Nordic countries need more babies to fund their system

[Jaskalas]

Ponzi scheme?
Are you reading stuff from that John Prager dude?
This is too much. I cant internet more today.

Anything that must be sustained through growth is a Ponzi scheme.
Many modern economic models are all the equivalent thereof.
And they can only result in a catastrophic collapse as growth cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Moreover, if anyone actually wants a planet to live on, the number of people that Earth supports needs to DROP. Not grow. FYI to anyone who dares utter the word environment, human industrial growth is literally killing us all. In a vast number of ways.

You know what doesn't need a Ponzi scheme to be sustained? Basic Income. At a 25% tax it pays for itself in full. Our economic models don't have to be run by retards or thieves. We don't have to screw over and potentially destroy the next generation by cheating and incurring debt, both monetary and environmental. Thus far our species chooses to be greedy bastards, but that is not a requirement. We do not have to be ignorant or malicious with the future consequences of our actions.

It is past time to take a stand and demand that we do better. For our own sake, and especially that of our children and grandchildren.

 

[cytg111]

Anything that must be sustained through growth is a Ponzi scheme.
Many modern economic models are all the equivalent thereof.
And they can only result in a catastrophic collapse as growth cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Moreover, if anyone actually wants a planet to live on, the number of people that Earth supports needs to DROP. Not grow. FYI to anyone who dares utter the word environment, human industrial growth is literally killing us all. In a vast number of ways.

You know what doesn't need a Ponzi scheme to be sustained? Basic Income. At a 25% tax it pays for itself in full. Our economic models don't have to be run by retards or thieves. We don't have to screw over and potentially destroy the next generation by cheating and incurring debt, both monetary and environmental. Thus far our species chooses to be greedy bastards, but that is not a requirement. We do not have to be ignorant or malicious with the future consequences of our actions.

It is past time to take a stand and demand that we do better. For our own sake, and especially that of our children and grandchildren.

Its not a ponzi scheme, when the observation is : we used to be 10 million ppl... now we are 8 million.. to sustain current public spending on welfare for the old we need taxes from 10 million people, not 8 million people, but 10 million people, thus we need GROWTH of 2 million people.
What is a ponzi scheme? something with exponential growth like n to the power of 2 right? Hence "pyramid"...
This is not "ponzi".
Agreed?

 

[cytg111]

Anything that must be sustained through growth is a Ponzi scheme.
Many modern economic models are all the equivalent thereof.
And they can only result in a catastrophic collapse as growth cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Moreover, if anyone actually wants a planet to live on, the number of people that Earth supports needs to DROP. Not grow. FYI to anyone who dares utter the word environment, human industrial growth is literally killing us all. In a vast number of ways.

You know what doesn't need a Ponzi scheme to be sustained? Basic Income. At a 25% tax it pays for itself in full. Our economic models don't have to be run by retards or thieves. We don't have to screw over and potentially destroy the next generation by cheating and incurring debt, both monetary and environmental. Thus far our species chooses to be greedy bastards, but that is not a requirement. We do not have to be ignorant or malicious with the future consequences of our actions.

It is past time to take a stand and demand that we do better. For our own sake, and especially that of our children and grandchildren.

You point about building a society upon growth principles in general I agree with, it is not sustainable, but before we label everything of capatilistic nature for evil, was this not the motor that led the west to "win" the cold war? - I am not super educated out in these fields but I do know its complicated... Still EXP growth most likely turns into sigmoid at some point.. maybe that is where we are now... shrugs..

 

[alcoholbob]

This is why immigration is essential to any healthy modern economy. I'm glad you agree, OP.

But not every country can have immigration, for one country getting people another is losing them. That's even worse than zero sum game since fertility rates are dropping globally. Eventually a new paradigm will be necessary, especially in a future that's dominated by robotics and ai.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

They can, eventually. China has been pouring $billions into Africa for securing Resources and Cheap Labour. China's economy has grown so much that Cheap Labour is no longer available within China. They have also been arranging various projects in South America, causing some friction with the US.

What does that do other than temporarily bring some Chinese workers to the area? Long term how does that create an economy? It's a lot like these countries bringing in oil projects to crap countries - the majority of people can't apply (since they won't have anywhere near the skills) - and the general cycle continues.

 

[Vic]

That's not really true anymore, given the rapidly advancing state of technological innovation in manufacturing, farming, transportation & all the rest of it. Capitalism needs more consumers, not workers, and poor people in the US consume more than they would if they were still in Central America. Whatever the Rich pay them it all gets hoovered back up to the top, anyway, and whatever they save gives fractional reserve bankers more to work with.

Without workers, there would be a shortage of consumers.

 

[realibrad]

Without workers, there would be a shortage of consumers.

What happens when the cost of production gets very close to or literally becomes 0?

 

[Vic]

What happens when the cost of production gets very close to or literally becomes 0?

That can't happen. It's like saying you could build a perpetual motion machine.

 

[fskimospy]

That can't happen. It's like saying you could build a perpetual motion machine.

Also at that point we will need the extra manpower to fight the Klingons so it’s really a wash anyway.

 

[realibrad]

That can't happen. It's like saying you could build a perpetual motion machine.

Not really. The cost to humans could become 0 with automation and AI. Right now, we are resource constrained, but, what if things do it for us? That future is not today's reality, but, we are getting closer and closer.

 

[realibrad]

Also at that point we will need the extra manpower to fight the Klingons so it’s really a wash anyway.

Just let them fight the Romulans for now.

 

[cytg111]

Not really. The cost to humans could become 0 with automation and AI. Right now, we are resource constrained, but, what if things do it for us? That future is not today's reality, but, we are getting closer and closer.

You estimate that mankind will at one point reach a level where we are content? I dont think that is how we work...

 

[realibrad]

You estimate that mankind will at one point reach a level where we are content? I dont think that is how we work...

Not content. I think we could reach a point where resources are not a constraint. I think that is very far off. Closer is basic items such as food, water, shelter, education will get to a price that is effectively 0.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not content. I think we could reach a point where resources are not a constraint. I think that is very far off. Closer is basic items such as food, water, shelter, education will get to a price that is effectively 0.

Not within a Capitalist system. The price of most anything is not based on the cost of production & distribution but rather on what the market will bear.

 

[realibrad]

Not within a Capitalist system. The price of most anything is not based on the cost of production & distribution but rather on what the market will bear.

And yet even in Capitalism, things are given away. Why do you think that is Jhhnn?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Not within a Capitalist system. The price of most anything is not based on the cost of production & distribution but rather on what the market will bear.

Correct, but also in a capitalist system competition tends to drive down those margins as well as advance new tech and processes to drive down the cost to produce.

 

[Genx87]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/babies-wanted-nordic-countries-crying-kids-033117429.html


Nothing but a ponzi scheme. Relying on continuous population growth should not be how we base our economics. Especially given how everyone is living longer and expecting more. I do agree with the idea of social safety nets but I think they need to be just that, a net so you don’t hit bottom. Promising everything to everyone and paying for it through constant growth doesn’t seem sustainable. Same with social security here, it needs to be needs based only. Yeah you still have to pay for it as insurance but it should only be that.

The Nordic countries were long a bastion of strong fertility rates on an Old Continent that is rapidly getting older.​

​

But they are now experiencing a decline that threatens their cherished welfare model, which is funded by taxpayers.​

​

"In the coming decades, we will encounter problems with this model," Prime Minister Erna Solberg warned Norwegians in her New Year's speech.​

​

"There will be fewer young people to bear the increasingly heavy burden of the welfare state."​

​

​

It isnt just the Nordic countries. All of Europe and the United States as well. The leaders of many European countries are pro-immigration imo because the alternative is economic collapse due to not enough native people to keep the economic engine humming.

 

[Vic]

Not really. The cost to humans could become 0 with automation and AI. Right now, we are resource constrained, but, what if things do it for us? That future is not today's reality, but, we are getting closer and closer.

No, it can't. Resources will always be constrained, as the more efficiently resources are consumed, the more that consumption increases. As such, there can never be a time when cost becomes 0.

 

[Jhhnn]

And yet even in Capitalism, things are given away. Why do you think that is Jhhnn?

Why does that even matter?

 

[Jaskalas]

Its not a ponzi scheme, when the observation is : we used to be 10 million ppl... now we are 8 million.. to sustain current public spending on welfare for the old we need taxes from 10 million people, not 8 million people, but 10 million people, thus we need GROWTH of 2 million people.
What is a ponzi scheme? something with exponential growth like n to the power of 2 right? Hence "pyramid"...
This is not "ponzi".
Agreed?

That is one twisted knot.

1. Maintaining a stable population is not growth. I am 100% all for keeping our population stable.
2. Current economic models like Pensions depend on taking that 10 million and making it 15 million.

What they have done is promise too much out for too little in taxes. Now any entity... be it city, state, fed gov, or corporation... are going to compete and "win" VS the others by incurring the bigger deficit. They either pay out more or have lower taxes than the others. The concept of a reasonable return on "investment" has been inflated due to a cheat, they covered their deficit with growth.

But what happens if they don't achieve expected growth? Their deficit balloons. As many such entities face today. Instead, I'd rather we tighten our belts and raise taxes so that we can meet our obligations the very same year we incur them. Or at least make a regular habit of it, barring exceptions. It seems like good economic sense, and not asking for our population to skyrocket also seems like the only possible way to save our planet... from ourselves.

Sustainability should be a goal of ours, a top priority even. I'm open to hearing different ideas on how to achieve that, and make it work economically, but let's not start that discussion with a fallacy.

 

[cytg111]

That is one twisted knot.

1. Maintaining a stable population is not growth. I am 100% all for keeping our population stable.
2. Current economic models like Pensions depend on taking that 10 million and making it 15 million.

What they have done is promise too much out for too little in taxes. Now any entity... be it city, state, fed gov, or corporation... are going to compete and "win" VS the others by incurring the bigger deficit. They either pay out more or have lower taxes than the others. The concept of a reasonable return on "investment" has been inflated due to a cheat, they covered their deficit with growth.

But what happens if they don't achieve expected growth? Their deficit balloons. As many such entities face today. Instead, I'd rather we tighten our belts and raise taxes so that we can meet our obligations the very same year we incur them. Or at least make a regular habit of it, barring exceptions. It seems like good economic sense, and not asking for our population to skyrocket also seems like the only possible way to save our planet... from ourselves.

Sustainability should be a goal of ours, a top priority even. I'm open to hearing different ideas on how to achieve that, and make it work economically, but let's not start that discussion with a fallacy.

Maybe I am blind, where do you get the 15M number from ?

 

[Jaskalas]

...before we label everything of capatilistic nature for evil, was this not the motor that led the west to "win" the cold war?

I am for Capitalism, but it needs to be patched up to help repair some gaping holes in it. People need to not be left behind or abandoned. There is so much more we could be doing FOR our people with a fully realized social safety net. Through Basic Income, Housing Loans, and Medicare. The avalanche of negative changes that begun to impact us 40 years ago is approaching its crescendo. Capitalism does not have to devastate our people if we but shield them from some of the great personal burdens they are beginning to systemically face today, or in the near future.

I am a Capitalist that wants to save it. I believe we do that by establishing a balance between public and private money.

 

[Jaskalas]

Maybe I am blind, where do you get the 15M number from ?

From your 10m. You pulled that as an example, yes? I was following through on that idea.

We have met our obligations by covering our debts through growth. For example, and using real numbers, the United States has picked up an additional 100 million people in my life time. If current immigration trends continue, we'll easily pick up another 100 million people before I am a senior. I personally think that is devastating to our environment AND I believe we can achieve robust economic models that do not demand such growth from us.

 

[cytg111]

From your 10m. You pulled that as an example, yes? I was following through on that idea.

We have met our obligations by covering our debts through growth. For example, and using real numbers, the United States has picked up 100 million people in my life time. If current immigration trends continues, we'll easily pick up another 100 million people before I am a senior. I personally think that is devastating to our environment AND I believe we can achieve robust economic models that do not demand such growth from us.

I totally do not understand. You call it current economic models and cite a 50% population growth rate to sustain ...
What i did was an example that is analogue to the actual situation in the nordic countries.
Point me to a nordic country, sweden, denmark, norway, finland, that has their economy set up to depend on a 50% growth rate of the population?
It is my assertion that you wont find any and thus negating the very premise this thread is built on.
Its just not true.

 

[realibrad]

Why does that even matter?

I'll answer your question if you answer mine first.