andyt wrote:
EyeBrock wrote:
andy, do you ever get tired of pissing in the wind?
I don't want to start a fight but...
When people write a sentence like that, the don't and but are really superfluous, don't change the meaning at all.
I don't get tired of pissing in the wind because the wind will shift.
The knock against the Fraser Institute is that they have an agenda. You bet they do, a pro business neo-con agenda. If even they say that importing lots of people to depress wages is costing us money, it seems worth a listen. And the only thing Khar can do is knock their reputation because there is no counter study to put against what Grubel has said. And he's an economist, ex-uni prof. Don't know why he's supposedly full of shit but the economist that agrees with Khar isn't.
And then we have people like Martin Calacott and James Bisset, formerly high up in the immigration department, who are now free to speak out telling us it's broken. Seem like a good idea to listen to them instead of just the vote sucking pc crap coming from the official sources.
The knock on the Fraser Institute is far more than that.
I have provided you with five other points in the past where the Fraser Institute fails to past muster. I have recently linked you to them three times. This is the fourth. You have failed to respond in all cases to my criticisms of the Fraser Institute, where I begin by ignoring whether or not the Institute has a political leaning (which is the contention of many, yes). In addition, that source will provide you with reasons your other sources are questionable, where they have failed to back up their comments and so forth.
And yes, I have already responded on Grubel's work on several other occasions (as, once again, the above links shows),
and provided you with other studies in previous cases where you have posted his work. It is simply not damning in the way you claim.
Khar wrote:
On the actual content, you will note that Grubel's portion speaks of 12 years, a short term analysis. In other words, I have already accommodated for what Grubel discusses in my post via mentions of lag time and the differences in policy for the long term specifically, whilst noting the possibility that short term immigration impacts are likely negative (as I already pointed out, in areas such as where imports increase before exports catch up). Grubel specifically focuses on short term factors in that paper and therefore his paper is in no way a response to the views I have reflected here. Where his views brush mine, I have already mentioned them peripherally. I have to admit that it's pretty tough to make a calculation of an actual social cost from the way he's doing it, there are too many variables to be sure on any value in my books. I can't really argue with him but I do have to question the value he ended up with for the same reason I can't really argue with it, but this definitely may be due to my limited expertise.
It should be noted that his estimation is the exception to the rule with regards to how large our population would have to be, and he specifically focused on the worst case scenario. As the paper I presented showed, our current rate of immigration potentially already remedies up to 30% of the aging problem, and the author estimates we'd have to more than double our rate of immigration to cover the gap. This is not a viable solution, yes. Are they suggesting it? No. Indeed, that study makes numerable unlikely assumptions, such that we will retain our current policies outside of immigration for the next 40 odd years, that we are looking to use immigration to fix these problems 100%, etc. These ideals are way off base and represent the overstated and extreme of these scenarios.
I have provided you and sourced you with the work of numerous immigration experts in Canada, twice recently. This source itself shows that Grubel's contentions are not as correct as you wish them to be.
Running from the thread where I just posted this and failing to respond to these exact points there does not mean you can force them to resurface here.
You have a nasty history of parroting what has already been responded to, saying it hasn't been.
In addition, a reminder that a questionable link is a questionable link, as I recently told you in the thread where I just responded to these criticisms. I have now said this four times, at least -- you have failed to respond in all cases, usually moving on to another thread. I have already told you more than once I expect the same level of sourcing from myself, and I have strived to provide it.
Why is it that these experts were found on sites with massive failings which are not backed up by academic research? Why is the word of two or three men suddenly worth more than the two of three thousand currently working in the field? Why is all the other work out there from accredited university professors, economists, and CURRENT experts or heads of the immigration departments fails to past muster (not to mention all the others over the past sixty years), but the questionable work of a handful of lobbyists representing a special interest group are worth more? You are sitting in a thread where your own source directly contradicts what you have been posting, a source directly from StatsCan itself.
Hell, you've still failed to directly answer my Harper government comment either. Where do you draw the line in what is acceptable as a source, andyt? For example, I have not used the work of
this man, a 30 year immigration lawyer who states that what those two are saying is bullshit, calling them public servants rather than experts. Is he an acceptable source? I have not used him because I stand by my own restrictions on sourcing.
There are biologists out there who disagree with the concept of evolution, and sociologists who believe beautiful women have more girls. Just because they exist, does not mean that they are right. If you'd like me to source a link to those men's work, it would not take me long. They are all professors too. Just like your source, people have come out to directly contradict it (including many academics), and have questioned the credibility of the source, just as I am doing here.
Now we have academic sources, papers from StatsCan, all other previous immigration officials, and actual data telling us the system is not broken in the way two non-accredited folks (without degrees in the related areas) have said it was. I already said current politicians would not be a viable source and I worked not to provide you any from politicians or politically driven sources. Now that work is not acceptable for reasons you have not provided, except that it is somehow "PC."
Instead, you once again misrepresent my position, stating the only thing I can do is knock your source (
which deserves to be knocked, considering the inherent problems it has) when I have provided you with contrary information and data, as linked above.
CKA Super Elite 
CKA Elite 
