AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Demography Again
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
http//www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2006/08/15/germanys-birth-rate-falls-off-the-cliff/
Saw statistics a couple of days ago that said, more than 35% of young Germans want neither ever marry nor children. No wonder.
Marriages are usually not forever, alymonies after a separation are. If you get seriosly, expensivly sick in Germany what is usually the case in old age and that is not covered by insurances, first goes your personal fortune, than that of your spouse, parents and children. By law, unavoidable, enforced.
Ever wondered why fags can marry in Germany? There you are, finally there is somebody to be robbed of its wealth when the get old and ill.
Marriage breakdowns are common in a hectic society where there is no time for private luck anymore and money is God. If there are children, you and they are fu***d after the separation. Alymonies for children till their 27th year, about 25% of your income for one child. Additionally, you are constantly tortured by authorities and lawyers to disclose your wealth and income.
Marriage and children are a recipe for big troubles in your live.
I love freedom like that.
Having babies is out of style for people of European heritage. Now it's even out of style for Buddhists in Thailand, ethnic Chinese in Singapore, etc.

Capitalism requires growth, even if it can only be achieved by immigrants, legal or otherwise, who won't have those old-fashioned values, or look like Olga or Betty Sue next door. Capital markets must grow, whether or not the 'native stock' is reproducing itself. Even Mayas in Mexico now have less than half the babies their parents had.

I met a new gay American last night. He also has a Thai boyfriend, and 4...yeah, count 'em, FOUR children. I have six. This new modern age won't see half as many gay men even having one child. We've done our part; now it's time for your kids to multiply like hetero rabbits. But they won't, so when the social welfare system that's so hated by the conservatives gets destroyed, will your kids still love you, when you're 64?
Did it ever occur to you that one common ingredient within those countries which have low birth rates, the amount of welfareism is the highest? Did this ever occur to you?

If you would delve deeply, you may just see how much the welfare system(ie an ingredient of collectivist ideology) costs in inefficiency, and how it also leds to the breakdown of the familial group? Under the new system, marriage is not encouraged, children are just too expensive, because taxes drain resources, people move all over the country and thus don't live in close proximity to offspring, etc, etc, etc.

Of course, if you are mentally plugged into this welfare mentality, it is extremely difficult to see the economic/moral/social forest for the trees. Right? Wink1
John L,
sometimes absurd ideas occur to me, but not in such an extent. Fact is, the birthrate in communist countries was high due to their near pefect welfare. Fact is, the birthrate in all former communist countries has fallen rapidly after 1990. Fact is, the destruction of Germany's welfare-state causes the problems there. (it also leds to the breakdown of the familial group. Under the new system, marriage is not encouraged, children are just too expensive, people move all over the country and thus don't live in close proximity to offspring, etc, etc, etc.) Thank you for the good text. Wink1
Please use the past tense only speaking about welfare. Children are not born anymore because you are left alone with all duties. Worse still, they are in the way of careers and consuming.
I hope for you you will never feel what your help-yourself-then-God-helps-you mentality implies, most people come in situations when thy require help. The state has to be responsible for his weak citizens, I guess by rising taxes especially for the rich. Taxes don't "drain resources" in the sense they vanish in outer space, they must be a way to maintain at least a smithgen of social fairness. Do you define "freedom" just as a way to fill the pockets of your wealthy ones more still?
No, John, it did not occur to me to relate low birth rates with high welfareism. It still doesn't make sense. Hey, don't the anti-collectivist political right-wingers still rave against welfare babies? Don't they rave as it the Black ghettoes are just crammed full of third generation Nakeeshas and Tyrones who will also have five illegitimate crack babies?

The foreign countries I've lived in: Mexico, Nicaragua, and Thailand, were not high welfare states 30 years ago. They still aren't, and they've cut their birth rates in half.

Oh, maybe Scandanavia has low birth rates and high welfare benefits. What's the connection? John Calvin? Calvin Klein? I honestly don't know.
It appears the upswing of socialistic welfare has escaped you guys. There was no perfect welfare under Communism, and a fair person would admit it. The Russian premiers came to the U.S. for surgery rather than anything at home for good reason. Redistribution of wealth under Communism had its own disincentives and increased the impoverished class.

It is more the hybrid mixed economies that keep their countries solvent, while socialistic welfare harms the Free enterprise portions left in. In Germany and other beleagured nations, it seems time off is more guaranteed than time at work, and it has greatly affected the family in recent years. The Great Society under LBJ targeted intact families and made financial sense to those content to remain on the dole to allow single mothers to predominate. John is completely correct in his statement.
Hope you know what you are talking about. I'd lived for a few decades in communist countries, that brings some first-hand experience. Yours is tenth- or so hand?
The Russian chief in an American hospital? I seen lots of Americans in Thai hospitals. What does that prove?
You surely had some advances and better technologies, but not for everybody. For whom can afford it. Communist countries healthcare never limited the compensation for costs for operations, what is normal in your healthcare. You cannot afford it, you die.

There was no poverty in communist countries. There was and is poverty in the United States, lots of it and growing strong.

There is a handful of nations with their citizens wealthier than yours, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway. All of them have higher taxes and more welfare than you do.
Shameless greed and egoism are no virtues, no matter what beautiful words you disguise them with.
Have some guts and say it, you personally don't want to give any of your wealth away, because you care about yourself only.
quadrat Wrote:There was no poverty in communist countries. There was and is poverty in the United States, lots of it and growing strong.

Sigh, that is because almost EVERYONE lived in poverty. It is just that in those Collectivist bastions of humanity, poverty was officially outlawed and not recognized.

Quote:There is a handful of nations with their citizens wealthier than yours, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway. All of them have higher taxes and more welfare than you do.
Shameless greed and egoism are no virtues, no matter what beautiful words you disguise them with.
Have some guts and say it, you personally don't want to give any of your wealth away, because you care about yourself only.

Greed(as the class warfare warriors call it), or self-Interest(as Individualists prefer to say), is very misunderstood by many. And clearly, if you view it as 'greed', then you are a true believer in equality of result. And clearly, if you view it as 'self-interest, then you are a true believer in equality of opportunity. If you believe in the former, then you will Never find it a winner, at least on this world. It will Never happen. You collectivists seriously need to get used to this.

This is an Old issue, and will probably be with us always, as long as there are others, who envy other's accomplishments and attempt to apply "GetEvenWithEmIsm". It does not work. And if you go to the bottom of the page, there are other links(most work), where you can read more on selfishness. And then there is this one by my hero, Dr Walter E Williams.


Quote:The Virtue of Greed
by Walter Williams (January 5, 2001)

YOU CAN CALL IT GREED, selfishness or enlightened self-interest, but the bottom line is that it's these human motivations that get wonderful things done. Unfortunately, many people are naive enough to believe that it's compassion, concern and "feeling another's pain" that's the superior human motivation. As such, we fall easy prey to charlatans, quacks and hustlers.

Since it's not considered polite to come out and actually say that greed gets wonderful things done, let me go through a few of the millions of examples.

There's probably widespread agreement that it's a wonderful thing that most of us own cars. Is there anyone who believes that the reason we have cars is because Detroit assembly-line workers care about us? It's also wonderful that Texas cattle ranchers make the sacrifices of time and effort caring for steer so that New Yorkers can enjoy a steak now and then. Again, is there anyone who believes that ranchers who make these sacrifices do so out of a concern for and feeling the pain of New Yorkers?

The true reason why we enjoy cars, steaks, and millions of other goods and services is because people care mostly about themselves. Now ask yourself: How much steak would New Yorkers have if it all depended on human love, kindness and feeling the pain of others? I'd feel sorry for New Yorkers.

This is what Adam Smith, the father of economics, meant in "The Wealth of Nations," when he said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interests." Smith also said, "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." In other words, the public good [properly defined] is promoted best by people pursuing their own private interests. This bothers some people because they're more concerned with motives than with results.

Tactics broadly condemned as exploitative also serve a valuable social function. Let's look at price-gouging complaints when Hurricane Floyd took aim at the East Coast. After Florida and Georgia governors callously ordered evacuation of millions of citizens, there were complaints of gasoline-station dealers raising the price of gasoline. Though the gasoline dealers were motivated by profits, their actions served the public interest.

"OK, Williams," you say, "explain that one." Say gas prices before the hurricane threat was $1.10 a gallon. You're running low or have a half-tank and just want to fill up. If the price stayed at $1.10, you'd fill up. But what if the price rose to $1.75? A lot of people would probably say, "I'm only going 100 miles inland, so I'll make do with the half tank." Or, if you're riding on empty, at $1.75 a gallon you just might decide to buy just a half tank and fill up when you get to your destination 100 miles inland.

Here's the question: In the wake of a mass evacuation, which is the preferable state of affairs -- people's gas tanks filled half full enabling everyone to get away from the hurricane, or many people with full gas tanks, and gasoline stations out of gas, and people stranded with empty fuel tanks?

Another way to put this question is which would you prefer, particularly if you're driving on empty: gasoline being available at $1.75 a gallon or unavailable at the "fair" price of $1.10 a gallon? Again, gasoline dealers didn't intend to promote the public interest but by pursuing their own they did.

Free markets, private property rights, voluntary exchange and greed produce preferable outcomes most times and under most conditions.