[tleave2000]

I've heard some arguments in favor of mass immigration that go along the lines of "We need more young economically active people to pay for the older generations in the UK, so we need more immigration".

The definition of a Ponzi Scheme is a system that requires ever increasing numbers of new investors in order to pay dividends to previous generations of investors.

Our population is increasing quite quickly as it is.

If the pension system of the uk requires more and more people from immigration to invest into it, in order to make the payments to previous generations of investors, then it is a ponzi scheme and like all ponzi schemes our focus should be on how to bring it to an end, while supporting those who have become dependant on it, rather than simply perpetuating it by enticing millions more into the trap.

We're making good headway towards 70 million people already. George Osbourne saying we need more seems a bit disturbing seeing as he's our chancellor and doesn't seem to be able to spot a classic ponzi scheme. The only thing that's different about this one is the scale of it.

Bear in mind that ponzi schemes universally end in collapse and it is your generation that is going to get the sticky end of this lollipop, so to speak

What do you all think?

[Mr Ben]

The problem is, far fewer people were being being born 20/30 years ago as there were 60/70 years ago. Meaning that there are (or will be soon, I'm not certain on the complete statistics) far less people earning than there are people taking pensions.

Your idea of immigration being a Ponzi Scheme only works if the birth rate stayed reletively constant over a large amount of time, however it doesn't.

[Barden]

I think that we already lived under such a model. The only difference is that we aren't having enough children in order to support the pyramid anymore, which is why we're outsourcing, so to speak. Be under no illusions, capitalism itself is a Ponzi/pyramid scheme...

As for Osborne giving a ****? Well, he's near the top of it, isn't he...

[barnetlad]

Interesting idea though I don't agree with it.

[tleave2000]

(Original post by Barden)
I think that we already lived under such a model. The only difference is that we aren't having enough children in order to support the pyramid anymore, which is why we're outsourcing, so to speak. Be under no illusions, capitalism itself is a Ponzi/pyramid scheme...

But if it is a ponzi, then at some point we're going to run out of new idiots to invest in our crappy scheme. At that point all the money you paid into your pension scheme is of no value to you any more. That'll happen when you're old and unable save yourself or anyone else.

The only opportunity to do something useful to prevent that calamity for everyone, is now.

As for Osborne giving a ****? Well, he's near the top of it, isn't he...

Yikes, that is a scary thought, that he knows and just doesn't care enough about anyone in the uk to do anything about it.

[tleave2000]

(Original post by Mr Ben)
The problem is, far fewer people were being being born 20/30 years ago as there were 60/70 years ago. Meaning that there are (or will be soon, I'm not certain on the complete statistics) far less people earning than there are people taking pensions.

Your idea of immigration being a Ponzi Scheme only works if the birth rate stayed reletively constant over a large amount of time, however it doesn't.

Osborne is talking about the increases having to continue for the foreseeable future. 50 years seems like a fair whack.

It's natural for populations to oscillate a little around a stable equilibrium. If whenever that happens in the downward direction we furiously pump in more and more people, we'll just move ourselves further from that point of stability until the effort of sustaining the extreme becomes more than we can consistently maintain. In other words population collapse. That would be extremely unpleasant.

In a country of 70 million people with an agricultural capacity to feed 20 million people, entering into a century of relative economic decline and expected severe climate change and consequent disruptions to the global food supply, there are plenty of opportunities for that to happen.

Extremes are bad. 250,000 net immigration is really quite extreme. Increases over that are obviously even more extreme, therefore George Osborne is an extremist?

[tufc]

It's not a Ponzi scheme, because it's geared towards creating genuine wealth instead of inventing fictional resource. However, when even the Labour Party are saying how bad mass immigration was, you know it's had a negative effect. The British people will only put up with so much, and one day soon it will be ended, by hook or by crook.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by tleave2000)

In a country of 70 million people with an agricultural capacity to feed 20 million people

This is nonsense.

With lower agricultural yields than today, this country produced 75% of the food necessary to support a population of 48 million during WWII.

During the war, wheat yields were a little under three tonnes per acres, they are currently around eight tonnes an acre.

Moreover, one of our closet neighbours (France), is the world's second largest net agricultural exporter and our other closest neighbour, Ireland, also has a very large agricultural surplus.

You are confusing what we actually produce with our agricultural capacity.

[tleave2000]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
With lower agricultural yields than today, this country produced 75% of the food necessary to support a population of 48 million during WWII.
During the war, wheat yields were a little under three tonnes per acres, they are currently around eight tonnes an acre.
Moreover, one of our closet neighbours (France), is the world's second largest net agricultural exporter and our other closest neighbour, Ireland, also has a very large agricultural surplus.
You are confusing what we actually produce with our agricultural capacity.

Surely you're not citing WWII as an example of the uk's food security? It was pretty touch and go. Bumping the population up ad infinitum is not indefinitely viable. Sure we scraped by and maybe we will do again, but there's no reason to encourage a close call.

Both France and Ireland have suffered famines over the last few centuries with much smaller populations than they have now. Betting our own food supply on that not happening ever again seems like a bad idea to me. Especially when we're positively expecting the kind of climatic disruptions that caused those famines last time.

Those surpluses are all accounted for. When you're redlining an engine, there's no room for error. We're redlining our food resources. Produce per hectare has increased, but so has the population around the world.

I could have said "current agricultural output" rather than agricultural capacity. But that's not a reason to think we can forever increase our population. At some point you must agree there will be a limit to how much it would be sensible to increase our population?

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by tleave2000)
Surely you're not citing WWII as an example of the uk's food security? It was pretty touch and go. Bumping the population up ad infinitum is not indefinitely viable. Sure we scraped by and maybe we will do again, but there's no reason to encourage a close call.

Both France and Ireland have suffered famines over the last few centuries with much smaller populations than they have now. Betting our own food supply on that not happening ever again seems like a bad idea to me. Especially when we're positively expecting the kind of climatic disruptions that caused those famines last time.

Those surpluses are all accounted for. When you're redlining an engine, there's no room for error. We're redlining our food resources. Produce per hectare has increased, but so has the population around the world.

I could have said "current agricultural output" rather than agricultural capacity. But that's not a reason to think we can forever increase our population. At some point you must agree there will be a limit to how much it would be sensible to increase our population?

People have been suggesting this since Malthus wrote and none has been proved right yet.

In the posting above you jump between world and national population.

Effectively the biggest threat to UK prosperity remains the need to support an ageing population.

[tleave2000]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
People have been suggesting this since Malthus wrote and none has been proved right yet.

In the posting above you jump between world and national population.

Effectively the biggest threat to UK prosperity remains the need to support an ageing population.

The funny thing about the doom sayer is that if you say "doom" for long enough, eventually you are right.

Some people think that The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a tale encouraging you not to cry wolf, and it is partly, but not only that. It's also a tale encouraging you not to rely on the boy who cried wolf having been wrong before, maybe multiple times, as an indicator that he's wrong this time as well.

It seems likely that there are levels of population that are comfortable and rates of increase that are not. If the uk was at a population level that allowed comfortable increases in the population, then it would increase naturally without immigration. The levelling off of natural growth is nature telling us that further increases are not comfortably within the means of these islands' ecology.

If we ignore the signs and say I will only recognise that limit after I have seen the system break (whether it's the food supply or social cohesion) well it seems careless to let it break, when so many people are warning against it.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by tleave2000)
The funny thing about the doom sayer is that if you say "doom" for long enough, eventually you are right.

Some people think that The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a tale encouraging you not to cry wolf, and it is partly, but not only that. It's also a tale encouraging you not to rely on the boy who cried wolf having been wrong before, maybe multiple times, as an indicator that he's wrong this time as well.

It seems likely that there are levels of population that are comfortable and rates of increase that are not. If the uk was at a population level that allowed comfortable increases in the population, then it would increase naturally without immigration. The levelling off of natural growth is nature telling us that further increases are not comfortably within the means of these islands' ecology.

You are anthropomorphising nature. The levelling off of natural growth rates is a reaction to the invention of effective contraception, changing economic aspirations of women and changing social attitudes to finance and care in old age.

If we ignore the signs and say I will only recognise that limit after I have seen the system break (whether it's the food supply or social cohesion) well it seems careless to let it break,

The point is that is this the UK is not unique or ahead of the trend, as it was for instance, in industrialising. There is no reason to anticipate system break, as you put it whilst we are operating within parameters within which other countries or regions operate.

when so many people are warning against it.

Very few people, whose opinions are worth considering, are warning against it. The fact that many people wish to reduce immigration does not means that their reasons for this, even if sincerely held, are valid.

Many people desire inconsistent objectives. They wish to have a prosperous old age whilst at the same time they do not desire the things necessary to deliver it.

[tleave2000]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
You are anthropomorphising nature. The levelling off of natural growth rates is a reaction to the invention of effective contraception, changing economic aspirations of women and changing social attitudes to finance and care in old age.



The point is that is this the UK is not unique or ahead of the trend, as it was for instance, in industrialising. There is no reason to anticipate system break, as you put it whilst we are operating within parameters within which other countries or regions operate.



Very few people, whose opinions are worth considering, are warning against it. The fact that many people wish to reduce immigration does not means that their reasons for this, even if sincerely held, are valid.

Many people desire inconsistent objectives. They wish to have a prosperous old age whilst at the same time they do not desire the things necessary to deliver it.

I think even the cleverest and kindest people are capable of desiring inconsistent objectives. All humans are capable of great acts of cleverness and of stupidity. A ponzi scheme and people who recommend it never provide prosperity in the long run, even if they do it unintentionally.

The best guarantee against individual bias and honest mistakes has been to ask the largest number of people most directly affected by the results of the decision. When 60% of the population say no more immigration, it is foolish to ignore them, even if you think you are cleverer than they are. Even if you really are cleverer than they are, it is still a mistake.

We shouldn't impose decisions on people when they clearly state that they do not want them. Ruling for our own ideas of what's in the best interest of a population, against their stated wishes is how elites throughout history have gotten into trouble.

Democracy is your only, slender indemnity. Once you take responsibility for decisions against the popular will, you had better be sure that you never ever ever screw up. But to imagine that you won't is hubris.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by tleave2000)
I think even the cleverest and kindest people are capable of desiring inconsistent objectives. All humans are capable of great acts of cleverness and of stupidity. A ponzi scheme and people who recommend it never provide prosperity in the long run, even if they do it unintentionally.

The best guarantee against individual bias and honest mistakes has been to ask the largest number of people most directly affected by the results of the decision. When 60% of the population say no more immigration, it is foolish to ignore them, even if you think you are cleverer than they are. Even if you really are cleverer than they are, it is still a mistake.

We shouldn't impose decisions on people when they clearly state that they do not want them. Ruling for our own ideas of what's in the best interest of a population, against their stated wishes is how elites throughout history have gotten into trouble.

Democracy is your only, slender indemnity. Once you take responsibility for decisions against the popular will, you had better be sure that you never ever ever screw up. But to imagine that you won't is hubris.

That is why countries have developed systems of indirect democracy based on party manifestos.

Voters typically heavily punish parties whose policies are incoherent. That incoherence is of course spelt out by opposing politicians.

Where that check is absent, for example in recent decades California, government rapidly disintegrates into a shambles as voters are not made to face the hard choices that exist in the real world.

[tleave2000]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
That is why countries have developed systems of indirect democracy based on party manifestos.

Voters typically heavily punish parties whose policies are incoherent. That incoherence is of course spelt out by opposing politicians.

Where that check is absent, for example in recent decades California, government rapidly disintegrates into a shambles as voters are not made to face the hard choices that exist in the real world.

It becomes difficult when both parties (or all parties) begin to adopt, for various reasons, only a very narrow band of alternative policies. They sling mud like the other guys are the root of all evil, but offer real policy differences equivalent to +or-1/8% of gdp.

I would agree with the importance of party manifestos to the validity of our democracy. If, for whatever reason, they remain consistently unimplemented once in power people will quickly and rightly loose faith in the democratic process.

When in opposition the Tories railed against tracking citizens' internet behaviour and Labour was all for it. Now the Tories are in power, they're all for it and Labour are not so keen. Party policy has less to do with principles or manifestos than it has to do with whether or not they are "The Party Currently In Power".

In the UK we voted in Labour in 95 and we got wars in the middle east, the tax burden shifted from the rich to the poor (with the removal of the 10p lower rate of tax) and massive increases in immigration. In degree and often in character, these were absolutely not what was expected based on their campaign rhetoric and manifestos and not what you would expect from a Labour government.

So seeking an alternative in 2010 we vote in a fairly cooky mixture of the Tories and the Lib-Dems. The result is... more wars in the middle east, the tax burden shifted from the rich to the poor (this time with the removal of the higher 50p rate of tax) and further increases in mass immigration.

Democracy requires informed consent and choice. If all the options result in the same outcome does that still constitute a working democracy? I don't think so. A lot of the electorate don't think so either.

People who don't vote choose that action not because they're stupid or uninterested, but because they're smart enough to have noticed that it doesn't matter which way they vote, for two reasons. 1. Because the first past the post system throws away their vote unless they happen to live in a key swing constituency. And 2. because even if they did happen to cast that magic ballot, it wouldn't make any difference because the difference between the parties manifestos is paper thin, and the difference between what they actually do once in power is precisely sweet f all.

I think its easier to see these problems when they're further away, and when the policies that such deficiencies result in happen to be those that you disagree with, but I think they're every bit as severe here as they are in the USA.

[PicardianSocialist]

The pension system is the Ponzi scheme, not immigration.

[ukip72]

Can't we just have a serious debate about immigration rather than comparing it to a ponzi scheme?

[tleave2000]

(Original post by ukip72)
Can't we just have a serious debate about immigration rather than comparing it to a ponzi scheme?

I'm not idly saying "it's a ponzi scheme". I'm carefully pointing out that one of the most commonly trailed out arguments for why we "have to have" more immigration is thoroughly boneheaded. Next time someone brings it up in an argument you can, if you want to, openly mock them for their stupidity, or instead politely mention that their argument might be flawed.

Once you point out that they're recommending a ponzi scheme, their credibility and the credibility of the mass immigration position they're defending will be shot. You may not be able to sway them if they are one of the true believers of the mass immigration type, but other people looking on in the conversation will see the truth in what you're saying.

If they are truly open minded and you conducted your part of the discussion with decency, they will come over to the right side of this debate. That's what we want.

The main aspects of a ponzi scheme are clear: requires ever increasing new generations of investors to pay dividends to previous generations of investors.

The argument that we need ever increasing new generations of immigrants in order to keep up payments to previous generations of investors in the pension system is clearly absurd.

And yet you'll see that pro immigration argument used everywhere from dinner parties to the BBC. It should be shot down in flames and the people who make it should be thoroughly embarrassed.

I think this is part of that serious debate on immigration that you mentioned. We have to have clear and sound counter arguments to what are often very weak pro immigration arguments.

ps. I voted you up because I think calling for a serious debate on this issue is a good idea.

[MagicNMedicine]

Most migration is temporary, especially from the EU, people come to the UK to work for a few years and then return, so thats not a ponzi scheme.

Having kids is a ponzi scheme.

[tleave2000]

(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
Most migration is temporary, especially from the EU, people come to the UK to work for a few years and then return, so thats not a ponzi scheme.

Having kids is a ponzi scheme.

Having kids isn't a ponzi scheme if the population is stable, because it can be sustained indefinitely. Increasing the population by 1/4 million per year ad infinitum into a fixed size country definitely cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Most immigration isn't from the EU. I think only about 1/3 is, but sure that part is mostly reversible. I don't think that's a big issue imo. Immigration from places with significantly less stable situations than the uk probably won't be temporary.

The net is currently +1/4 million people per year and rising. People who argue that it must be continued or increased indefinitely, really are talking about a ponzi scheme.