Re: Paul Krugman: No more illegal immigrants

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Alan Lichtenstein wrote:

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


Alan Lichtenstein wrote:


Fact remains Josh, if current numbers are a drain, should we not
take steps to reduce those current numbers?


So, would you kindly repeat it? Is the answer Yes or is the answer
no? And kindly attach an explanation if you so desire. Perhaps that
will form the basis for discussion.


The answer is no. I earlier said:

You slow the growth so you reach the correct value in the future.

If X(1) is supposed to equal 10 and X(2) is supposed to equal 20, but
X(1) actually equals 20, you can get to the proper value of X(2)=20 by
not increasing X during the time 1<t<2. You don't have to reduce X.

there you go again, spinning and digressing. Let's begin with your
initial statement. You asserted that the numbers are a drain. Yet you
say that we should NOT take steps to reduce that drain, a clear
contradiction of your own assertion. A fallacy if there ever was one.


It's not a contradiction given my assumption that X(t) grows as t
increases. As I have said previously, you may disagree with my
assumption, but do not call my argument internally contradictory.

Indeed it is a contradiction. NOW means at the present time, not an assumption that it grows. The fallacy is that you have made an assertion which is contradicted by your assumption. Growth implies some future condition. The assertion indicated NOW, not some future condition.

Consequently, based on definitions, you have also contradicted yourself.

Next, you attempt to rationalize that error. There is NO value for
X(1). There was NO specific amount of illegal aliens which are
acceptable to the economy. Krugman made that quite clear. Therefore,
your explanation is based on a fallacy, and everything that follows is
fallacious.


Where is your citation for what you allege Krugman believes?

The body of the entire article. NOWHERE in the article does Krugman indicate some threshold amount of wetbacks. And you should know that you cannot provide a citation for something which does not exist. Krugman simply did NOT provide any numberof wetbacks which he asserted were tolerable.

Point, set and match. Your spin didn't work.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Paul Krugman: No more illegal immigrants
    ... It's not a contradiction given my assumption that Xgrows as t ... assertion which is contradicted by your assumption. ... My assertion (we have too many low-skilled immigrants at the present ... Where is your citation for what you allege Krugman believes? ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Paul Krugman: No more illegal immigrants
    ... It's not a contradiction given my assumption that Xgrows as t ... assertion which is contradicted by your assumption. ... Now, you clearly asserted that I was misreading Krugman, and you posted what he said. ... Reasonable people understand that if that number, whatever it is, is too much, then it should be reduced if we want the economic minus to be reduced. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Paul Krugman: No more illegal immigrants
    ... You asserted that the numbers are a drain. ... A fallacy if there ever was one. ... It's not a contradiction given my assumption that Xgrows as t ... Where is your citation for what you allege Krugman believes? ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Poisson Distribution
    ... it's equally your assertion that our understanding of natural laws is ... observations...but it's a contradiction nonetheless. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: --- --- --- Solutions of an equation
    ... Your assertion is false. ... Right -- since y is a positive integer, sqrty is irrational, hence ... the logic is flawed -- you haven't shown a contradiction. ...
    (sci.math)