GG Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Does "GG" stand for goo goo gaga? 838901[/snapback] Wouldn't that be GGG? I know, it's that math thingy again, isn't it?
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Wouldn't that be GGG? I know, it's that math thingy again, isn't it? 838903[/snapback] Too bad you didn't figure out the need for the third G until after you'd created your username.
GG Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Too bad you didn't figure out the need for the third G until after you'd created your username. 838906[/snapback] Always so clever, witty and insightful. You got me, that's eaxctly how I messed up the math.
mike1011 Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Re-read the freaking title of the thread and the original post you moron. The thread, and the study, is about debunking that undocumented workers use a disproportionate amount of the health service cost. Both the study I linked to, and the freaking study you linked to SAY THE SAME FUGGING THING. In fact, the one you posted even shows that they are less of a burden in other areas as well. As far as policy goes, undocumented workers are no more of a burden on social services than native-born americans. Once again..from the study YOU FREAKING LINKED TO: Don't lecture me about common sense, then make crap up and link to an article that supports the opposite of what you're trying to say. The bottom line here is that I'm not the one looking stupid. 838785[/snapback] Just because it doesn't say "as bad as", or "not as costly as" doesn't mean it's not bad. Having a multi-billion dollar problem is a problem. Just because it's not as bad as Iraq, or as "bad as previously believed" doesn't mean it's not bad. You don't judge virtue by vice. You still won't answer the question whether or not the GOP talking point (which was your point) is valid. Talk past me all you want, you have a huge problem. If you want to pretend that even $1.1 billion is not a problem you foot the bill. The overall problem is enormous. When you consider what you've done, which is talk a small portion of a total bill of a demographic and use that as your sticking point against the GOP, you are intellectually dishonest. Look at YOUR title, look at how you phrased it and own up you tried to minimize the damage of illegal aliens. Before you pretend you didn't, remember the Tooth Fairy is real and is a tool of the GOP to alienate voters.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Wouldn't that be GGG? I know, it's that math thingy again, isn't it? 838903[/snapback] Actually, it woult be GGGG. "GGG" has an error of -1...but as that error causes regression toward the mean, it will become "GG", and hence you are correct...
mike1011 Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I'm not an apologist of the GOP by the way, but I'm certainly against the liberal propaganda to destroy the nation from within.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 How much more polluted, overcrowded, and poor do you want this country to become before you open your eyes to the fact that we can no longer afford to absorb the Third World's population surplus? 838877[/snapback] How polluted, overcrowded, and poor is it now? "How much more" is a comparative. You haven't even established anything to compare to anything else. Just saying it doesn't make it true.
GG Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I'm not an apologist of the GOP by the way, but I'm certainly against the liberal propaganda to destroy the nation from within. 838917[/snapback] Then again, maybe I wasn't in the wrong thread with the Grenwich Village reference.
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 How polluted, overcrowded, and poor is it now? It's polluted, overcrowded, and poor enough now that I don't want to make those problems any worse. Do I really need to put numbers on these problems in order to say that I don't want them to worsen?
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Then again, maybe I wasn't in the wrong thread with the Grenwich Village reference. 838925[/snapback] Quite frankly, it doesn't make much difference whether you're in the "right" or "wrong" thread. Your posts make about as much sense, and contribute about as much, either way.
Chilly Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 How polluted, overcrowded, and poor is it now? "How much more" is a comparative. You haven't even established anything to compare to anything else. Just saying it doesn't make it true. 838921[/snapback] Well obviously you have to compare it to itself. That way, any change you make could be argued as making it worse. Less people = less workers = less money! More people = more people to pay for = less money!
GG Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Quite frankly, it doesn't make much difference whether you're in the "right" or "wrong" thread. Your posts make about as much sense, and contribute about as much, either way. 838929[/snapback] It could be that my posts are intended for people who comprehend difficult subjects, like adding 1+1+1.
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 It could be that my posts are intended for people who comprehend difficult subjects, like adding 1+1+1. 838940[/snapback] I see you're aiming your posts at those above your own intellectual level.
GG Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I see you're aiming your posts at those above your own intellectual level. 838942[/snapback] Oh oh, is this what you kids call "pwned" in Internet lingo? 'cuz I just felt a zap coming through the monitor.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 It's polluted, overcrowded, and poor enough now that I don't want to make those problems any worse. Do I really need to put numbers on these problems in order to say that I don't want them to worsen? 838928[/snapback] No, no need for numbers. The unsubstantiated word of a total moron that the country is, in fact, polluted, overcrowded, and poor is more than enough. No need to back up your statements with vaguely fact-like objective references. Not that you'd know a vaguely fact-like objective reference if it bit you in the ass anyway.
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Well obviously you have to compare it to itself. That way, any change you make could be argued as making it worse. Less people = less workers = less money! More people = more people to pay for = less money! 838937[/snapback] There's a macroeconomic equation, which states the following: Output is a function of Labor * Capital * Technology P = L * K * T So if you increase the population, you increase the labor, while leaving capital and technology the same. This reduces production per person, and hence per-person wealth. In addition you have crowding costs. Take a city like Los Angeles. The way that city's road system is set up, it would be almost impossible to double its transportation capacity. If you double that city's population, you'll create even more traffic jams than already exist. The same can easily be said for most other major cities. There's the fact that a cheap labor supply (read: Third World immigrants) creates a strong disincentive to mechanize or automate anything. Mechanization and automation are keys to higher levels of per-person wealth; as people discovered when they went from hand-plows to animal-powered plows; and thence to tractors. From the point of view of a capital owner such as Bill Gates, the immigration invasion makes sense. You're increasing Labor, and therefore total production. You're keeping capital (and in particular his proportionate share of capital) the same. So he's presumably making more money per dollar of wealth. Good for him. But in this particular case, what's good for wealthy capitalists is bad for everyone else.
GG Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 There's a macroeconomic equation, which states the following: Output is a function of Labor * Capital * Technology P = L * K * T So if you increase the population, you increase the labor, while leaving capital and technology the same. This reduces production per person, and hence per-person wealth. 838971[/snapback] And the reason you keep capital constant is .....
Bungee Jumper Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Output is a function of Labor * Capital * TechnologyP = L * K * T 838971[/snapback] Oh, please...not more math. I haven't stopped laughing at your last math discussion yet...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 And the reason you keep capital constant is ..... 838976[/snapback] I'm sure, somehow, capital stays constant because of error...
Orton's Arm Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 No, no need for numbers. The unsubstantiated word of a total moron that the country is, in fact, polluted, overcrowded, and poor is more than enough. No need to back up your statements with vaguely fact-like objective references. Not that you'd know a vaguely fact-like objective reference if it bit you in the ass anyway. 838963[/snapback] Your post has utterly humiliated me, and I stand in awe of your greater wisdom and insight. Pollution isn't a problem in this country at all. Neither is overcrowding. The idea that people often get stuck in traffic jams out in California, or wait in long lines for emergency care, or suffer from overcrowded schools--I must have imagined all that. I've also come to believe that we should neither be concerned with poverty in particular, nor with low living standards in general. Because my concerns about those three things are wholly illusionary, any effort to improve the environment, crowding situation, or level of per-person wealth would be utterly wasted. I'm sorry for having been foolish enough to request improvement in any of these three things.
Recommended Posts