8 Billlion Are Liberals out of their minds - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15255592
So officially the world has now reached 8 billion people. Now some might think this might be a cause for concern, but for the liberals it is just a tragedy, a tragedy that it didn't come sooner. I see web site after web site criticising China for its one child policy.

China has 1.4 billion people, but that's not enough for the Liberals, if they had their way it would probably be 2 billion and rocketing up exponentially. If the Liberals had had their way in China and India and other places where there's been child reduction policies the world would have reached 8 billion long ago. China has water supply problems. energy problems, you would have thought that 1.4 billion would be enough to cope with, but no for the Liberals there's just no problem that can't be solved by having more people.

We just seem to be living in two different realities. Yes an ageing population creates great challenges, but we need to bite the bullet. We need to adapt to a much less economically favourable age profile. The problems of China are the problems of the world, a shortage of land, or useable land, yes I am aware there's plenty of free real estate in the Antarctic, on the Moon and on Mars, a shortage of other natural resources and ecosystems that are choked up with the inevitable waste products from prosperous human life styles.

The Northern European Liberal model, which is to keep ramping up population by massive subsides and discrimination in favour of women to allow them to have top careers and babies along with mass immigration is just not workable. Its not workable at a national scale and its not workable at a world scale. Both at a national scale and a world scale it makes us poorer, more unequal and less democratic.
#15255635
Brazil achieved similar reductions in fertility in a similar time scale to China without resorting to violence and coercion.
#15255641
WTF are you talking about, and WTF does this has anything to do with liberals?
You think liberals are in charge of China? Are you foking out of your mind?
You think Xi is some sort of tree-hugging hippie? or a liberal :lol: ? What sort of drugs are you on? Getting some marijana/MDMA enema? It has to be something hella exotic for the tripping that you are having. Geez bro, I know the culture war shit makes you say dumb shit, but between you and Blunto... you guys come with crazy ass theories.
#15255664
XogGyux wrote:WTF are you talking about, and WTF does this has anything to do with liberals?

Just google up "China's population crisis" and you will get a whole hosts of video's bemoaning China's demographic collapse. Japan has been similarly excoriated for allowing their population to decline and not going for mass immigration. Population growth is like heroin it can sure make you feel good at first and for some time you can stave off the come down by just taking more heroin and increasing the dose, but long term its catastrophic.

There's no doubt there are great advantages to an increasing population with each age group having smaller numbers. Having to support a larger older population with their huge pension, health and care costs is not easy. it also gives much greater opportunities for career advancement if each year there are ever more entry level workers entering the work force, over which you can have seniority. Ever increasing populations fuel ever increasing property prices and over the decades both the Chines and western economies have been increasingly constructed around ever rising property prices. Population increase only really benefits the elite the top of the middle class, but ever rising property prices have a feel good factor for all those own their own homes, even if their living standards are actually being lowered.
#15255666
Rich wrote:Just google up "China's population crisis" and you will get a whole hosts of video's bemoaning China's demographic collapse. Japan has been similarly excoriated for allowing their population to decline and not going for mass immigration. Population growth is like heroin it can sure make you feel good at first and for some time you can stave off the come down by just taking more heroin and increasing the dose, but long term its catastrophic.

There's no doubt there are great advantages to an increasing population with each age group having smaller numbers. Having to support a larger older population with their huge pension, health and care costs is not easy. it also gives much greater opportunities for career advancement if each year there are ever more entry level workers entering the work force, over which you can have seniority. Ever increasing populations fuel ever increasing property prices and over the decades both the Chines and western economies have been increasingly constructed around ever rising property prices. Population increase only really benefits the elite the top of the middle class, but ever rising property prices have a feel good factor for all those own their own homes, even if their living standards are actually being lowered.

I am aware of China's population woes. But you seem to want to blame this on "liberals" when liberals had nothing to do with china's policies. China is not a country run by liberals, their policies are not liberal policies. Seems to me your whole premise is mistaken.
China is an authoritarian country. A problem with authoritarianism is that they don't really follow common sense, evidence, they do not a reasonable approach to problems. They go for whatever appears to be a simple solution, the problem is, complicated geopolitical problems don't often have simple solutions. Controlling a population boom might be important for a country that has 1 billion people and need to import food to feed its massive population, therefore it might make sense to have policies to disincentivize massive population growth. The problem is, a population shrinkage is dangerous from the point of view of economics. If 2 people only have 1 child, the population overtime will halve, because only 1 person is replacing 2 (when parents die), and if this continue, eventually you will have extinction of the population. To that add that china is a country with cultural preference for male children... meaning that a lot of girl babies got abandoned or even killed, means there is going to be a disparity between male/female (and this will translate on a portion of the population that will not contribute to future generations... all those "extra males" without partners are not going to be contributing to have more chinese kids. This gets compounded economically when elder people retire... and they need to be taken care off (either by family members or by govermental social networks) and this will reduce the productivity of the younger generations (either you need time off from work to help mom/dad, or you need to pay for these services, or you need to be taxed so that the state can take care of the care, either way, your productivity suffers).
Yes... it is a problem, but it has nothing to do with liberals.
Unless of course your suggestion that caring of old Chinese people is a liberal issue, and instead they should be euthanized so they stop being a burden on chinese society.
#15256026
Rich wrote:
So officially the world has now reached 8 billion people. Now some might think this might be a cause for concern, but for the liberals it is just a tragedy, a tragedy that it didn't come sooner. I see web site after web site criticising China for its one child policy.

China has 1.4 billion people, but that's not enough for the Liberals, if they had their way it would probably be 2 billion and rocketing up exponentially. If the Liberals had had their way in China and India and other places where there's been child reduction policies the world would have reached 8 billion long ago. China has water supply problems. energy problems, you would have thought that 1.4 billion would be enough to cope with, but no for the Liberals there's just no problem that can't be solved by having more people.

We just seem to be living in two different realities. Yes an ageing population creates great challenges, but we need to bite the bullet. We need to adapt to a much less economically favourable age profile. The problems of China are the problems of the world, a shortage of land, or useable land, yes I am aware there's plenty of free real estate in the Antarctic, on the Moon and on Mars, a shortage of other natural resources and ecosystems that are choked up with the inevitable waste products from prosperous human life styles.

The Northern European Liberal model, which is to keep ramping up population by massive subsides and discrimination in favour of women to allow them to have top careers and babies along with mass immigration is just not workable. Its not workable at a national scale and its not workable at a world scale. Both at a national scale and a world scale it makes us poorer, more unequal and less democratic.



You think you understand.

That is incorrect.
#15257280
Rich wrote:We just seem to be living in two different realities. Yes an ageing population creates great challenges, but we need to bite the bullet. We need to adapt to a much less economically favourable age profile. The problems of China are the problems of the world,

another thread with my thoughts about that...

China has an intractable demographic problem
viewtopic.php?f=114&t=181410

It seems to me to be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. But a country can't keep growing forever, and there will be economic consequences to that. Trying to just keep on growing as the solution seems to be like a pyramid scheme; it doesn't seem to be a long-term sustainable solution, in my view. You'll eventually just end up with even more poor elderly people who need to be taken care of.
#15257282
The problem with bringing in foreign workers to take care of the old

Many countries, including the U.S. have been bringing in workers from other countries to take care of their aging populations. It's often said by policy-makers and politicians that "there's not enough workers to take care of the old", but the real issue is more about getting skilled and semi-skilled workers who don't have to be paid as much.

Well, this makes sense on one level, doesn't it? If you have a lot of old people with limited financial means, and they need to be taken care of, why not bring in lower cost care workers from other countries? Sounds like a win-win, doesn't it? Someone needs to staff all those nursing homes.

The thing is though, who's going to take care of all these workers when they eventually become old?

When you step back and look at this you see it's actually a pyramid scheme, of sorts.
You get one group of workers, don't pay them very much, and then they're going to need to be taken care of. Naturally the solution will be to bring in another round of foreign care workers. Is this really a sustainable solution long-term?

I think a demographic crisis is looming. When the next generation moves into retirement there's going to be a big shortage of care workers to take care of all these people in their old age. It's going to put a strain on government budgets, and put a lot of old people with limited financial means into a pinch.
#15257422
Puffer Fish wrote:
[W]hy not bring in lower cost care workers from other countries? Sounds like a win-win, doesn't it? Someone needs to staff all those nursing homes.

The thing is though, who's going to take care of all these workers when they eventually become old?

When you step back and look at this you see it's actually a pyramid scheme, of sorts.
You get one group of workers, don't pay them very much, and then they're going to need to be taken care of. Naturally the solution will be to bring in another round of foreign care workers. Is this really a sustainable solution long-term?

I think a demographic crisis is looming.



Bringing in foreign workers to work with an aging domestic population is a 'demographic crisis' -- ? How so?

How is the biological (human) life-cycle somehow 'a pyramid scheme' -- ?
#15257444
ckaihatsu wrote:
Bringing in foreign workers to work with an aging domestic population is a 'demographic crisis' -- ? How so?

How is the biological (human) life-cycle somehow 'a pyramid scheme' -- ?



There was a global baby boom after WW2. That was followed by a baby bust.

So now most of the world is in a demographic crisis from having a lot more old people than young. Immigration can help, obviously, and you will see a bidding war develop when business realises how bad it is.

For Americans, this is nothing new, we have a long history of immigration. We are so weird, once the morons figure out which way is up, they will be screaming for immigration; instead of against it.
#15257474
late wrote:There was a global baby boom after WW2. That was followed by a baby bust.

So now most of the world is in a demographic crisis from having a lot more old people than young. Immigration can help, obviously, ...

I see a lot of this as the same phenomena when someone is in credit card debt and they take out more credit card debt to pay the credit card debt they already have.
Or someone who is really tired, hasn't slept in 48 hours, and is drinking more coffee to try to stay awake.

Sure, this may be a fix that will help in the short term, but in the long-term, won't it just make the problem even worse?

China would not be having the demographic problems it is having today if the government had not been pushing people to have lots of extra children in the 1980s.

Yes, having more children now will, in the demographic pyramid, create a younger population over the next 30 or 40 years, but what about in the long term? Those people will eventually age and then that country will have a lot of old elderly people.

It's unrealistic to expect the population to keep growing. Will those old people have been able to save up enough money to afford care when they get older?

I think we also have to consider the phenomena that, if you add more people, amount of wealth per person will go down a little bit.

We've already been seeing the phenomena of increasing population growth hurt younger people, as the shortages of housing in many areas cause rents and home prices to rise.
#15257475
Puffer Fish wrote:
I see a lot of this as the same phenomena when someone is in credit card debt and they take out more credit card debt to pay the credit card debt they already have.

Or someone who is really tired, hasn't slept in 48 hours, and is drinking more coffee to try to stay awake.

Sure, this may be a fix that will help in the short term, but in the long-term, won't it just make the problem even worse?

China would not be having the demographic problems it is having today if the government had not been pushing people to have lots of extra children in the 1980s.

Yes, having more children now will, in the demographic pyramid, create a younger population over the next 30 or 40 years, but what about in the long term? Those people will eventually age and then that country will have a lot of old elderly people.

It's unrealistic to expect the population to keep growing. Will those old people have been able to save up enough money to afford care when they get older?

I think we also have to consider the phenomena that, if you add more people, amount of wealth per person will go down a little bit.



You don't understand it yet. At all.

China had the boom, and then they had the one child policy. That gave them a nasty inverted curve, which was why they tried to increase the birth rate.

But it was too late.

do you agree that according Muscovite GULAG menta[…]

I was talking about developing a capitalist eco[…]

The situation in Libya

... the LNA(controlling 2/3 of Libya and the only[…]

The Higgins Trial

Being that the judge was a female, I suspect the […]