What a great new law!!

[Muezzin]

And now for some levity.

Actually, it's spelled 'Diarrhea'.

In Britian, it's spelled diarrhoea.

Sittin in the attic when it came out automatic..

Um.. Yes.

 

[lolwatever]

^ :lol:

u wanna ban ppl who cant spell propelry from england too?

 

[SilentObserver]

i'm sorry but you havn't proven to me that my claim is false.

I'm not surprised. I don't think either of us is going to prove or accept anything. In fact I lack the desire to even look back to see what your claim was anymore.

Regardless of the economy you're talking about, economics is what governs any countries legislations. Whether its a corrupt regime or not, it's economics that governs peoples behaviours.

I agree with both points. But you missed the important point that there is much law that has little to do with economics, and more to do with governing behaviour and allowing things to run smoothly. But yes, the overall theme revolves around economics. I have never denied this.

I think the problem lies with your understanding of what exactly economics is... perhaps you're one of those who think its to do with materialism or money or thing slike that?

No, I think the problem lies in what you think is my understanding. Fear not, I am aware of the vaste field of economics sciences. The problem we are having may very well stem from the fact that, much like the study of law, economics has a variety of schools of thought. On the surface they seem like things that should be straight forward, but truly are abstract.

Anyway, we are way off course. this is not about economics. I know, it is the basis of your arguement, but I simply disagree. We simply subscribe to different schools of thought (mine just happens to be right kay:.)

Perhaps if you define what economics is we'll be able to clear up a few of your misunderstandings.

If you truly are a student of economics, then you know what you ask is unreasonable. Clever ploy indeed, had I been in your position I would have been tempted to do the same.
You know as well as I that there is no definitive definition. I might ask which definition would you prefer?
Again, this is not a discussion on economics.

You aren't making any point by labelling what you don't understand as 'cynical'.

This is the equivalent of your "when facing defeat, claim victory" comment. By claiming that I don't understand, then I must have been defeated. LOL! Simple but fun tactics, are they not?

i don't see any 'addition' term in your new definition 2 posts above, nor did i see the protection measure phrase in the 'expanded version' :giggling:

I don't even know what you are getting at in the first part of the sentence. As for the protection part, look at what reason #1 says again. But of course, just like economics, and protection, and the rest of your distractions from the main point, this is not about protection. My original statement that you have been trying to refute all this time, was about reason #3.

i really think the issue is that you don't seem to know what economics is. It extends faaaar far far beyond monetary concepts, at the crux of economics is the principle of opportunity cost which is exactly what governs the behaviour of human beings subconciously.

I am aware of the science and study of economics. By the way, you are attempting again to claim victory by suggesting my defeat in an accusation that I lack knowledge on a subject. A subject, I might add, that is not the discussion and that you brought up to distract focus from the main point. That point I will remind you , is that it is to the benefit of a society to ensure that any new members from other societies speak the language and understand the culture.

source


This isn't a discussion about economics, but the
reasonableness of that law can be easily deduced via simple economic analysis.

Taking nothing away from the brilliance of Jennifer Scott and the thoughts that she puts into this book, but it is one train of thought put forward in a sea of ideas on theses fields. Certainly economics and laws are intertwined, I agree. But her ideas are not a broad brush that explains away all aspects of law. In short, she is not an authority on law, or even all schools of thought of economics. Again though, taking nothing from her, she is an expert in her discipline.

but as other academics would say, economisc is what underlies that discipline as well.

What you should be saying is that some other academics say that economics is an underlying principle in that discipline as well, but is not what drives all law. Depending of course, on which approach and line of thinking we are taking.

It's unfortunate that people who have no idea about economics want to limit it's applicabiltiy to money and jobs. I hope you're not one of those.

No, economics are a social study.

lol not so fast... i quoted one of many books out there that are exactly designed to refute your beliefs.

As I stated, just one person's thoughts. If I subscribed to her thinking than I might be inclined to be more agreeable with some of what you say. You should expand your studies beyond the curriculum of the courses you are taking if they are limiting you to one view.

why are you all of a sudden trying to limit the economic effects of such a policy to labour shortage, as if economics is the study of labour markets and money or something. ffended:

I have done no such thing. This is back to strawman arguements. You created a position that I did not have. It was you that brought up economics when saying "Legislating that only english speakers can immigrate is an economically miserable policy". Before this, my arguements were purely about what was best for the existing citizens first, how to allow immigration without inconveniencing them. It was you that brought up 'economic effect', and I responded to the statement. And I might add, that response was an example, in which I used 'labour shortage'. It is misleading, and an example of strawman when you bring in an arguement and then attribute it to me. But it is ok. I am used to your tactics and disregard these attempts.

Please.. before you start designing economic policies, perhaps get a better idea of what economics is in the first place :heated:

Nice try. I would ask for my tuition back if I were you.
I don't need to design policies. In my country we are already doing this. It is better than what was done in the past. It is a proven policy. Use the resources that you already have before looking to outside sources.

To me, this law is being measured against hte opportunity cost of a select few, rather than the society as a whole. which is very unfair.

Silly opinion really. Everybody within the society benefits if the society as a whole is inconvenienced as little as possible. If things are made to run smoothly and more efficiently. If troubles are avoided, or at least minimized. If costs to integrate are imposed upon the applicant before arriving, rather than on the society when they arrive. All of these things together add up to a greater benefit than cost to the society.

which is very unfair.

Who is it unfair to? Nobody living in the society already. My fellow countrymen and myself benefit more by ensuring those that arrive are prepared for life here. We are burdened less, or not at all when they are prepared.
remember what I said earlier. This sums it all up.

You seem to think that people have a right to immigrate to any given country. Make no mistake about it, it is not a right. It's a privilege. A person is asking for the privilege to move to my country. To come to my home. Just because someone knocks on my front door does not mean that I have to let them into my house. Just because they have money to rent a room does not mean I have to allow them to live with me. I may very well decide that there are enough people living in my house already. Or, I may also decide, a person that does not speak english needs to learn it before they are allowed to rent a room. Why? Because it's my house.