Focus on balance of trade, national efficiency and govt spending not funded by debt, not hocus-pocus like 'GDP'.Pug wrote:
Well, for one, I asked for your economic theory, not a diatribe on the current US economy.
As far as the rest of the stuff you mentioned, you haven't really thought the entire thing thru.
Balance of trade is irrelevant.Dilbert_X wrote:
Focus on balance of trade, national efficiency and govt spending not funded by debt, not hocus-pocus like 'GDP'.Pug wrote:
Well, for one, I asked for your economic theory, not a diatribe on the current US economy.
As far as the rest of the stuff you mentioned, you haven't really thought the entire thing thru.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-10 05:43:31)
oh, you mean like solar panels, wind farms, electric cars right?Dilbert_X wrote:
National efficiency, using your people and resources as effectively as possible.
eg Town planning, building standards, not importing oil to burn in SUVs etc.
Umm, no.Dilbert_X wrote:
National efficiency, using your people and resources as effectively as possible.
eg Town planning, building standards, not importing oil to burn in SUVs, ensuring good communication systems etc.
He wants an omnipotent totalitarian government sort of like Plato's Republic. Only the learned are worthy of having a say.Pug wrote:
town planning? i thought it you were against civil projects
Effectiveness =/= efficiencyDilbert_X wrote:
National efficiency, using your people and resources as effectively as possible.
eg Town planning, building standards, not importing oil to burn in SUVs, ensuring good communication systems etc.
You realize that the US is one of the only first world countries that has maintained a nearly replacement-rate population growth rate precisely because of those immigrant-breeding-Mexicans? In countries like Japan, their retirement age population significantly outnumbers the working population. All of those Mexicans are going to greatly soften the impact of us having our largest generation to date retire.Dilbert_X wrote:
Unless the US can invent fusion power and stop the blacks and mexicans breeding its doomed.
I'd suggest a one child policy for poor/stupid people and compulsory extreme sports for retirees.
From wikipedia:Spark wrote:
US's population growth rate + birth rate is fine. One of the few western countries that can say that.
The total fertility rate in the United States estimated for 2009 is 2.01 children per woman, which is below the sub-replacement fertility threshold of 2.10.[8] However, U.S. population growth is among the highest in industrialized countries,[9] since the vast majority of these have below-replacement fertility rates and the U.S. has higher levels of immigration.[10][11] The United States Census Bureau shows population increases ranging between 0.85% and 0.89% for the twelve-month periods ending in 2009.[12] Nonetheless, though high by industrialized country standards, this is below the world average annual rate of 1.19%.[9]
As I said, the US is one of the few Western states that can say that only because of it's high immigration. So saying that we need to get Mexican breeding under control in order to prosper is misguided.Hispanic and Latino Americans accounted for almost half (1.4 million) of the national population growth of 2.9 million between July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006.[18] Immigrants and their U.S.-born descendants are expected to provide most of the U.S. population gains in the decades ahead.[19]
Last edited by Home (2011-03-11 16:51:07)
I didn't say "constant growth," I said our high immigration is keeping us at a nearly replacement rate. That means achieveing equilibrium, not growth. Other countries that do not allow immigrant populations to breed within their borders (eg, Japan) are experiencing a population decline that will make it very hard for them to support the retirement of the baby boomers, and possibly an economic retraction.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well the only reason to worry about the breeding rate is to support the retiring. That's honestly retarded, cause the world and the economy can't really support a constant growth.
P.S. it's common knowledge that most us citizens aren't having kids because we can't afford it(as a people) most people in my generation 34 are on their first child. Unless they're poor, in the army or army wives.
Because all/most Western Nations are having the same problems, also we know breed out of want and not need to keep the civilization going. Considering most of us are in the lower middle class to above, we don't have the risks that poor people have. In places like the middle east and africa they tend to have more children because they don't have or use birth control and the children have alot less chance of survival.Home wrote:
I didn't say "constant growth," I said our high immigration is keeping us at a nearly replacement rate. That means achieveing equilibrium, not growth. Other countries that do not allow immigrant populations to breed within their borders (eg, Japan) are experiencing a population decline that will make it very hard for them to support the retirement of the baby boomers, and possibly an economic retraction.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well the only reason to worry about the breeding rate is to support the retiring. That's honestly retarded, cause the world and the economy can't really support a constant growth.
P.S. it's common knowledge that most us citizens aren't having kids because we can't afford it(as a people) most people in my generation 34 are on their first child. Unless they're poor, in the army or army wives.
Also, I wouldn't say that's "common knowledge"? All populations grow until they level at a point that is sustainable. That's what's happening now. If it was just because people can't afford to have kids, then why is it happening in most/all Western nations at once?
I don't follow. How does this explain that people aren't having kids because they can't afford it? It sounds like you are agreeing with me. We (first world nations) are well enough off that we don't need to worry about high infant mortality rates, meaning we have less children. We also do not have the same economic incentives to have kids, because they can't work until ~18. This is the population equilibrium that I'm talking about. Economic circumstances are a factor, but mainly this is a trend in the evolution of societies.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Because all/most Western Nations are having the same problems, also we know breed out of want and not need to keep the civilization going. Considering most of us are in the lower middle class to above, we don't have the risks that poor people have. In places like the middle east and africa they tend to have more children because they don't have or use birth control and the children have alot less chance of survival.Home wrote:
I didn't say "constant growth," I said our high immigration is keeping us at a nearly replacement rate. That means achieveing equilibrium, not growth. Other countries that do not allow immigrant populations to breed within their borders (eg, Japan) are experiencing a population decline that will make it very hard for them to support the retirement of the baby boomers, and possibly an economic retraction.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well the only reason to worry about the breeding rate is to support the retiring. That's honestly retarded, cause the world and the economy can't really support a constant growth.
P.S. it's common knowledge that most us citizens aren't having kids because we can't afford it(as a people) most people in my generation 34 are on their first child. Unless they're poor, in the army or army wives.
Also, I wouldn't say that's "common knowledge"? All populations grow until they level at a point that is sustainable. That's what's happening now. If it was just because people can't afford to have kids, then why is it happening in most/all Western nations at once?
I'm going back a bit to look for that fucked quote and found this one...you do realize that the Chinese economy and the US economy is currently linked, much like the entire global economy no?Dilbert_X wrote:
Wild consumption based on debt and finite resources is fine until one of the two runs out.
Basically the West, and especially the US, has been riding cheap oil for the standard of living. Its a downward slope now - the argument that the US has enough oil to last 200 years is bogus even if thats true, the rest of the world consumes it also at an ever increasing rate which means the price will only rise.
Short-termism will screw us, while the Chinese have 1,2,5,10,20,50 and 100 year plans already in place.
After re-reading this in a earlier quote, I have to say that this is got to be one of obtuse shitty posts ever made. Let's go ahead and adopt a racist or age discriminatory policy? Damn, dood, you are an ass for even thinking this is funny.Dilbert_X wrote:
The loss of cheap oil, and the fact that the US has practically reached its borrowing limit are the start of a colossal downward spiral.
Expensive gas - with a 20%+ Israel premium on top - huge debt payments, no significant further borrowing, an ageing population with the expactation of unlimited medical care, ageing and inefficient infrastructure - its not going to be pretty.
Unless the US can invent fusion power and stop the blacks and mexicans breeding its doomed.
I'd suggest a one child policy for poor/stupid people and compulsory extreme sports for retirees.
No, just an intelligent govt which doesn't do stupid and counterproductive things in pursuit of an arbitray number.JohnG@lt wrote:
He wants an omnipotent totalitarian government sort of like Plato's Republic. Only the learned are worthy of having a say.Pug wrote:
town planning? i thought it you were against civil projects
Emboldened the key bit for you.Pug wrote:
I'm going back a bit to look for that fucked quote and found this one...you do realize that the Chinese economy and the US economy is currently linked, much like the entire global economy no?Dilbert_X wrote:
Wild consumption based on debt and finite resources is fine until one of the two runs out.
Basically the West, and especially the US, has been riding cheap oil for the standard of living. Its a downward slope now - the argument that the US has enough oil to last 200 years is bogus even if thats true, the rest of the world consumes it also at an ever increasing rate which means the price will only rise.
Short-termism will screw us, while the Chinese have 1,2,5,10,20,50 and 100 year plans already in place.
Ahh, so in other words in a global economy you believe that either the US or China will discontinue trading with each other, and neither will their trading partners. Aka, either China or the US will adopt a similar isolationist-like policy from the Ming Dynasty of old, in a world where its been proven that a nation is better off participating in global trade.Dilbert_X wrote:
Emboldened the key bit for you.Pug wrote:
I'm going back a bit to look for that fucked quote and found this one...you do realize that the Chinese economy and the US economy is currently linked, much like the entire global economy no?Dilbert_X wrote:
Wild consumption based on debt and finite resources is fine until one of the two runs out.
Basically the West, and especially the US, has been riding cheap oil for the standard of living. Its a downward slope now - the argument that the US has enough oil to last 200 years is bogus even if thats true, the rest of the world consumes it also at an ever increasing rate which means the price will only rise.
Short-termism will screw us, while the Chinese have 1,2,5,10,20,50 and 100 year plans already in place.
