership_Graham_021913.pdf
                        >.

                        As a consequence of sensible fertility and
                        reasonable immigration, the U.S. population was
                        on the welcome slow growth trend to achieve
                        population stabilization around the year 2045
                        with a population of 240 million. The U.S. was on
                        the path to economic and environmental Nirvana.
                        With a resource and environmentally necessary
                        fertility rate, our country was on a very welcome
                        path to become a sustainable society with high
                        living standards and a cohesive people.

                        Of course, many environmental, resource, social,
                        and economic problems clearly evident today would
                        either not exist or be amendable to constructive
                        policies. Economists in that situation could
                        offer constructive recommendations.

                        Unlike today, society understood that
                        environmental and economic problems cannot be
                        resolved under conditions of population growth
                        and overpopulation. Unlike today, everyone, but
                        the Vatican and economists, seemed to realize it;
                        the issues were widely publicized and discussed.
                        Recall, almost all responsible environmental
                        legislation evident today was passed in that era.

                        Society had fought the population battles and the
                        population war was won. Or so we thought.

                        Economists today work with Banksters and the
                        investment community trying to reverse those
                        important environmental laws. Indeed, they
                        continue to ignore the commons and the ecological framework over the economy.

                        Today, as most on this list are fully aware,
                        industrial society is imploding. Because of
                        economic and politicos' thinking, we are likely
                        doomed as a people and nation. A wonderful
                        American Experiment historians may one day write about.

                        Now the media, nor schools, nor economists dare
                        mention the burgeoning U.S. population and the
                        necessity of the one-child family and zero
                        in-migration! World population grows
                        relentlessly, yet population has been removed as
                        a solution, replaced by programs intended to make women feel good.

                        Gerry believes it to be “Women’s Lib” in the
                        1970s that was the reason women sought
                        employment. In part, yes and a good thing, but
                        the reality is that in order to maintain existing
                        or slowly falling living standards one worker was
                        no longer sufficient for a family. And society
                        also began to use debt, personal and government,
                        in the desperate effort to maintain the status
                        quo. Borrowing from the future to pay for the present.

                        Follow the money, the wealthy and powerful
                        immigration industry. For example, NumbersUSA
                        recently stated that since 2007 amnesty
                        supporters have spent nearly $1.5 billion, and
                        hired over 3,000 lobbyists to promote mass
                        amnesty. In an orgasm of illegality, they will on
                        April 10, bus tens of thousands of pro-amnesty
                        protesters to Washington, D.C., to march on the
                        Capitol. NUSA states they "will demand an
                        immediate amnesty for (in many cases) themselves
                        and other illegal aliens now residing in America,
                        taking our jobs and drawing our benefits." They demand open U.S. borders!

                        This is a consequence of economic thought ­and
                        power. Immigration anarchy and criminal conduct
                        on a scale never witnessed in history. Encouraged
                        by a president who writes his own laws and
                        behaves in a treasonous fashion. “He rots the soul of a nation.”

                        And False-God economists write the half brained
                        Cornucopia articles seen in the Wall Street Journal and Barrons.

                        1965! It began with the 1965 immigration law
                        changes, just about the time the Baby Boom began
                        to slow. Despite all the statements to the
                        contrary, the Powers in 1965 knew what they were
                        doing; they knew the Boomers would move through
                        life and into old age and because the U.S.
                        fertility rate was approaching replacement, U.S.
                        population growth would slow then achieve zero
                        population growth. Just as Gerry said, this is
                        the fundamental position of economists.

                        The Powers made things change! The Powers
                        couldn't have a country with a stable and
                        sustainable population level! Alas, as we know,
                        the result of the 1965 immigration laws (and
                        subsequent repeated amnesties) flooded the
                        country with ever increasing numbers of people.
                        They wanted bodies, not giving a thought or word
                        to what it implied, resource wise, environmentally, culturally, or socially.

                        Numerous amnesties and failures to enforce what
                        laws remained were merely a backdoor means of
                        increasing our population by mass immigration. Demography is destiny.

                        Censorship on a grand scale and irrational
                        justifications of counterproductive economic thought became commonplace.

                        Thus, with every passing day the probability of
                        reversing the 1965 to Obama Administration
                        population imbalance juggernaut becomes less
                        likely, its consequences less reversible and more damaging.

                        SO, HERE'S THE DEAL

                        1. Deport all illegal aliens.

                        2. Stop all in-migration until the unemployment
                        rate is below 3% for a minimum of two years.

                        3. As in the past, require colleges to provide
                        the course work designed to meet any projected
                        economic needs and the government to sponsor
                        programs encouraging students to meet those job
                        needs. That would include corporations training
                        and educating employees internally.

                        4. Establish a sustainable U.S. population
                        objective and implement the necessary policies.

                        THEN we can talk about immigration, including
                        H-1b's etc. As we know, there is only silence from economists and politicos.

                        To carry out the 1965 agenda meant a complete
                        remaking of the U.S.; let’s review several unstated changes.

                        1. White genocide. Never in the history of the
                        planet has a nation undertaken a program intended
                        to completely replace an existing people.The
                        elimination of a White people with its unified
                        Western Culture; a unified culture from London,
                        Stockholm, and Berlin. It is being replaced by an
                        almost all non-White, southern hemisphere,
                        Iberian culture. They don't come to be Americans.
                        They reflect Mexico City and Haiti and that is their city / state model.

                        As Gerry indicates, today, our parents are few
                        and we Boomers are dying off at the rate of 10,000 every day.

                        Moreover, even the word, assimilation, has been
                        essentially removed from our language.

                        2. Yes, those Northern Europeans had a unified
                        Western culture cobbled together in the U.S.
                        under a magnificent U.S. Constitution. White
                        skinned is only a reference; they could have been
                        green skinned for all it matters.

                        It is a culture with character emphasis on the
                        individual, self-determination, success, hard
                        work, thrift and love of country. We Boomers
                        mostly reflect those norms, institutions and
                        values as well. Now being replaced by a culture
                        of superstition, “family” over the individual (socialist), and theocracy.

                        3. An economic profession that cannot comprehend
                        that it’s the Western Culture that created the
                        conditions of their economic thought which is,
                        paradoxly, being destroyed by them and along with
                        it their system of economic thought.

                        4. Some variety of Christian religions (including
                        a few Jews), in relatively equal weights.

                        In sharp contrast to our formative years, the
                        Catholic Church is beginning to dominate. Already
                        all TV programs have the Catholic Church as its
                        religion, 'the Church' they say. As a consequence
                        come Catholic dogma, biases and programs
                        -promotions of immigration. See any media talk of
                        birth control? U.S. Population?

                        5. Our core language is essentially gone; we are
                        all but officially bi-lingual, rapidly
                        transitioning to a fully Spanish language nation.
                        Multi-lingual implies multi-cultural. However, no
                        nation has succeeded except as a single
                        homogenous culture; becoming Iberian is well
                        underway. A single culture is the definition of a nation.

                        6. Some more numbers. Economist allege the U.S.
                        needs 95 million more people by 2030 to replace
                        the Boomers and to grow the population. Truth is
                        the U.S. needs far fewer people. Moreover, they
                        ignore the past and the present. In 1986 the
                        amnesty of three million illegal aliens allowed
                        family 'unification' to total 12 ­ 15 million.
                        Obama’s current practice of amnestying all
                        current illegals implies another 80 ­ 100 million
                        population increase over the next twenty years or
                        so. That will be in addition to the other visa
                        and open borders programs, 95 million? Scary.

                        7. Also never mentioned is that cheap foreign
                        labor misallocates domestic resources which
                        creates rising unemployment. It also guarantees
                        uncompetitive and economically unnecessary
                        industries to grow or allows the inefficient to continue to exist.

                        To accommodate the new masses, the unemployment
                        standard was raised from 3% to 5% then to 7%,
                        then 7.5% in order keep up with open borders. It
                        implies that more than 1.5 million more Americans
                        would be unemployed on a continuing basis. What's
                        that sound heard from economists?

                        8. Circular and reinforcing processes.
                        Representation? Voting? The Census counts anyone
                        standing in this country or a territory as equal
                        to a citizen. Non-citizens, even illegal aliens,
                        count as equals. As we know, money and political
                        representation flows from the Census. High
                        immigration states, therefore gain
                        representatives at the expense of low immigration states.

                        The implication and fact is that high immigration
                        states begat high immigration, abetted and paid
                        by the government and its influence peddlers.

                        Conversely, it implies that those low immigration
                        mostly "red" states are becoming less relevant to
                        the nation or Congress as our parents and we
                        Boomers leave our mortal bounds. Essentially, we
                        don't matter now. We've already lost much of a
                        country. Soon, our language and culture and
                        likely the name of our country will be a
                        historical footnote. See April 10, 2013.

                        But, the American citizen has little say in the
                        matter. Banksters, politicos, economists and the
                        rest of the Power’s want it so.

                        9. Promoting or ignoring basic resource
                        fallacies. An energy policy is first and foremost a population policy.

                        As stated previously, the fact that there are
                        limits to growth was well understood in the 1960s
                        and 1970s. Primarily understood were population,
                        resource and pollution issues. Coincident with
                        the opening of our borders was that limits were
                        hidden away in a closet. Meanwhile most living
                        standards and resource limits were reached or
                        soon were; important fossil energies actually
                        peaked in the early 1970s and have steadily
                        declined. Limits and ecology are rarely, if ever,
                        discussed and never is mass immigration integrated by economists.

                        Evidently, not read was the recently posted
                        excellent study of oil, coal, natural gas, and
                        nuke resources and production. Its
                        conclusion: the U.S. and world is in deep
                        trouble across all energy fronts. See <
                        http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG-update2013_long_18_03_2013.pdf
                        >. To save time, read the Executive Summary, and
                        then jump to the back and move forward. Note
                        Fig's 133, 130, 123 (and discussion -Bakken).

                        Our resource dilemmas are a fundamental cause of
                        our economic malaise. Unlike previous eras,
                        today’s higher priced energy prevents the economy
                        from gaining traction. Cheap energy has been
                        replaced by increased pollution, lower net
                        energy, and higher consumer costs. The process is
                        irreversible but can be managed with appropriate policies.

                        Of course hollow-headed economists respond to
                        rising structural prices by encouraging exactly
                        the wrong thing, mass immigration of cheap labor,
                        more people, and more consumers of resources. As
                        we've experienced, that notion is a circular
                        spiral down into misery. Fixed, as in the past,
                        in the Ponzi scheme game of endless suicidal growth.

                        Lastly, among Americans there appears to be
                        widespread and profound feelings of malaise;
                        distress that there is nothing we can do to
                        prevent the onslaught nor its bad ending. For the
                        first time in our history, many Americans are
                        fearful that our system of government is
                        incapable of dealing with it, even as, or
                        because, the system is sometimes the reason for the problems.

                        Dell Erickson
                        Minneapolis


                        3/28/2013, Gerry A. wrote:

                        will be screaming for qualified workers in perhaps 15-20 years,

                        One of the things immigration policy is supposed to do is to make sure that

                        the population of a given country stays steady

                        the USA, which has historically prided itself on
                        admitting giant flows of people at various times in its history,

                        the question today carries with it a much greater
                        urgency what American women are

                        doing (or not).

                        I note that in the 1970s, in the period referred to back then as "Women's Lib",

                        Why should I be raising kids and cooking steaks for my husband"?

                        needs new workers to be able to provide the tax
                        base that the retiring Boomers need. Speaking candidly,

                        They have needed these workers for many decades
                        now (as can be seen from the endless requests for

                        new visa programmes) so that they can "remain competitive".

                        The unseen comment in all of these headlines is that "California will be

                        brown-skinned - unless something is done". The underlying idea must be that

                        "White girls, get to work and produce skilled employees". (Racist or not,

                        this is how the Deep Thinkers there apparently think, so we must be prepared

                        to see initiatives supporting these beliefs to be presented and then

                        enacted).

                        and is going to see a severe generational imbalance starting

                        literally NOW.

                        future, then the USA can look forward to an immigration intake of perhaps

                        90-95 million people!

                        With US Fertility Rates so low, US housing developers are soon going to

                        start screaming for assistance; if they aren't already. This assistance will

                        take the form of increasing overall demand - by immigration!
                      • Fred Elbel
                        Gerry Agnew gaea@telus.net wrote to the energyresources daily ... you. She asked about subsidiary things such as trees and plants and suppliers of Oxygen and
                        Message 11 of 16 , Mar 31, 2013
                          "Gerry Agnew" gaea@... wrote to the energyresources daily
                          digest on Mar 30, 2013:

                          > My wife, when I told her about your letter agreed completely with
                          you. She asked about subsidiary things such as trees and plants and
                          suppliers of Oxygen and the like? She wondered about quality food and
                          so forth. Correct, but that is probably a question for "somebody
                          else" to worry about.

                          That "somebody else", Gerry, is you and I. We are in a position to
                          determine the future that we are bequeathing to future generations of
                          Americans - of all races, creeds, and colors.

                          You might be satisfied abrogating that responsibility. I am not.

                          Please put pen to paper to determine how many people you want in
                          America in 50 years, or in 100 years. When we then have your desired
                          number, what controls will you put in place to ensure that we do not
                          grow past that point?



                          Fred
                        • Eric Pfeiffer
                          The US and global population has traditional market preferences which have remained intact through it s marketing centuries. Those preferences are: the lowest
                          Message 12 of 16 , Mar 31, 2013
                            The US and global population has traditional market preferences which have remained intact through it's marketing centuries.
                            Those preferences are: the lowest possible cost at a defined level of quality when purchasing, and the highest possible
                            return at a defined level of quality, when selling.   It is the story of economics. It does indeed ignore racial lines, national
                            boundaries, and has created the global market place that we have known and preferred over 1000's of years.
                                 Yes the global trade and free flow of labor and goods across the world is nothing new.  The lip service we pay
                            to our national emblems, local football teams, high school cheers, etc, ends without ceremony when the
                            buying and selling seeking the best possible terms, begins
                                And...we are all businesses...every person in the US and everyone across the globe.
                            The study of how we conduct ourselves driving by this desire to maximize our incoming monies and reduce our
                            outflow of monies to best increase our happiness certainly best summarizes economics.
                             
                                Your call for a mammoth US govt that would decide in our place what is best for us in maximizing wealth,
                            plan or daily expenditures, and regulate trade throughout the US based on security for the White race is
                            destined to failure.  Your wish to limit the labor supply will lead to labor shortages and higher prices. 
                            Higher labor costs are passed on as higher prices which is called inflation. There are already growing labor
                            shortages throughout the US.  The last thing we need is more of them.  EP


                            ________________________________
                            From: Dell Erickson <ricks@...>
                            To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 6:08 PM
                            Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Thomas Malthus today/fe + va


                             

                            I am always delighted to read Gerry's economic
                            comments and to understand his fine insights.

                            But this time he ventures into areas practicing ill-thought through economics.

                            Economics is considered a social science, yet
                            it’s neither a science nor genuinely social.
                            Economists only believe in places and corporate
                            thinking rather than of nations or of culture or
                            its environmental platform. At the onset, it is
                            important to keep in mind, the economy is a
                            “wholly owned subsidiary of the environment”
                            (Gaylord Nelson, et al). That is to say, its
                            ecological and genuine natural resources.

                            I'll briefly mention two fundamental economic
                            constructs as illustrations. First, economists
                            crave at least 5% endless growth. Yet, these
                            overachievers cannot grasp compounding or limits
                            and the, literally, suicidal implications of even
                            our current 1% - 2% annual growth rates. Second,
                            an economist might argue there is enough fresh
                            water that everyone should have a swimming pool
                            in their backyard. Then say the development will
                            create millions of jobs ­mass immigration!, end
                            unemployment, and cure world hunger!

                            Obviously, an overarching characteristic of the
                            economic profession is that it often avoids the
                            whole truth. Poor thinking is exacerbated by Sins
                            of Omission. These are every bit a lie as any
                            other. So in this post let’s examine several of the errors and omissions.

                            Begin with the big one, U.S. (and world)
                            overpopulation. When will there be enough
                            Americans? World passengers? When will an
                            economist and the Powers say “enough”? There can never be too many people.

                            Yet, when things started unraveling and hitting a
                            wall in the late 1960's, they and the general
                            public denied reality, ignored numerous studies
                            (Forrester, Ehrlich, Rockefeller, et al) and as a
                            consequence borrowed heavily in order to maintain
                            the status quo; literally moving reality out a
                            generation. Now it's due. And opened our borders.

                            On the other hand, for more than fifty years many
                            informed people understood that the U.S. is
                            overpopulated and further growth is ill-advised.
                            Yes, an overpopulated U.S. because of mass
                            immigration, importing poverty, lockstep
                            declining living standards, growing class
                            warfare, declining resources, and increasing pollution. It's not 1850.

                            I.e., immigration, legal and not, is the only
                            reason the U.S. cannot meet the Kyoto Protocols
                            and the only reason for increasing U.S. Greenhouse emissions.

                            Flash back to the later 1960s and 1970s. Two
                            children were the norm and immigration was well
                            controlled at historical levels of approximately
                            150-250,000 annually. Unemployment was small.
                            Even illegal aliens demonstrated some respect for
                            Americans, they were very few; fertility was in
                            decline, below 2, reaching 1.7 in 1972. For a
                            good historical summary, see, “Little Known
                            Presidential Population Leadership”, Otis L.
                            Graham, NPG Forum Series, January 2013. See <
                            http://www.npg.org/forum_series/Little_Known_Presidential_Population_Leadership_Graham_021913.pdf
                            >.

                            As a consequence of sensible fertility and
                            reasonable immigration, the U.S. population was
                            on the welcome slow growth trend to achieve
                            population stabilization around the year 2045
                            with a population of 240 million. The U.S. was on
                            the path to economic and environmental Nirvana.
                            With a resource and environmentally necessary
                            fertility rate, our country was on a very welcome
                            path to become a sustainable society with high
                            living standards and a cohesive people.

                            Of course, many environmental, resource, social,
                            and economic problems clearly evident today would
                            either not exist or be amendable to constructive
                            policies. Economists in that situation could
                            offer constructive recommendations.

                            Unlike today, society understood that
                            environmental and economic problems cannot be
                            resolved under conditions of population growth
                            and overpopulation. Unlike today, everyone, but
                            the Vatican and economists, seemed to realize it;
                            the issues were widely publicized and discussed.
                            Recall, almost all responsible environmental
                            legislation evident today was passed in that era.

                            Society had fought the population battles and the
                            population war was won. Or so we thought.

                            Economists today work with Banksters and the
                            investment community trying to reverse those
                            important environmental laws. Indeed, they
                            continue to ignore the commons and the ecological framework over the economy.

                            Today, as most on this list are fully aware,
                            industrial society is imploding. Because of
                            economic and politicos' thinking, we are likely
                            doomed as a people and nation. A wonderful
                            American Experiment historians may one day write about.

                            Now the media, nor schools, nor economists dare
                            mention the burgeoning U.S. population and the
                            necessity of the one-child family and zero
                            in-migration! World population grows
                            relentlessly, yet population has been removed as
                            a solution, replaced by programs intended to make women feel good.

                            Gerry believes it to be “Women’s Lib” in the
                            1970s that was the reason women sought
                            employment. In part, yes and a good thing, but
                            the reality is that in order to maintain existing
                            or slowly falling living standards one worker was
                            no longer sufficient for a family. And society
                            also began to use debt, personal and government,
                            in the desperate effort to maintain the status
                            quo. Borrowing from the future to pay for the present.

                            Follow the money, the wealthy and powerful
                            immigration industry. For example, NumbersUSA
                            recently stated that since 2007 amnesty
                            supporters have spent nearly $1.5 billion, and
                            hired over 3,000 lobbyists to promote mass
                            amnesty. In an orgasm of illegality, they will on
                            April 10, bus tens of thousands of pro-amnesty
                            protesters to Washington, D.C., to march on the
                            Capitol. NUSA states they "will demand an
                            immediate amnesty for (in many cases) themselves
                            and other illegal aliens now residing in America,
                            taking our jobs and drawing our benefits." They demand open U.S. borders!

                            This is a consequence of economic thought ­and
                            power. Immigration anarchy and criminal conduct
                            on a scale never witnessed in history. Encouraged
                            by a president who writes his own laws and
                            behaves in a treasonous fashion. “He rots the soul of a nation.”

                            And False-God economists write the half brained
                            Cornucopia articles seen in the Wall Street Journal and Barrons.

                            1965! It began with the 1965 immigration law
                            changes, just about the time the Baby Boom began
                            to slow. Despite all the statements to the
                            contrary, the Powers in 1965 knew what they were
                            doing; they knew the Boomers would move through
                            life and into old age and because the U.S.
                            fertility rate was approaching replacement, U.S.
                            population growth would slow then achieve zero
                            population growth. Just as Gerry said, this is
                            the fundamental position of economists.

                            The Powers made things change! The Powers
                            couldn't have a country with a stable and
                            sustainable population level! Alas, as we know,
                            the result of the 1965 immigration laws (and
                            subsequent repeated amnesties) flooded the
                            country with ever increasing numbers of people.
                            They wanted bodies, not giving a thought or word
                            to what it implied, resource wise, environmentally, culturally, or socially.

                            Numerous amnesties and failures to enforce what
                            laws remained were merely a backdoor means of
                            increasing our population by mass immigration. Demography is destiny.

                            Censorship on a grand scale and irrational
                            justifications of counterproductive economic thought became commonplace.

                            Thus, with every passing day the probability of
                            reversing the 1965 to Obama Administration
                            population imbalance juggernaut becomes less
                            likely, its consequences less reversible and more damaging.

                            SO, HERE'S THE DEAL

                            1. Deport all illegal aliens.

                            2. Stop all in-migration until the unemployment
                            rate is below 3% for a minimum of two years.

                            3. As in the past, require colleges to provide
                            the course work designed to meet any projected
                            economic needs and the government to sponsor
                            programs encouraging students to meet those job
                            needs. That would include corporations training
                            and educating employees internally.

                            4. Establish a sustainable U.S. population
                            objective and implement the necessary policies.

                            THEN we can talk about immigration, including
                            H-1b's etc. As we know, there is only silence from economists and politicos.

                            To carry out the 1965 agenda meant a complete
                            remaking of the U.S.; let’s review several unstated changes.

                            1. White genocide. Never in the history of the
                            planet has a nation undertaken a program intended
                            to completely replace an existing people.The
                            elimination of a White people with its unified
                            Western Culture; a unified culture from London,
                            Stockholm, and Berlin. It is being replaced by an
                            almost all non-White, southern hemisphere,
                            Iberian culture. They don't come to be Americans.
                            They reflect Mexico City and Haiti and that is their city / state model.

                            As Gerry indicates, today, our parents are few
                            and we Boomers are dying off at the rate of 10,000 every day.

                            Moreover, even the word, assimilation, has been
                            essentially removed from our language.

                            2. Yes, those Northern Europeans had a unified
                            Western culture cobbled together in the U.S.
                            under a magnificent U.S. Constitution. White
                            skinned is only a reference; they could have been
                            green skinned for all it matters.

                            It is a culture with character emphasis on the
                            individual, self-determination, success, hard
                            work, thrift and love of country. We Boomers
                            mostly reflect those norms, institutions and
                            values as well. Now being replaced by a culture
                            of superstition, “family” over the individual (socialist), and theocracy.

                            3. An economic profession that cannot comprehend
                            that it’s the Western Culture that created the
                            conditions of their economic thought which is,
                            paradoxly, being destroyed by them and along with
                            it their system of economic thought.

                            4. Some variety of Christian religions (including
                            a few Jews), in relatively equal weights.

                            In sharp contrast to our formative years, the
                            Catholic Church is beginning to dominate. Already
                            all TV programs have the Catholic Church as its
                            religion, 'the Church' they say. As a consequence
                            come Catholic dogma, biases and programs
                            -promotions of immigration. See any media talk of
                            birth control? U.S. Population?

                            5. Our core language is essentially gone; we are
                            all but officially bi-lingual, rapidly
                            transitioning to a fully Spanish language nation.
                            Multi-lingual implies multi-cultural. However, no
                            nation has succeeded except as a single
                            homogenous culture; becoming Iberian is well
                            underway. A single culture is the definition of a nation.

                            6. Some more numbers. Economist allege the U.S.
                            needs 95 million more people by 2030 to replace
                            the Boomers and to grow the population. Truth is
                            the U.S. needs far fewer people. Moreover, they
                            ignore the past and the present. In 1986 the
                            amnesty of three million illegal aliens allowed
                            family 'unification' to total 12 ­ 15 million.
                            Obama’s current practice of amnestying all
                            current illegals implies another 80 ­ 100 million
                            population increase over the next twenty years or
                            so. That will be in addition to the other visa
                            and open borders programs, 95 million? Scary.

                            7. Also never mentioned is that cheap foreign
                            labor misallocates domestic resources which
                            creates rising unemployment. It also guarantees
                            uncompetitive and economically unnecessary
                            industries to grow or allows the inefficient to continue to exist.

                            To accommodate the new masses, the unemployment
                            standard was raised from 3% to 5% then to 7%,
                            then 7.5% in order keep up with open borders. It
                            implies that more than 1.5 million more Americans
                            would be unemployed on a continuing basis. What's
                            that sound heard from economists?

                            8. Circular and reinforcing processes.
                            Representation? Voting? The Census counts anyone
                            standing in this country or a territory as equal
                            to a citizen. Non-citizens, even illegal aliens,
                            count as equals. As we know, money and political
                            representation flows from the Census. High
                            immigration states, therefore gain
                            representatives at the expense of low immigration states.

                            The implication and fact is that high immigration
                            states begat high immigration, abetted and paid
                            by the government and its influence peddlers.

                            Conversely, it implies that those low immigration
                            mostly "red" states are becoming less relevant to
                            the nation or Congress as our parents and we
                            Boomers leave our mortal bounds. Essentially, we
                            don't matter now. We've already lost much of a
                            country. Soon, our language and culture and
                            likely the name of our country will be a
                            historical footnote. See April 10, 2013.

                            But, the American citizen has little say in the
                            matter. Banksters, politicos, economists and the
                            rest of the Power’s want it so.

                            9. Promoting or ignoring basic resource
                            fallacies. An energy policy is first and foremost a population policy.

                            As stated previously, the fact that there are
                            limits to growth was well understood in the 1960s
                            and 1970s. Primarily understood were population,
                            resource and pollution issues. Coincident with
                            the opening of our borders was that limits were
                            hidden away in a closet. Meanwhile most living
                            standards and resource limits were reached or
                            soon were; important fossil energies actually
                            peaked in the early 1970s and have steadily
                            declined. Limits and ecology are rarely, if ever,
                            discussed and never is mass immigration integrated by economists.

                            Evidently, not read was the recently posted
                            excellent study of oil, coal, natural gas, and
                            nuke resources and production. Its
                            conclusion: the U.S. and world is in deep
                            trouble across all energy fronts. See <
                            http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG-update2013_long_18_03_2013.pdf
                            >. To save time, read the Executive Summary, and
                            then jump to the back and move forward. Note
                            Fig's 133, 130, 123 (and discussion -Bakken).

                            Our resource dilemmas are a fundamental cause of
                            our economic malaise. Unlike previous eras,
                            today’s higher priced energy prevents the economy
                            from gaining traction. Cheap energy has been
                            replaced by increased pollution, lower net
                            energy, and higher consumer costs. The process is
                            irreversible but can be managed with appropriate policies.

                            Of course hollow-headed economists respond to
                            rising structural prices by encouraging exactly
                            the wrong thing, mass immigration of cheap labor,
                            more people, and more consumers of resources. As
                            we've experienced, that notion is a circular
                            spiral down into misery. Fixed, as in the past,
                            in the Ponzi scheme game of endless suicidal growth.

                            Lastly, among Americans there appears to be
                            widespread and profound feelings of malaise;
                            distress that there is nothing we can do to
                            prevent the onslaught nor its bad ending. For the
                            first time in our history, many Americans are
                            fearful that our system of government is
                            incapable of dealing with it, even as, or
                            because, the system is sometimes the reason for the problems.

                            Dell Erickson
                            Minneapolis

                            3/28/2013, Gerry A. wrote:

                            will be screaming for qualified workers in perhaps 15-20 years,

                            One of the things immigration policy is supposed to do is to make sure that

                            the population of a given country stays steady

                            the USA, which has historically prided itself on
                            admitting giant flows of people at various times in its history,

                            the question today carries with it a much greater
                            urgency what American women are

                            doing (or not).

                            I note that in the 1970s, in the period referred to back then as "Women's Lib",

                            Why should I be raising kids and cooking steaks for my husband"?

                            needs new workers to be able to provide the tax
                            base that the retiring Boomers need. Speaking candidly,

                            They have needed these workers for many decades
                            now (as can be seen from the endless requests for

                            new visa programmes) so that they can "remain competitive".

                            The unseen comment in all of these headlines is that "California will be

                            brown-skinned - unless something is done". The underlying idea must be that

                            "White girls, get to work and produce skilled employees". (Racist or not,

                            this is how the Deep Thinkers there apparently think, so we must be prepared

                            to see initiatives supporting these beliefs to be presented and then

                            enacted).

                            and is going to see a severe generational imbalance starting

                            literally NOW.

                            future, then the USA can look forward to an immigration intake of perhaps

                            90-95 million people!

                            With US Fertility Rates so low, US housing developers are soon going to

                            start screaming for assistance; if they aren't already. This assistance will

                            take the form of increasing overall demand - by immigration!




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Frank Holland
                            ... Are we, Fred? How much influence do we have over our governments and the corporations that control them. My answer is very little, the capitalist
                            Message 13 of 16 , Apr 1, 2013
                              On Sun, 2013-03-31 at 03:56 -0600, Fred Elbel wrote:
                              > We are in a position to determine the future that we are bequeathing
                              > to future generations of Americans - of all races, creeds, and colors.

                              Are we, Fred?

                              How much influence do we have over our governments and the corporations
                              that control them. My answer is very little, the capitalist juggernaut
                              rolls on because they have all the power. So unless there is a world
                              wide revolution to overthrow the corporations and make them subject to
                              our will, then all we can do is wish.
                              --
                              Frank
                              53.22N 2.07W

                              ~~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

                              No, Frank. The capitalists do not have the "power" which should be seen as the energy that does the work of human society.

                              What the capitalists do have is the "money" and its economic/financial circumstances, which can be seen as generating money--particularly with digital technology--at rates increasingly far beyond the availability of physical energy to do the work that money represents.

                              The result is inflation of substantial magnitudes that is--and increasingly will be--wrecking the quality of the information used to manage our global affairs.

                              And those involved in the economic/financial game that first and best come to know and work with that reality--which will certainly call for bringing "the people" along with them--will gain substantial advantages, particularly as we move into a world that promises to be substantially different from what we have known.

                              ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
                            • Abernethy, Virginia Deane
                              How can EP write that the US already has massive labor shortages? “Your wish to limit the labor supply will lead to labor shortages and higher prices. Higher
                              Message 14 of 16 , Apr 1, 2013
                                How can EP write that the US already has massive labor shortages?

                                “Your wish to limit the labor supply will lead to labor shortages and higher prices.
                                Higher labor costs are passed on as higher prices which is called inflation. There are already growing labor
                                shortages throughout the US. The last thing we need is more of them. “ EP

                                If one reads www.shadowstats.com<http://www.shadowstats.com> , which analyses economic statistics in the manner of the 1980s and 1990s before massive official manipulation, one finds the actual US unemployment rate to be nearly 23%. Nearly one-quarter of the labor force is unemployed, has become discouraged and stopped looking, or is involuntarily part-time or employed way below their training/skills level!

                                The inflation that E.P. observes is real. That is not the result, however, if increasing labor costs but, rather, of the devaluation of the US dollar. That devaluation is a direct result of massive money creation by the Federal Reserve cabal.
                                V.



                                From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Pfeiffer
                                Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 1:31 PM
                                To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Thomas Malthus today/fe + va



                                The US and global population has traditional market preferences which have remained intact through it's marketing centuries.
                                Those preferences are: the lowest possible cost at a defined level of quality when purchasing, and the highest possible
                                return at a defined level of quality, when selling. It is the story of economics. It does indeed ignore racial lines, national
                                boundaries, and has created the global market place that we have known and preferred over 1000's of years.
                                Yes the global trade and free flow of labor and goods across the world is nothing new. The lip service we pay
                                to our national emblems, local football teams, high school cheers, etc, ends without ceremony when the
                                buying and selling seeking the best possible terms, begins
                                And...we are all businesses...every person in the US and everyone across the globe.
                                The study of how we conduct ourselves driving by this desire to maximize our incoming monies and reduce our
                                outflow of monies to best increase our happiness certainly best summarizes economics.

                                Your call for a mammoth US govt that would decide in our place what is best for us in maximizing wealth,
                                plan or daily expenditures, and regulate trade throughout the US based on security for the White race is
                                destined to failure. Your wish to limit the labor supply will lead to labor shortages and higher prices.
                                Higher labor costs are passed on as higher prices which is called inflation. There are already growing labor
                                shortages throughout the US. The last thing we need is more of them. EP


                                ________________________________
                                From: Dell Erickson <ricks@...<mailto:ricks%40tc.umn.edu>>
                                To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com<mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 6:08 PM
                                Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Thomas Malthus today/fe + va




                                I am always delighted to read Gerry's economic
                                comments and to understand his fine insights.

                                But this time he ventures into areas practicing ill-thought through economics.

                                Economics is considered a social science, yet
                                it’s neither a science nor genuinely social.
                                Economists only believe in places and corporate
                                thinking rather than of nations or of culture or
                                its environmental platform. At the onset, it is
                                important to keep in mind, the economy is a
                                “wholly owned subsidiary of the environment”
                                (Gaylord Nelson, et al). That is to say, its
                                ecological and genuine natural resources.

                                I'll briefly mention two fundamental economic
                                constructs as illustrations. First, economists
                                crave at least 5% endless growth. Yet, these
                                overachievers cannot grasp compounding or limits
                                and the, literally, suicidal implications of even
                                our current 1% - 2% annual growth rates. Second,
                                an economist might argue there is enough fresh
                                water that everyone should have a swimming pool
                                in their backyard. Then say the development will
                                create millions of jobs ­mass immigration!, end
                                unemployment, and cure world hunger!

                                Obviously, an overarching characteristic of the
                                economic profession is that it often avoids the
                                whole truth. Poor thinking is exacerbated by Sins
                                of Omission. These are every bit a lie as any
                                other. So in this post let’s examine several of the errors and omissions.

                                Begin with the big one, U.S. (and world)
                                overpopulation. When will there be enough
                                Americans? World passengers? When will an
                                economist and the Powers say “enough”? There can never be too many people.

                                Yet, when things started unraveling and hitting a
                                wall in the late 1960's, they and the general
                                public denied reality, ignored numerous studies
                                (Forrester, Ehrlich, Rockefeller, et al) and as a
                                consequence borrowed heavily in order to maintain
                                the status quo; literally moving reality out a
                                generation. Now it's due. And opened our borders.

                                On the other hand, for more than fifty years many
                                informed people understood that the U.S. is
                                overpopulated and further growth is ill-advised.
                                Yes, an overpopulated U.S. because of mass
                                immigration, importing poverty, lockstep
                                declining living standards, growing class
                                warfare, declining resources, and increasing pollution. It's not 1850.

                                I.e., immigration, legal and not, is the only
                                reason the U.S. cannot meet the Kyoto Protocols
                                and the only reason for increasing U.S. Greenhouse emissions.

                                Flash back to the later 1960s and 1970s. Two
                                children were the norm and immigration was well
                                controlled at historical levels of approximately
                                150-250,000 annually. Unemployment was small.
                                Even illegal aliens demonstrated some respect for
                                Americans, they were very few; fertility was in
                                decline, below 2, reaching 1.7 in 1972. For a
                                good historical summary, see, “Little Known
                                Presidential Population Leadership”, Otis L.
                                Graham, NPG Forum Series, January 2013. See <
                                http://www.npg.org/forum_series/Little_Known_Presidential_Population_Leadership_Graham_021913.pdf
                                >.

                                As a consequence of sensible fertility and
                                reasonable immigration, the U.S. population was
                                on the welcome slow growth trend to achieve
                                population stabilization around the year 2045
                                with a population of 240 million. The U.S. was on
                                the path to economic and environmental Nirvana.
                                With a resource and environmentally necessary
                                fertility rate, our country was on a very welcome
                                path to become a sustainable society with high
                                living standards and a cohesive people.

                                Of course, many environmental, resource, social,
                                and economic problems clearly evident today would
                                either not exist or be amendable to constructive
                                policies. Economists in that situation could
                                offer constructive recommendations.

                                Unlike today, society understood that
                                environmental and economic problems cannot be
                                resolved under conditions of population growth
                                and overpopulation. Unlike today, everyone, but
                                the Vatican and economists, seemed to realize it;
                                the issues were widely publicized and discussed.
                                Recall, almost all responsible environmental
                                legislation evident today was passed in that era.

                                Society had fought the population battles and the
                                population war was won. Or so we thought.

                                Economists today work with Banksters and the
                                investment community trying to reverse those
                                important environmental laws. Indeed, they
                                continue to ignore the commons and the ecological framework over the economy.

                                Today, as most on this list are fully aware,
                                industrial society is imploding. Because of
                                economic and politicos' thinking, we are likely
                                doomed as a people and nation. A wonderful
                                American Experiment historians may one day write about.

                                Now the media, nor schools, nor economists dare
                                mention the burgeoning U.S. population and the
                                necessity of the one-child family and zero
                                in-migration! World population grows
                                relentlessly, yet population has been removed as
                                a solution, replaced by programs intended to make women feel good.

                                Gerry believes it to be “Women’s Lib” in the
                                1970s that was the reason women sought
                                employment. In part, yes and a good thing, but
                                the reality is that in order to maintain existing
                                or slowly falling living standards one worker was
                                no longer sufficient for a family. And society
                                also began to use debt, personal and government,
                                in the desperate effort to maintain the status
                                quo. Borrowing from the future to pay for the present.

                                Follow the money, the wealthy and powerful
                                immigration industry. For example, NumbersUSA
                                recently stated that since 2007 amnesty
                                supporters have spent nearly $1.5 billion, and
                                hired over 3,000 lobbyists to promote mass
                                amnesty. In an orgasm of illegality, they will on
                                April 10, bus tens of thousands of pro-amnesty
                                protesters to Washington, D.C., to march on the
                                Capitol. NUSA states they "will demand an
                                immediate amnesty for (in many cases) themselves
                                and other illegal aliens now residing in America,
                                taking our jobs and drawing our benefits." They demand open U.S. borders!

                                This is a consequence of economic thought ­and
                                power. Immigration anarchy and criminal conduct
                                on a scale never witnessed in history. Encouraged
                                by a president who writes his own laws and
                                behaves in a treasonous fashion. “He rots the soul of a nation.”

                                And False-God economists write the half brained
                                Cornucopia articles seen in the Wall Street Journal and Barrons.

                                1965! It began with the 1965 immigration law
                                changes, just about the time the Baby Boom began
                                to slow. Despite all the statements to the
                                contrary, the Powers in 1965 knew what they were
                                doing; they knew the Boomers would move through
                                life and into old age and because the U.S.
                                fertility rate was approaching replacement, U.S.
                                population growth would slow then achieve zero
                                population growth. Just as Gerry said, this is
                                the fundamental position of economists.

                                The Powers made things change! The Powers
                                couldn't have a country with a stable and
                                sustainable population level! Alas, as we know,
                                the result of the 1965 immigration laws (and
                                subsequent repeated amnesties) flooded the
                                country with ever increasing numbers of people.
                                They wanted bodies, not giving a thought or word
                                to what it implied, resource wise, environmentally, culturally, or socially.

                                Numerous amnesties and failures to enforce what
                                laws remained were merely a backdoor means of
                                increasing our population by mass immigration. Demography is destiny.

                                Censorship on a grand scale and irrational
                                justifications of counterproductive economic thought became commonplace.

                                Thus, with every passing day the probability of
                                reversing the 1965 to Obama Administration
                                population imbalance juggernaut becomes less
                                likely, its consequences less reversible and more damaging.

                                SO, HERE'S THE DEAL

                                1. Deport all illegal aliens.

                                2. Stop all in-migration until the unemployment
                                rate is below 3% for a minimum of two years.

                                3. As in the past, require colleges to provide
                                the course work designed to meet any projected
                                economic needs and the government to sponsor
                                programs encouraging students to meet those job
                                needs. That would include corporations training
                                and educating employees internally.

                                4. Establish a sustainable U.S. population
                                objective and implement the necessary policies.

                                THEN we can talk about immigration, including
                                H-1b's etc. As we know, there is only silence from economists and politicos.

                                To carry out the 1965 agenda meant a complete
                                remaking of the U.S.; let’s review several unstated changes.

                                1. White genocide. Never in the history of the
                                planet has a nation undertaken a program intended
                                to completely replace an existing people.The
                                elimination of a White people with its unified
                                Western Culture; a unified culture from London,
                                Stockholm, and Berlin. It is being replaced by an
                                almost all non-White, southern hemisphere,
                                Iberian culture. They don't come to be Americans.
                                They reflect Mexico City and Haiti and that is their city / state model.

                                As Gerry indicates, today, our parents are few
                                and we Boomers are dying off at the rate of 10,000 every day.

                                Moreover, even the word, assimilation, has been
                                essentially removed from our language.

                                2. Yes, those Northern Europeans had a unified
                                Western culture cobbled together in the U.S.
                                under a magnificent U.S. Constitution. White
                                skinned is only a reference; they could have been
                                green skinned for all it matters.

                                It is a culture with character emphasis on the
                                individual, self-determination, success, hard
                                work, thrift and love of country. We Boomers
                                mostly reflect those norms, institutions and
                                values as well. Now being replaced by a culture
                                of superstition, “family” over the individual (socialist), and theocracy.

                                3. An economic profession that cannot comprehend
                                that it’s the Western Culture that created the
                                conditions of their economic thought which is,
                                paradoxly, being destroyed by them and along with
                                it their system of economic thought.

                                4. Some variety of Christian religions (including
                                a few Jews), in relatively equal weights.

                                In sharp contrast to our formative years, the
                                Catholic Church is beginning to dominate. Already
                                all TV programs have the Catholic Church as its
                                religion, 'the Church' they say. As a consequence
                                come Catholic dogma, biases and programs
                                -promotions of immigration. See any media talk of
                                birth control? U.S. Population?

                                5. Our core language is essentially gone; we are
                                all but officially bi-lingual, rapidly
                                transitioning to a fully Spanish language nation.
                                Multi-lingual implies multi-cultural. However, no
                                nation has succeeded except as a single
                                homogenous culture; becoming Iberian is well
                                underway. A single culture is the definition of a nation.

                                6. Some more numbers. Economist allege the U.S.
                                needs 95 million more people by 2030 to replace
                                the Boomers and to grow the population. Truth is
                                the U.S. needs far fewer people. Moreover, they
                                ignore the past and the present. In 1986 the
                                amnesty of three million illegal aliens allowed
                                family 'unification' to total 12 ­ 15 million.
                                Obama’s current practice of amnestying all
                                current illegals implies another 80 ­ 100 million
                                population increase over the next twenty years or
                                so. That will be in addition to the other visa
                                and open borders programs, 95 million? Scary.

                                7. Also never mentioned is that cheap foreign
                                labor misallocates domestic resources which
                                creates rising unemployment. It also guarantees
                                uncompetitive and economically unnecessary
                                industries to grow or allows the inefficient to continue to exist.

                                To accommodate the new masses, the unemployment
                                standard was raised from 3% to 5% then to 7%,
                                then 7.5% in order keep up with open borders. It
                                implies that more than 1.5 million more Americans
                                would be unemployed on a continuing basis. What's
                                that sound heard from economists?

                                8. Circular and reinforcing processes.
                                Representation? Voting? The Census counts anyone
                                standing in this country or a territory as equal
                                to a citizen. Non-citizens, even illegal aliens,
                                count as equals. As we know, money and political
                                representation flows from the Census. High
                                immigration states, therefore gain
                                representatives at the expense of low immigration states.

                                The implication and fact is that high immigration
                                states begat high immigration, abetted and paid
                                by the government and its influence peddlers.

                                Conversely, it implies that those low immigration
                                mostly "red" states are becoming less relevant to
                                the nation or Congress as our parents and we
                                Boomers leave our mortal bounds. Essentially, we
                                don't matter now. We've already lost much of a
                                country. Soon, our language and culture and
                                likely the name of our country will be a
                                historical footnote. See April 10, 2013.

                                But, the American citizen has little say in the
                                matter. Banksters, politicos, economists and the
                                rest of the Power’s want it so.

                                9. Promoting or ignoring basic resource
                                fallacies. An energy policy is first and foremost a population policy.

                                As stated previously, the fact that there are
                                limits to growth was well understood in the 1960s
                                and 1970s. Primarily understood were population,
                                resource and pollution issues. Coincident with
                                the opening of our borders was that limits were
                                hidden away in a closet. Meanwhile most living
                                standards and resource limits were reached or
                                soon were; important fossil energies actually
                                peaked in the early 1970s and have steadily
                                declined. Limits and ecology are rarely, if ever,
                                discussed and never is mass immigration integrated by economists.

                                Evidently, not read was the recently posted
                                excellent study of oil, coal, natural gas, and
                                nuke resources and production. Its
                                conclusion: the U.S. and world is in deep
                                trouble across all energy fronts. See <
                                http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG-update2013_long_18_03_2013.pdf
                                >. To save time, read the Executive Summary, and
                                then jump to the back and move forward. Note
                                Fig's 133, 130, 123 (and discussion -Bakken).

                                Our resource dilemmas are a fundamental cause of
                                our economic malaise. Unlike previous eras,
                                today’s higher priced energy prevents the economy
                                from gaining traction. Cheap energy has been
                                replaced by increased pollution, lower net
                                energy, and higher consumer costs. The process is
                                irreversible but can be managed with appropriate policies.

                                Of course hollow-headed economists respond to
                                rising structural prices by encouraging exactly
                                the wrong thing, mass immigration of cheap labor,
                                more people, and more consumers of resources. As
                                we've experienced, that notion is a circular
                                spiral down into misery. Fixed, as in the past,
                                in the Ponzi scheme game of endless suicidal growth.

                                Lastly, among Americans there appears to be
                                widespread and profound feelings of malaise;
                                distress that there is nothing we can do to
                                prevent the onslaught nor its bad ending. For the
                                first time in our history, many Americans are
                                fearful that our system of government is
                                incapable of dealing with it, even as, or
                                because, the system is sometimes the reason for the problems.

                                Dell Erickson
                                Minneapolis

                                3/28/2013, Gerry A. wrote:

                                will be screaming for qualified workers in perhaps 15-20 years,

                                One of the things immigration policy is supposed to do is to make sure that

                                the population of a given country stays steady

                                the USA, which has historically prided itself on
                                admitting giant flows of people at various times in its history,

                                the question today carries with it a much greater
                                urgency what American women are

                                doing (or not).

                                I note that in the 1970s, in the period referred to back then as "Women's Lib",

                                Why should I be raising kids and cooking steaks for my husband"?

                                needs new workers to be able to provide the tax
                                base that the retiring Boomers need. Speaking candidly,

                                They have needed these workers for many decades
                                now (as can be seen from the endless requests for

                                new visa programmes) so that they can "remain competitive".

                                The unseen comment in all of these headlines is that "California will be

                                brown-skinned - unless something is done". The underlying idea must be that

                                "White girls, get to work and produce skilled employees". (Racist or not,

                                this is how the Deep Thinkers there apparently think, so we must be prepared

                                to see initiatives supporting these beliefs to be presented and then

                                enacted).

                                and is going to see a severe generational imbalance starting

                                literally NOW.

                                future, then the USA can look forward to an immigration intake of perhaps

                                90-95 million people!

                                With US Fertility Rates so low, US housing developers are soon going to

                                start screaming for assistance; if they aren't already. This assistance will

                                take the form of increasing overall demand - by immigration!

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Gerry Agnew
                                Tom, with all respect, I must agree with Frank here. I would say, Tom, that you cannot underestimate the power of the major central banks and the liquidity
                                Message 15 of 16 , Apr 1, 2013
                                  Tom, with all respect, I must agree with Frank here.

                                  I would say, Tom, that you cannot underestimate the power of the major central banks and the liquidity they can churn out with little or no control. People are trained to believe, in my view, to accept the "money" which is generated in such a way because it flows down to them to an extent and is their life in many respects.

                                  Capitalists know all of this and use this liquidity in much more ruthless terms. They control whomever lies in their paths and includes governments these days and those who would build global empires over what they can grab by any means. It may seem strange that a group of people (capitalists) can use "nothing" (ie confetti liquidity) to take much in the way of real assets but there it is!

                                  Gerry
                                  ********************************************

                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Frank Holland
                                  To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:04 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [Bulk] [energyresources] Re: Thomas Malthus today



                                  On Sun, 2013-03-31 at 03:56 -0600, Fred Elbel wrote:
                                  > We are in a position to determine the future that we are bequeathing
                                  > to future generations of Americans - of all races, creeds, and colors.

                                  Are we, Fred?

                                  How much influence do we have over our governments and the corporations
                                  that control them. My answer is very little, the capitalist juggernaut
                                  rolls on because they have all the power. So unless there is a world
                                  wide revolution to overthrow the corporations and make them subject to
                                  our will, then all we can do is wish.
                                  --
                                  Frank
                                  53.22N 2.07W

                                  ~~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

                                  No, Frank. The capitalists do not have the "power" which should be seen as the energy that does the work of human society.

                                  What the capitalists do have is the "money" and its economic/financial circumstances, which can be seen as generating money--particularly with digital technology--at rates increasingly far beyond the availability of physical energy to do the work that money represents.

                                  The result is inflation of substantial magnitudes that is--and increasingly will be--wrecking the quality of the information used to manage our global affairs.

                                  And those involved in the economic/financial game that first and best come to know and work with that reality--which will certainly call for bringing "the people" along with them--will gain substantial advantages, particularly as we move into a world that promises to be substantially different from what we have known.

                                  ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~



                                  No virus found in this message.
                                  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                  Version: 2013.0.3267 / Virus Database: 3161/6217 - Release Date: 03/31/13


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Frank Holland
                                  Tom, I was using power to mean political and controlling power, not energy. Just look at how our so called democracies are operated...for the benefit of the
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Apr 2, 2013
                                    Tom,

                                    I was using "power" to mean political and controlling power, not energy.
                                    Just look at how our so called democracies are operated...for the
                                    benefit of the corporations and businesses, not for the benefit of the
                                    people.

                                    And we, the people, cannot control the banksters/corporations, unless
                                    there is a world wide revolution. The power/elite control the money and
                                    do what they want with it and us...that is the way it is.

                                    Frank


                                    On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 10:04 +0100, Frank Holland wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    How much influence do we have over our governments and the corporations
                                    that control them. My answer is very little, the capitalist juggernaut
                                    rolls on because they have all the power. So unless there is a world
                                    wide revolution to overthrow the corporations and make them subject to
                                    our will, then all we can do is wish.
                                    --
                                    Frank
                                    53.22N 2.07W
                                    > ~~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
                                    >
                                    > No, Frank. The capitalists do not have the "power" which should be
                                    > seen as the energy that does the work of human society.
                                    >
                                    > What the capitalists do have is the "money" and its economic/financial
                                    > circumstances, which can be seen as generating money--particularly
                                    > with digital technology--at rates increasingly far beyond the
                                    > availability of physical energy to do the work that money represents.
                                    >
                                    > The result is inflation of substantial magnitudes that is--and
                                    > increasingly will be--wrecking the quality of the information used to
                                    > manage our global affairs.
                                    >
                                    > And those involved in the economic/financial game that first and best
                                    > come to know and work with that reality--which will certainly call for
                                    > bringing "the people" along with them--will gain substantial
                                    > advantages, particularly as we move into a world that promises to be
                                    > substantially different from what we have known.
                                    >
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.