|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 05 2015 02:50 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 05 2015 01:33 WhiteDog wrote:On April 05 2015 01:23 puerk wrote:On April 05 2015 00:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 04 2015 16:14 puerk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Theoretically you don't need millionaires and billionaires. You could have the general population or more widely held organizations save enough to make up for what the rich don't have anymore. Easier said than done tho. We are still in a global savings glut, it has become so bad that billions are "invested" into government bonds with negative yields, and you seriously advocate for keeping that status quo? Why not lower the savings rate? My post was agnostic towards global and national savings rates. It was about who saves, and by doing so has wealth; not how much is saved in the aggregate. So I think you misread something there. You said if millionaires and billionaires save less, others have to pick up the slack and compensate.. that implies keeping overall savings aggregate constant (or diminishing their decline)... In the short run you can absolutely lower the savings rate. That's what counter cyclical government policies like unemployment insurance do. But over the long run you're going to need a positive savings rate and not sell your factories to China so you can consume more today. Are you thinking in some kind of blance sheet equivalence here, that someones savings are always some other peoples investment? Because demanding savings just for the sake of it seems foolish when they are not put to any use, which is exactly what is happening in the real world right now. Just because someone saves a lot does not mean he will ever build a nice factory in the land he made his money from. Economic actors will not work for the greater good or some measure of maximal utils, that is why we need more redistribution and not less. That the trend in R&D is a bad augur for the US future is another matter, it is still true that we invest less than the US in anything related to innovation, and we often tax more those innovative field which makes it even funnier. How is that collectivism ? The europe is a bigger area than the US in term of population and trading, and Europe has a positive commercial balance. As for datas : http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2010 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-first&sort=ascUnited states has 12,1 export as % of GDP in 2011 (just saying it is below Gaza lol), France is at 26, Germany at 42 %. Really the US sporadic protectionnism is famous, just look at toyota and the likes. And here are imports as % of GDP http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2010 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-first&sort=ascUS at 15.8 %, France at 27.9 %, Germany at 37.1 %. France is a good average for the eurozone for anything economic, being growth or import / export. Hong Kong and Singapore have exports ~ 200% of GDP. The way the math works is that smaller countries naturally post larger trade as a percent of GDP. The Eurozone as a whole still trades more externally than the US does, but the figures are a bit closer. If I google openness to trade, the US seems to rank average, and EU members tend to rank above average, with a few below US (France seems roughly the same as US). China, India, bigger than the US higher export ? Russia is comparable and higher export % of GDP ? And Eritrea with 5% exports as GDP must be a huge country right ? Stop please.Thank god you googled "openness to trade"... what does it even mean ? The US is less invested in global trading and is more oriented toward growing its own internal demand and production, that's a fact that the stats perfectly shows. 15% of GDP is very far from 25 %, whatever the "openness to trade" is.
lol, that's one of the dumbest straw men I've ever seen. Trade figures are impacted by a lot of things, not just protectionism. You don't seem to want to have a serious discussion so I'm done with this.
|
On April 05 2015 03:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 02:50 WhiteDog wrote:On April 05 2015 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 05 2015 01:33 WhiteDog wrote:On April 05 2015 01:23 puerk wrote:On April 05 2015 00:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 04 2015 16:14 puerk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Theoretically you don't need millionaires and billionaires. You could have the general population or more widely held organizations save enough to make up for what the rich don't have anymore. Easier said than done tho. We are still in a global savings glut, it has become so bad that billions are "invested" into government bonds with negative yields, and you seriously advocate for keeping that status quo? Why not lower the savings rate? My post was agnostic towards global and national savings rates. It was about who saves, and by doing so has wealth; not how much is saved in the aggregate. So I think you misread something there. You said if millionaires and billionaires save less, others have to pick up the slack and compensate.. that implies keeping overall savings aggregate constant (or diminishing their decline)... In the short run you can absolutely lower the savings rate. That's what counter cyclical government policies like unemployment insurance do. But over the long run you're going to need a positive savings rate and not sell your factories to China so you can consume more today. Are you thinking in some kind of blance sheet equivalence here, that someones savings are always some other peoples investment? Because demanding savings just for the sake of it seems foolish when they are not put to any use, which is exactly what is happening in the real world right now. Just because someone saves a lot does not mean he will ever build a nice factory in the land he made his money from. Economic actors will not work for the greater good or some measure of maximal utils, that is why we need more redistribution and not less. That the trend in R&D is a bad augur for the US future is another matter, it is still true that we invest less than the US in anything related to innovation, and we often tax more those innovative field which makes it even funnier. How is that collectivism ? The europe is a bigger area than the US in term of population and trading, and Europe has a positive commercial balance. As for datas : http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2010 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-first&sort=ascUnited states has 12,1 export as % of GDP in 2011 (just saying it is below Gaza lol), France is at 26, Germany at 42 %. Really the US sporadic protectionnism is famous, just look at toyota and the likes. And here are imports as % of GDP http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2010 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-first&sort=ascUS at 15.8 %, France at 27.9 %, Germany at 37.1 %. France is a good average for the eurozone for anything economic, being growth or import / export. Hong Kong and Singapore have exports ~ 200% of GDP. The way the math works is that smaller countries naturally post larger trade as a percent of GDP. The Eurozone as a whole still trades more externally than the US does, but the figures are a bit closer. If I google openness to trade, the US seems to rank average, and EU members tend to rank above average, with a few below US (France seems roughly the same as US). China, India, bigger than the US higher export ? Russia is comparable and higher export % of GDP ? And Eritrea with 5% exports as GDP must be a huge country right ? Stop please.Thank god you googled "openness to trade"... what does it even mean ? The US is less invested in global trading and is more oriented toward growing its own internal demand and production, that's a fact that the stats perfectly shows. 15% of GDP is very far from 25 %, whatever the "openness to trade" is. lol, that's one of the dumbest straw men I've ever seen. Trade figures are impacted by a lot of things, not just protectionism. You don't seem to want to have a serious discussion so I'm done with this.
I didn't specifically said the US is more protectionnist, I said not only they do protect themselves, but above all they function like a closed circuit. Of course there are many side to that reality.
And don't say that I don't want to discuss something when you are arguing against something that is just a fact. You asked me for data, I proved to you the US is a lot less open to international trading than most other countries - china, india, germany, france, UK, in fact most G7 countries are more open than the US.
|
On April 05 2015 02:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 02:37 puerk wrote:On April 05 2015 02:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 05 2015 01:23 puerk wrote:On April 05 2015 00:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 04 2015 16:14 puerk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Theoretically you don't need millionaires and billionaires. You could have the general population or more widely held organizations save enough to make up for what the rich don't have anymore. Easier said than done tho. We are still in a global savings glut, it has become so bad that billions are "invested" into government bonds with negative yields, and you seriously advocate for keeping that status quo? Why not lower the savings rate? My post was agnostic towards global and national savings rates. It was about who saves, and by doing so has wealth; not how much is saved in the aggregate. So I think you misread something there. You said if millionaires and billionaires save less, others have to pick up the slack and compensate.. that implies keeping overall savings aggregate constant (or diminishing their decline)... The discussion wasn't about economic cycles, it was about wealth. Structurally you need a positive savings rate to grow - hell you need a positive savings rate just to replace depreciation. Yes, cycles complicate the matter but cycles weren't part of the discussion. In the short run you can absolutely lower the savings rate. That's what counter cyclical government policies like unemployment insurance do. But over the long run you're going to need a positive savings rate and not sell your factories to China so you can consume more today. Are you thinking in some kind of blance sheet equivalence here, that someones savings are always some other peoples investment? Because demanding savings just for the sake of it seems foolish when they are not put to any use, which is exactly what is happening in the real world right now. Just because someone saves a lot does not mean he will ever build a nice factory in the land he made his money from. Economic actors will not work for the greater good or some measure of maximal utils, that is why we need more redistribution and not less. You seem to be trying to inject a discussion about economic cycles into a discussion about wealth redistribution. That's an error. If you have a factory worth $100,000,000 and you want to redistribute it, you can't sell it to China and let everyone consume $100,000,000 more. Yes, that could boost your economy in the short run, but next time period your economy will shrink, because you no longer have income from the factory - China has that now. Instead you'd want the people your redistributing to be the new owners, which would happen via a savings function.That savings function could mean an aggregate increase or decrease in savings or it could me that the savings rate remains stable. Whatever. It's not a discussion about GDP, other than assuming you don't want to wreck it over the long run. No you missed the discussion and injected the false narrative of fixed assets and liquidation. We were talking about billionaires saving money without investing, and how higher taxation could have prevented this form of undesirable savings glut. Nobody except you ever said anything about liquidating productive assets. That doesn't seem to have been the discussion I was responding to: Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 08:52 Taguchi wrote:
Fun fact: Global GDP for 2014 was 72.6 trillion dollars. Net worth of 10 richest people in the world is 513.1 bn dollars or approximately 7% of global GDP. Would innovation and all the rest not happen if these obscenely rich people had, say, 1% of their current wealth? Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 09:40 Taguchi wrote:
You aren't dumb so why pretend?
In this very post there was a link describing how corporations evade huge amounts of taxes. This sort of wealth accumulation is only possible through low tax rates. Have you heard of tax progressivity - tax brackets? Why should a billionnaire get the same tax rate as a millionnaire? Why do tax havens exist? Why do tax loopholes exist? How would the world be worse off if a multibillionnaire was 'merely' a multimillionnaire? I interpret this as 'why do we need the rich' rather than a discussion on a savings glut among the general population. That makes sense to me since the rich are referenced and a savings glut is not. To which I replied that we don't, so long as someone fills the savings role. Which is true.
Why do you shift topics again? I never talked about a savings glut in the general population but about a general savings glut. The savings are not located in the 99% they happen in the 1%, and he talked exactly as i referenced about preventing that wealth accumulation through higher taxation during the earning of this wealth.
Then you took that, and said: hey if savings have to stay the same someone else has to save. Totally ignoring that there are huge excess savings, capital is cheap and doing nothing productive. And you run around calling for "someone has to fill the savings role" when we are in a state where it is hugely overfilled.
|
On April 05 2015 03:38 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 02:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 05 2015 02:37 puerk wrote:On April 05 2015 02:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 05 2015 01:23 puerk wrote:On April 05 2015 00:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 04 2015 16:14 puerk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Theoretically you don't need millionaires and billionaires. You could have the general population or more widely held organizations save enough to make up for what the rich don't have anymore. Easier said than done tho. We are still in a global savings glut, it has become so bad that billions are "invested" into government bonds with negative yields, and you seriously advocate for keeping that status quo? Why not lower the savings rate? My post was agnostic towards global and national savings rates. It was about who saves, and by doing so has wealth; not how much is saved in the aggregate. So I think you misread something there. You said if millionaires and billionaires save less, others have to pick up the slack and compensate.. that implies keeping overall savings aggregate constant (or diminishing their decline)... The discussion wasn't about economic cycles, it was about wealth. Structurally you need a positive savings rate to grow - hell you need a positive savings rate just to replace depreciation. Yes, cycles complicate the matter but cycles weren't part of the discussion. In the short run you can absolutely lower the savings rate. That's what counter cyclical government policies like unemployment insurance do. But over the long run you're going to need a positive savings rate and not sell your factories to China so you can consume more today. Are you thinking in some kind of blance sheet equivalence here, that someones savings are always some other peoples investment? Because demanding savings just for the sake of it seems foolish when they are not put to any use, which is exactly what is happening in the real world right now. Just because someone saves a lot does not mean he will ever build a nice factory in the land he made his money from. Economic actors will not work for the greater good or some measure of maximal utils, that is why we need more redistribution and not less. You seem to be trying to inject a discussion about economic cycles into a discussion about wealth redistribution. That's an error. If you have a factory worth $100,000,000 and you want to redistribute it, you can't sell it to China and let everyone consume $100,000,000 more. Yes, that could boost your economy in the short run, but next time period your economy will shrink, because you no longer have income from the factory - China has that now. Instead you'd want the people your redistributing to be the new owners, which would happen via a savings function.That savings function could mean an aggregate increase or decrease in savings or it could me that the savings rate remains stable. Whatever. It's not a discussion about GDP, other than assuming you don't want to wreck it over the long run. No you missed the discussion and injected the false narrative of fixed assets and liquidation. We were talking about billionaires saving money without investing, and how higher taxation could have prevented this form of undesirable savings glut. Nobody except you ever said anything about liquidating productive assets. That doesn't seem to have been the discussion I was responding to: On April 04 2015 08:52 Taguchi wrote:
Fun fact: Global GDP for 2014 was 72.6 trillion dollars. Net worth of 10 richest people in the world is 513.1 bn dollars or approximately 7% of global GDP. Would innovation and all the rest not happen if these obscenely rich people had, say, 1% of their current wealth? On April 04 2015 09:40 Taguchi wrote:
You aren't dumb so why pretend?
In this very post there was a link describing how corporations evade huge amounts of taxes. This sort of wealth accumulation is only possible through low tax rates. Have you heard of tax progressivity - tax brackets? Why should a billionnaire get the same tax rate as a millionnaire? Why do tax havens exist? Why do tax loopholes exist? How would the world be worse off if a multibillionnaire was 'merely' a multimillionnaire? I interpret this as 'why do we need the rich' rather than a discussion on a savings glut among the general population. That makes sense to me since the rich are referenced and a savings glut is not. To which I replied that we don't, so long as someone fills the savings role. Which is true. Why do you shift topics again? I never talked about a savings glut in the general population but about a general savings glut. The savings are not located in the 99% they happen in the 1%, and he talked exactly as i referenced about preventing that wealth accumulation through higher taxation during the earning of this wealth. Then you took that, and said: hey if savings have to stay the same someone else has to save. Totally ignoring that there are huge excess savings, capital is cheap and doing nothing productive. And you run around calling for "someone has to fill the savings role" when we are in a state where it is hugely overfilled.
If you think the savings rate is too high, you can seek to lower it. My point is unaffected by that. What don't you understand?
|
On April 05 2015 03:35 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 03:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 05 2015 02:50 WhiteDog wrote:On April 05 2015 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 05 2015 01:33 WhiteDog wrote:On April 05 2015 01:23 puerk wrote:On April 05 2015 00:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 04 2015 16:14 puerk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Theoretically you don't need millionaires and billionaires. You could have the general population or more widely held organizations save enough to make up for what the rich don't have anymore. Easier said than done tho. We are still in a global savings glut, it has become so bad that billions are "invested" into government bonds with negative yields, and you seriously advocate for keeping that status quo? Why not lower the savings rate? My post was agnostic towards global and national savings rates. It was about who saves, and by doing so has wealth; not how much is saved in the aggregate. So I think you misread something there. You said if millionaires and billionaires save less, others have to pick up the slack and compensate.. that implies keeping overall savings aggregate constant (or diminishing their decline)... In the short run you can absolutely lower the savings rate. That's what counter cyclical government policies like unemployment insurance do. But over the long run you're going to need a positive savings rate and not sell your factories to China so you can consume more today. Are you thinking in some kind of blance sheet equivalence here, that someones savings are always some other peoples investment? Because demanding savings just for the sake of it seems foolish when they are not put to any use, which is exactly what is happening in the real world right now. Just because someone saves a lot does not mean he will ever build a nice factory in the land he made his money from. Economic actors will not work for the greater good or some measure of maximal utils, that is why we need more redistribution and not less. That the trend in R&D is a bad augur for the US future is another matter, it is still true that we invest less than the US in anything related to innovation, and we often tax more those innovative field which makes it even funnier. How is that collectivism ? The europe is a bigger area than the US in term of population and trading, and Europe has a positive commercial balance. As for datas : http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2010 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-first&sort=ascUnited states has 12,1 export as % of GDP in 2011 (just saying it is below Gaza lol), France is at 26, Germany at 42 %. Really the US sporadic protectionnism is famous, just look at toyota and the likes. And here are imports as % of GDP http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2010 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-first&sort=ascUS at 15.8 %, France at 27.9 %, Germany at 37.1 %. France is a good average for the eurozone for anything economic, being growth or import / export. Hong Kong and Singapore have exports ~ 200% of GDP. The way the math works is that smaller countries naturally post larger trade as a percent of GDP. The Eurozone as a whole still trades more externally than the US does, but the figures are a bit closer. If I google openness to trade, the US seems to rank average, and EU members tend to rank above average, with a few below US (France seems roughly the same as US). China, India, bigger than the US higher export ? Russia is comparable and higher export % of GDP ? And Eritrea with 5% exports as GDP must be a huge country right ? Stop please.Thank god you googled "openness to trade"... what does it even mean ? The US is less invested in global trading and is more oriented toward growing its own internal demand and production, that's a fact that the stats perfectly shows. 15% of GDP is very far from 25 %, whatever the "openness to trade" is. lol, that's one of the dumbest straw men I've ever seen. Trade figures are impacted by a lot of things, not just protectionism. You don't seem to want to have a serious discussion so I'm done with this. I didn't specifically said the US is more protectionnist, I said not only they do protect themselves, but above all they function like a closed circuit. Of course there are many side to that reality. And don't say that you want to discuss something when you are arguing against something that is just a fact. You asked me for data, I proved to you the US is a lot less open to international trading than most other countries - china, india, germany, france, UK, in fact most G7 countries are more open than the US.
I asked for data other than trade as a percent of GDP, and you gave me trade as a percent of GDP. Thanks.
|
On April 05 2015 04:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2015 03:35 WhiteDog wrote:On April 05 2015 03:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 05 2015 02:50 WhiteDog wrote:On April 05 2015 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 05 2015 01:33 WhiteDog wrote:On April 05 2015 01:23 puerk wrote:On April 05 2015 00:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 04 2015 16:14 puerk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Theoretically you don't need millionaires and billionaires. You could have the general population or more widely held organizations save enough to make up for what the rich don't have anymore. Easier said than done tho. We are still in a global savings glut, it has become so bad that billions are "invested" into government bonds with negative yields, and you seriously advocate for keeping that status quo? Why not lower the savings rate? My post was agnostic towards global and national savings rates. It was about who saves, and by doing so has wealth; not how much is saved in the aggregate. So I think you misread something there. You said if millionaires and billionaires save less, others have to pick up the slack and compensate.. that implies keeping overall savings aggregate constant (or diminishing their decline)... In the short run you can absolutely lower the savings rate. That's what counter cyclical government policies like unemployment insurance do. But over the long run you're going to need a positive savings rate and not sell your factories to China so you can consume more today. Are you thinking in some kind of blance sheet equivalence here, that someones savings are always some other peoples investment? Because demanding savings just for the sake of it seems foolish when they are not put to any use, which is exactly what is happening in the real world right now. Just because someone saves a lot does not mean he will ever build a nice factory in the land he made his money from. Economic actors will not work for the greater good or some measure of maximal utils, that is why we need more redistribution and not less. That the trend in R&D is a bad augur for the US future is another matter, it is still true that we invest less than the US in anything related to innovation, and we often tax more those innovative field which makes it even funnier. How is that collectivism ? The europe is a bigger area than the US in term of population and trading, and Europe has a positive commercial balance. As for datas : http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2010 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-first&sort=ascUnited states has 12,1 export as % of GDP in 2011 (just saying it is below Gaza lol), France is at 26, Germany at 42 %. Really the US sporadic protectionnism is famous, just look at toyota and the likes. And here are imports as % of GDP http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2010 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-first&sort=ascUS at 15.8 %, France at 27.9 %, Germany at 37.1 %. France is a good average for the eurozone for anything economic, being growth or import / export. Hong Kong and Singapore have exports ~ 200% of GDP. The way the math works is that smaller countries naturally post larger trade as a percent of GDP. The Eurozone as a whole still trades more externally than the US does, but the figures are a bit closer. If I google openness to trade, the US seems to rank average, and EU members tend to rank above average, with a few below US (France seems roughly the same as US). China, India, bigger than the US higher export ? Russia is comparable and higher export % of GDP ? And Eritrea with 5% exports as GDP must be a huge country right ? Stop please.Thank god you googled "openness to trade"... what does it even mean ? The US is less invested in global trading and is more oriented toward growing its own internal demand and production, that's a fact that the stats perfectly shows. 15% of GDP is very far from 25 %, whatever the "openness to trade" is. lol, that's one of the dumbest straw men I've ever seen. Trade figures are impacted by a lot of things, not just protectionism. You don't seem to want to have a serious discussion so I'm done with this. I didn't specifically said the US is more protectionnist, I said not only they do protect themselves, but above all they function like a closed circuit. Of course there are many side to that reality. And don't say that you want to discuss something when you are arguing against something that is just a fact. You asked me for data, I proved to you the US is a lot less open to international trading than most other countries - china, india, germany, france, UK, in fact most G7 countries are more open than the US. I asked for data other than trade as a percent of GDP, and you gave me trade as a percent of GDP. Thanks.
What do you want more than that ? There are no number of restriction on exports because they are usually made through secret negociations between a country and either firms or another country, and those restriction on exports are the crux of protectionnism in a world with no or almost no tariff.
|
What European nations need to do is to increase the birth rate.
Increasing the birth rate will increase private consumption and consumer spending, leading to an economic boom.
Europe should learn from other nations' mistakes.
Furthermore, European companies should bring production back home. The falling euro is not a good prospect for this, but, in the long term, the unemployment rate of the eurozone will plunge and this will boost domestic demand/consumer spending/private consumption, etc.
|
On April 06 2015 00:02 EuroEconomyAnalyst wrote:
What European nations need to do is to increase the birth rate.
Increasing the birth rate will increase private consumption and consumer spending, leading to an economic boom.
Europe should learn from other nations' mistakes.
Furthermore, European companies should bring production back home. The falling euro is not a good prospect for this, but, in the long term, the unemployment rate of the eurozone will plunge and this will boost domestic demand/consumer spending/private consumption, etc.
I find it quite ironic how your nickname and your content are at odds.
Birth rate can not be increased by governmental fiat. It is the decision of young people not to get kids, and influencing it is much harder as you think. (Except you go some crazy ban of contraceptives and abortions route)
Bringing production anywere where it currently is not already happening does not make economic sense for the owners of the means of production.
Furthermore primary and secondary sectors are losing importance all over the place, how do you think Europe of all places can stop or even reverse that trend?
You also seem to totally neglect current imbalances in the Eurozone: some countries profit heavily from a weak Euro as they can sell more stuff to other currency regions. I.e for them it is a boon to production and not a bad prospect.
|
I love how it's always the german who argue that the government can't influence the birthrate. France history proved you wrong, we had the demographic transition before anyone, and had a desastrous birth rate way before Germany, but we tried hard to change that and we have now one of the best birthrate in europe.
|
On April 06 2015 01:07 WhiteDog wrote:
I love how it's always the german who argue that the government can't influence the birthrate. France history proved you wrong, we had the demographic transition before anyone, and had a desastrous birth rate way before Germany, but we tried hard to change that and we have now one of the best birthrate in europe.
I am not so sure about that.
Statistics seem to suggest that, although France improved from 1.73 to 2.00 over 2 decades, it seems that the over 2 births per women still seem to come to a disproportionate amount from first generation immigrants.
|
On April 06 2015 01:12 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2015 01:07 WhiteDog wrote:
I love how it's always the german who argue that the government can't influence the birthrate. France history proved you wrong, we had the demographic transition before anyone, and had a desastrous birth rate way before Germany, but we tried hard to change that and we have now one of the best birthrate in europe. I am not so sure about that. Statistics seem to suggest that, although France improved from 1.73 to 2.00 over 2 decades, it seems that the over 2 births per women still seem to come to a disproportionate amount from first generation immigrants.
False. There are no statistics that support a substantial difference between the birthrate of immigrants and non immigrants. At best the difference is at 0.3 child per woman (more or less 2 for native and 2.3 for immigrants).
|
Which is pretty significant when we are talking about 1.8 to 2.1 and the hard number for reproductive stability under optimal circumstances is 2.0.
French born women still have a reproductive rate below 2.0 by every knowledge we have, so maybe France is making progress but proclaiming victory in the current situation looks more like this:
http://www.emergentchaos.com//images/06-sep/mission-accomplished.jpg
EDIT:
ok you changed your post after i hit answer, can you give a cite for 2.0 for french native born women?
|
On April 06 2015 01:28 puerk wrote:Which is pretty significant when we are talking about 1.8 to 2.1 and the hard number for reproductive stability under optimal circumstances is 2.0. French born women still have a reproductive rate below 2.0 by every knowledge we have, so maybe France is making progress but proclaiming victory in the current situation looks more like this: http://www.emergentchaos.com//images/06-sep/mission-accomplished.jpgEDIT: ok you changed your post after i hit answer, can you give a cite for 2.0 for french native born women?
I didn't changed, I wrote a difference in 0.3, and then I specified 2.0 for native born vs 2.3 for immigrants. There are much less immigrants than native born women, so if the reproductive rate was below 2.0 for native, it would be below on average. We're not invaded yet lol. And I only cited the worst stat we have on this, in most survey the difference is 0.1 or something similar.
We also have a highest activity rate for women than Germany, which says a lot about the role our social security plays in permitting women to be both mothers and workers.
|
who cares about the birthrate,
alone to think that this shit of an economic system should be fixed with women giving birth to more potential customers, is fucking sick.
a system we created should not decide if we should get more children or not, that wish should come out of every human it self.
|
birth rates are the least of our worries and people making a big deal about them is just... puzzling.
yeah... we'll face a problem when all the babyboomers reach pensio age BUT i 20-30 years they die off and the "problem" is 100% gone.
Yo7r trying to solve a problem that was created 40-50 years ago and will be gone in another 40-50 years. I dont want to fuck everything our parents achieved ovér a temporal issue.
|
Birth rates is a valid concern to have, regardless of the economic system. Even with massive benefits around children it isn't always enough. For it to work out you need to have child caring as a major positive on a persons CV. Anybody with it is in the top of the pile, it is something you do since it increases your prospects in the work enviorment, doing it early only brings greater benefits.
Now you have a situation where people are 25 before they are in a position to get children and many waiting past that. You want them started at 18 (or earlier) by changing the order things are done. That way the chance for three children goes up since you have more years for it, two cycles of children for females being a possibility (for those that want it).
Since unemployment is high, turning to stay at home fathers or mothers might be beneficial in solving unemployment and encouraging children. The opposite of the previous half century.
|
World population is above 7 billion people and rapidly rising, which is scratching on what this planet can support, in regard to food, water, ecosystem and so on.
I never got the notion to artificially push fertility rates when there are so many people on this world. Aside from man-made "problems" like not enough manpower available for the workforce (anyone notice the large amounts of unemployed we have, yes?) or supporting the elderly which just result from the economic system we've chosen to use, these problems can be solved rather easily considering the option of allowing more immigration or will solve themselves with time in regards to the babyboomer belly.
Are there any reasons to want to increase the fertility rates of certain ethnicities? The thought alone seems rather nationalistic, maybe even racist to me...
|
On April 06 2015 07:54 ACrow wrote:
World population is above 7 billion people and rapidly rising, which is scratching on what this planet can support, in regard to food, water, ecosystem and so on.
I never got the notion to artificially push fertility rates when there are so many people on this world. Aside from man-made "problems" like not enough manpower available for the workforce (anyone notice the large amounts of unemployed we have, yes?) or supporting the elderly which just result from the economic system we've chosen to use, these problems can be solved rather easily considering the option of allowing more immigration or will solve themselves with time in regards to the babyboomer belly.
Are there any reasons to want to increase the fertility rates of certain ethnicities? The thought alone seems rather nationalistic, maybe even racist to me...
fertility rates are falling all across the globe except black africa and afghanistan. these are more important than raw population numbers.
the growth in population is mostly due to improving healthcare in 1st and 2nd world countries.
that you want to turn the problem of a shrinking society (guess what happens you don't manage a birthrate > 2.1 [.1 accounts for accidents/infertility] for a nation in the long run) into a racist issue is beyond me.
But hey, i guess immigration solves everything.
|
Well there's a point to it though. Why insist on getting up birth rates if you can solve the problem via immigration if you don't think that 'natives' are somehow inherently better than immigrants.
|
On April 06 2015 10:08 Nyxisto wrote:
Well there's a point to it though. Why insist on getting up birth rates if you can solve the problem via immigration if you don't think that 'natives' are somehow inherently better than immigrants.
At a certain point you cease to have the pre-existing culture. Just ask the Indians about population displacement by a new peoples. Imagine German birthrates falling below 1, and making the rest up from immigration (and most immigration comes from 3rd world countries, which I can't fault the people for...). It wouldn't take more than a few generations before German culture becomes more and more displaced in your own country. That seems rather odd to me, to purposefully and willfully make that decisions to displace your own culture in favor of those coming from other potentially wildly different cultural backgrounds. Politically things would massively change. Being that I am half-Cherokee, my perspective on this issue is a bit more...closer to home so to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
