MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 1 week ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 week ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
U.S. Birth Rate Falls to a Record Low; Decline Is Greatest Among Immigrants
By EmmaZahn on Fri, 11/30/2012 - 7:56pm |The overall U.S. birth rate, which is the annual number of births per 1,000 women in the prime childbearing ages of 15 to 44, declined 8% from 2007 to 2010. The birth rate for U.S.-born women decreased 6% during these years, but the birth rate for foreign-born women plunged 14%—more than it had declined over the entire 1990-2007 period.1 The birth rate for Mexican immigrant women fell even more, by 23%.
URL:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/
- Add new comment
- 843 reads
Comments
Thanks; good catch. Meanwhile, guess who is starting to look like the new "Mexicans"?
Dozens in Chino Hills protest ‘maternity hotel’ for mothers from China, LA Times, Dec 1
by artappraiser on Sun, 12/02/2012 - 5:28am
While not thrilled with tourist birthing, this is ridiculous - a few dozen Chinese births doesn't compare to 1 million Mexican immigrants a year, and it's pretty unlikely thousands will be sneaking across the US-China border or that we'll change US law to codify escalated Chinese immigration.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/02/2012 - 3:35pm
Ross Douthat is concerned: The Birthrate and America’s Future - NYTimes.com
Others, not so much:
The Case for Natalism is the Case for Immigration - Forbes
The Aleph Blog » Blog Archive » On Human Fertility, Part 2
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 12/02/2012 - 2:35pm
Forbes fails to note that Mexican birthrate is lower than Mexican-American (US) birthrate. Cute paradox.
Don't understand #3. I'm afraid liberals have wandered into GOP logic-land. Cutting taxes always increases revenues? Massive immigration always leads to assimilation and economic growth? Wish reality was so compliant - open the gates and drop all taxes, land of paradise and what not.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/02/2012 - 3:09pm
#3 was not a direct response to the Pew study. Just one on the same subject I encountered around the same time from someone who often has awesome links like the one I just shared here:
Prison of Debt Paralyzes West
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 12/02/2012 - 3:20pm
Interesting though, but debt, i.e. credit, is good. If we waited for savings to fund growth, we would have waited a long time, and grown at a fraction of our rate. The US kicks the rest of the world's ass in terms of access to venture funding, speculation on startup, ability to fund new ideas.
And think about how little influence China's had on our politics or economic decisions despite holding more and more of our debt. At one point in the 70's, it was worried that Arabs would buy up the US and have undue influence, but instead they just bought a big piece of bubble. China investment in the US may be safer than bubbles in China, but it doesn't buy them a seat at the table. My insta-reaction, YMMV.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/02/2012 - 3:42pm
Yes, my mileage varies but then I actually read the whole thing. :D
Debt, i.e., credit can be either good or bad depending on how it is used i.e. who benefits and who suffers. It is best when all parties benefit but that is not what is happening just now. We seem to be fast approaching the point predicted by Twark Main in his Archimedes essay if we are not already there.
Our politicians made a deal with the devil when they chose to use Primary Dealers (est. 1960) as purveyors (market makers) of sovereign debt to make up shortfalls in revenues resulting from tax cuts. That is when the balance of power began to shift from citizens (democratic government) to creditors (financial markets).
It sounded like a good idea at the time. A win/win/win for the wealthy / banks / politicians. The wealthy see their highest marginal tax rate drop and actually get paid interest by the government instead on the taxes saved IF they invest in sovereign debt. Politicians were able cut taxes and spend on pork for decades without ever having to justify either to their constituents. And the banks who became the FRB's Primary Dealers, its exclusive counterparties and market-makers of sovereign debt, became masters of the financial universe when they went global with it.
It really was not a bad idea. If only it had not been kept in the shadows and its chiefs benefits restricted to those three groups.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 12/02/2012 - 4:24pm
The whole thing? Hats off in admiration. I kept looking for the Cliff Notes link.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/02/2012 - 4:29pm