|
quote:The death tax punishes families for achieving the American dream. 
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Veskit posted:I was watching John Oliver and remembered reading about demographics and how Europe/japan/korea is going to be a disaster because nobody will have babies. Like GulMadred said though, being as there are still areas of the world with high birth rates, it would be easier and more pleasant to import more immigrants than to defund health and education or bribe/pressure people to breed more. Racists and nationalists don't like it but lol. Although is it really that much of a disaster if the population declines? It reduces pressure on housing stock and resource consumption, and a government not preoccupied with maintaining a permanent unemployed underclass could pay more for people to care for their older relatives. It might not be fair to do this while other countries still suffer with increasing populations, but it could work when population decline becomes a worldwide thing, which it hopefully will as health, education, women's rights, and access to contraception become more well spread.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
As I said, the ideal situation would be that there would be a declining population in all countries as as health, education, women's rights, and access to contraception become more wide spread, but is it really fair for the countries with declining populations to sit back while other places' populations grow? I suppose through fiscal policy Europe could directly fund healthcare and education in the places with unsustainable demographic growth, which would rectify it as a consequence. Would you consider that to be unfair?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:pictured: no fundamental economic problem preventing growth: Like, capital demands growth, and you could theoretically deliver overall growth by forced breeding, wage slavery, and mandatory consumption, but I think we can agree that would be a pretty bad thing even if it delivered results. Much like under mercantilism you could secure ongoing growth by a process of stealing other people's poo poo. Current thinking demands a constantly increasing population to deliver constantly increasing growth, but that must logically have a limit somewhere, and if increasing the population means that there are more people who have less then it's not what I'd call a good system.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This is the type of financial junk that makes zero sense. If we could force growth we'd already be doing it all the time and if mandatory consumption were beneficial we'd print money and mail it to people but we don't for a myriad reasons. That's not addressing the main thrust though: Is overall growth (both economic and population) desirable if it means that each person overall is worse off? Would overall economic decline be okay if it was accompanied by population decline such that each person is better off?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 16:39
|
|