Become a Patron!

Steve Ballmer Drops Massive Data Dump on How Tax Dollars Are Spent

Discussion in '[H]ard|OCP Front Page News' started by Megalith, Apr 18, 2017.

  1. Ranulfo

    Ranulfo Gawd

    Messages:
    677
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    So if the entire world said to toss gays off of buildings you'd agree with it? Isn't hyperbole fun?

    Yet, via your universal healthcare you are using government to put guns to people's heads to pay for things they don't need or want. Also, the people of the USA subsidize much of others healthcare costs, often due to as mentioned before the fact that the state/fed gov's let those companies shut out competition (yay insurance and oligarchies/monopolies). Those other countries spend less on their defense (namely Europe) and often you have healthcare companies negociating collectively with the government, not individuals or small businesses, hospitals etc..
     
  2. Ranulfo

    Ranulfo Gawd

    Messages:
    677
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Why not? FDR's tax policies led to wedding health insurance to wages/jobs. A system we still have today, all while people cry about not having portable, easily transferrable health insurance between jobs. FDR did that to maintain his wage controls during the depression. Why is it still a thing today? Why force government on everyone? It wouldn't be to give government more control would it? All while benefitting certain companies too.
     
  3. Ranulfo

    Ranulfo Gawd

    Messages:
    677
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Yeah, sure but who subsidizes it via welfare for single mothers and their children? Why get married and form a family when daddy government will pay for it all. Birth control is moot. Even when society pays for cheap abortions, pills or rubbers... you're handing out free money for those poor to take care of their kids. Everyone else pays their own way and is over taxed. Then they have fewer children.
     
  4. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,556
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Its a fact that most of the rest of the world uses govt. ran healthcare and pays about half of what the US does for similar quality care.

    You might not like that fact for various ideological reasons but its still a fact. And its only reasonable that if that system of healthcare is better than our current one then we should use it.

    Taxes aren't guns. And everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives. We all get sick or old at some point. It is a necessity.

    In a grossly inefficient manner at best and nowhere near as effectively as would under a proper UHS. Medicare Part D alone is a tragi-comedy of misspending on a massive scale.

    What does that have to do with redlining (which was the context of the discussion you quoted)? Be specific and cite some quality resources linking FDR era law to current redlining policy by private organizations such as grocery stores.
     
  5. Lizard Testes

    Lizard Testes [H]Lite

    Messages:
    126
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    What in the hell are you talking about? Maybe go back and read the context and try to refrain from saying such idiotic things.
     
  6. DigitalGriffin

    DigitalGriffin 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,791
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    It must be lonely sitting on top your throne.
     
  7. Old_Way

    Old_Way Gawd

    Messages:
    620
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    People need to do some research on demographics. The world is about to go through some MAJOR changes in the next ~5 years. When large generations (The Boomers exist in all the "1st world" countries) are followed by smaller generations, then more taxes and / or less government is in everyone's near future. We talk about feeding the poor or providing more healthcare, etc.... As more Boomers retire, quit paying in taxes and instead become recipients of SS and Medicare (or their countries equivalent), the worlds money supply dries up. Take a look at the linked site below.... Pick a country (Germany, Canada, whatever) and look at the number of older people about to retire and then how many working younger people that are going to be paying the taxes that support them and you'll see the problem. http://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2017/
     
    DigitalGriffin likes this.
  8. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,604
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    So lets say that someone is pregnate. And lower income.. can't afford the kid they have. Abortion is illeagle.. (quickly going that route.) so they want to be a law abiding citizen. Yet they also have love for the life within. They know a guy that likes them that will take care of them. But he's also an abusive heel. So the options are... give the kid you love up for adoption. Marry the abusive heel. Or... starve and not have any assistance from society. (also known as Government.) Great love it.

    Or what about the woman that is pregnat via Rape. Again.. no abortion. Should the Rapist be required to pay for the child? If so do they get jail time? And if they are in Jail how do they support the child they forced on another? Isn't that... government money? Or is that ok because the government money is being filtered through a private institution (don't you love privitized for profit jails). You know they will sue to lower payments to protect their bottom line.. and again the child is ass out.

    I could keep going of course... but I don't think you actually give two shits about the kids. Just someone getting help that you don't like.
     
    dgz likes this.
  9. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,604
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Japan is already feeling this pain FYI.
     
  10. Old_Way

    Old_Way Gawd

    Messages:
    620
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003

    You're correct. Japan and Italy are probably both beyond the ability to ever recover already. Japan supposedly now sells more adult diapers than baby diapers. Russia is basically toast also... Which is why they're causing all these problems. Russia currently has about a 750K army. In just a few years, they'll be lucky to field a 300K army due to population shrinkage and health issues (TB for example).
     
  11. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,556
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Japan's population is drastically shrinking so they're the poster child of that issue.

    The US's pop. growth is still going up slowly so that isn't as big of a issue as it gets made out to be.
     
  12. Mr34727

    Mr34727 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,447
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    A quick grammar check would help your argument here.

    I think the two cases you bring up are quite different and should be treated as such.
     
  13. twonunpackmule

    twonunpackmule Gawd

    Messages:
    907
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Yea, I mentioned this once or twice to people that vouch for the welfare state. A lot of countries that people admire are having population issues because people aren't breeding. The economy is changing from a labor based economy, and everyone is dead set on containing that versus trying to figure out what's next.

    Now, some countries are trying Basic Income. Which, I'm interested in. I'm curious what it's effect will be and what it might mean for removing other types of Welfare. More or less, collecting the separate forms and just combining it into one type of payment paid out to everyone.

    With automation encroaching into more and more industries, the conversation on how that is handled needs to happen. Is Basic Income the answer? Can we create a new economy? We can't/shouldn't be stopping automation. I mean, we can't really stop it. It would be disastrous. It's the natural evolution of our workflow. Automation will save lives.
     
  14. Old_Way

    Old_Way Gawd

    Messages:
    620
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Generation X (mid 60's to early 80's) is quite a bit smaller than the Boomer generation. Generation Y ("millennial's" early 80's to early 00's) is bigger than X. The next 15 years or so are going to have a lot of budget battles in them as Gen X can't afford to pay for the Boomers due to having smaller numbers. Therefore the US will be printing a lot more money and writing a lot more IOU's for the next decade or so. You're correct though that things get better once Gen Y gets higher into their main earnings/ savings / tax-paying age ranges.
     
  15. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    This is all a bunch of nonsense.

    Japan was able to wage a World War with a far smaller population than they have today, and mechanization with drones, guided missiles, and the like make manual labor manpower ever less of a concern in waging a modern war, where a small but high tech force can take on a far larger but technologically inferior force.

    Japan's population is essentially stable and massively overcrowded. Just to get back to the population of 1960, at the current rate of decline of -0.2 percent (yes, not even half of half a percentage), it would take not hundreds but thousands of years. So to say that Japan's population is "drastically shrinking" is beyond ridiculous, especially since Japan was already very population dense back in 1960.

    Also, with a stable population and people living longer, you will simply have less children (which are also extremely expensive) to care for, so the burden on a family caring for one grandma instead of three children is not any higher.

    Furthermore, the idea that the next generation always has to be that much larger than the generation before is completely unsustainable. Simple savings/investment programs like 401K and the like can allow each individual to save for their own retirement income, making the size of the next generation mostly irrelevant.

    Japan should be praised for being one of the few nations to finally get its unsustainable and environment ruining overpopulation problem under control.

    Unfortunately, what will probably end up happening is that overpopulated regions like the middle-east, India, and Africa will just end up flooding into the countries that are being responsible, unless very strong immigration controls are put into place.
     
  16. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Of course it will, but not in the way you are suggesting. Countries without exception become more prosperous with a higher per capita GDP the lower their birth rate, so this idea that trend will suddenly reverse itself is quite silly.

    And yes, we do have to worry about demographic changes, in that poor people are flooding into rich countries, and importing poverty, crime, and the like with them in the process, and quite frankly, there aren't enough resources to raise them all to the level of first world countries, meaning first world countries will become a thing of the past, as we will see them dragged down into 2nd world tier status achieving an equilibrium. Think the transformation of Detroit on a nation wide scale, where a once world leading rich area becomes 2nd world tier status.



    With current resources, most scientists agree that the world can only support about 2 billion people at Western quality of life standards, meaning even Japan's "drastic" -0.2% growth rate won't cut it. We need to see global -5% growth rate for decades to achieve sustainable levels.
     
    tetris42 likes this.
  17. Old_Way

    Old_Way Gawd

    Messages:
    620
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Prognosticators of the 'more prosperous with lower birth rate" idea assume that the current global trade system stays in place. As we (the US) pulls back, as has been happening for a while now and is accelerating, the world stage drastically changes. When we're no longer guaranteeing global trade and we start playing the 'America First' game, prosperity is then dependent on having your own army and navy and the ability to protect your borders and the shipping supplies you need (especially oil and nat-gas). In a world without global free trade and open markets, then most countries have a hard time feeding themselves or running their power plants. In this more pessimistic world view, North America is looking pretty darn great compared to most everyone else in the world... which is probably why the America First idea seems to be gaining momentum.
     
  18. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Well, hold on for a second, its not an "idea" or "concept" that prosperity and lower birth rates are linked, its a fact.
    The United States has been protecting its own shipping since it became a country and took on the Barbary pirates in 1801 overseas and used their black ships to open trade with Japan in the 1850s. We already have the largest blue water fleet in the world, and yes it protects international shipping... which has nothing to do with revoking NAFTA, which is something that America was prosperous before it existed and will be prosperous after its repealed.
    Wait, what???

    The overwhelming majority of countries have import tariffs, and the United States not having them for most goods (we also have been doing it on say aluminum from China), was an exception as it is unusual for a country to allow others to tax their exports while not reciprocally taxing imports... that's just poor negotiation. Most of America's trade partners in fact have tariffs on our imports, particularly South American countries (its called the South American Mercosur trade bloc that imposes a 35% tariff on all goods not produced inside that bloc) that enjoy selling goods in the US tax free while heavily taxing our goods we sell to them (pretty stupid and unfair for us). In any case, a tariff on Mexican goods would not have global ramifications, and is likely just a threat anyway to get the US a better trade deal and if not then will be used as the money to build the wall as was promised (indirectly via Mexican taxes, but money nonetheless).

    Regardless, Mexico's prosperity would surely increase and crime rate decrease if they could convince more of their population to practice safe sex. High teen pregnancy rates in Mexico and unwed pregnancies are one of the leading contributors to criminality and economic failure there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

    Now some people will say that prosperity creates lower birth rates, but I think its obvious by now its the other way around. Less unplanned pregnancies and fewer children means more resources can be spent on those that are born, and there's more resources overall to go around since less people are competing for them. That's not hard to figure out if you think of it on a micro scale as a family. Would you likely be more productive and successful in your career if you had only one child you planned on at age 25, versus having say your first kid at 16, dropping out of school, never marrying the mother so you have a single young mom trying to raise the kid without sufficient resources and support, and then by age of 25 having four additional mouths to feed? Pretty obvious that your family in the former situation is going to be a lot more prosperous and the kids raised much better, increasing both your and their productivity and reducing crime.
     
  19. DigitalGriffin

    DigitalGriffin 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,791
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Japan and China are facing this issue and is one reason China is backing off on the 1 child policy. Even though there is no social security system in China per say, they do have a problem where there's not enough young people to take care of the old.
     
  20. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    China changed from 1-child to 2-child policy, which is still below replacement rate (2 people having 2 children max results in a declining population, because some offspring will die before they have 2 children themselves and some people will have no children either by choice or biology).

    The reason for change isn't fears of an aging population. The policy was implemented almost fifty years ago, and yet the population still increased considerably, showing that the law couldn't really be enforced well. It also caused some resentment of the population that is becoming ever more influential with increasing prosperity/resources. So since a 1-child policy couldn't be enforced properly anyway, and to keep the plebs happy, its bumped to 2-child.
     
  21. Old_Way

    Old_Way Gawd

    Messages:
    620
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003

    I tend to take differing views than you do... and it's not likely to change. I think the following link is somewhat closer to my worldview... Though I find him to be a bit too optimistic on the US future and somewhat too pessimistic on the world's future. It's a long (45 minutes) view, but worth the time. Both of his (Peter Zeihan) books are worth reading also:
     
  22. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Going to be honest, don't have time for a 45 min video, but think about your logic.

    You agree that 2-child policy is below replacement level, right?

    If the Chinese government wanted to grow its population, why would they still have ANY child restriction policy in place at all? Why not repeal it and say you can have as many children as you want, and furthermore subsidize it heavily like we do in the United States, where you pay way less taxes the more kids you have (all the way to the point of welfare queens that make a career out of pooping out babies).

    So to act like the Chinese government wants a big population increase, while still having below replacement level anti-population laws in place makes no sense. Right?
     
  23. Old_Way

    Old_Way Gawd

    Messages:
    620
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003

    I don't think China is looking for a population "increase". Their social structure was collapsing under the 1 child policy.... both from how to pay for the social services and all the extra males in their society. Due to the 1 child policy, there's a whole lot of sex selection that was happening... female baby genocide. In China, 52% of the population is now male and 48% female.... Serious problem when you realize how that 4% difference is applied to 1.3 billion people.
     
    DigitalGriffin likes this.
  24. Morlock

    Morlock Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    219
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    FDR redlining

    Isn't it also a fact that most of the world is poor? And doesn't get good health care? And isn't particularly free?

    It's also a fact that most of the drugs that they get for cheap are cheap because Americans paid the freight. Just sayin...

    He suggested big families (I'm guessing), you called big families "shitpots of kids," and I applied your logic elsewhere.

    Did you ride the short bus to school?

    How big of an issue are these women? How many women actually get pregnant via rape? I'd bet that in a given period, leftists have brought up pregnant women in abortion arguments 10x as many times as there have actually been women impregnated by rape.

    The funny thing is that you can't. Keep going, I mean. There's just a few, statistically-insignificant corner cases like rape, and they're just as much solved by adoption as any other issue (the only one left is serious congenital/birth defects). The shortage of babies for adoption in this country has been around as long as I can remember. Adoption neatly answers pretty much all of the pro-infantici- I mean, pro-abortion arguments.

    Adoption is the word that all pro-life advocates need to keep flinging back to pro-abortion advocates.

    Keep in mind that abortion isn't even a political issue for me. I'm pro-abortion simply because 1. problematic populations use them as contraception, and 2. it's not worth dying on that hill. Women want abortion legal so they don't have to look fat for a trimester and a half, that's pretty much the extent of it. Again, I don't advocate ending or curtailing abortion; I just know that the arguments in favor of it are creepy, immoral, stupid, etc. The pro-abortion argument is pretty much entirely morally bankrupt (I don't pretend my support is moral, only pragmatic).

    Lol, what does this even mean? Japan's habitable spaces are crowded as fuck. They could use a bit more elbow room.

    The problem with falling birthrates is that globalists are allowed to make specious arguments for mass immigration, ostensibly to keep the Ponzi scheme going (really it's about cheap labor and breaking the first world). That's about it. That and the need for a financial restructuring. The Black Death kicked off an economic boon, maybe even the Renaissance.
     
  25. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    You implied just minutes ago that they were, because of their aging population and social services, in spite of the fact that China's population has experienced growth every year since the policy was put into effect (which would not have been possible had it been properly enforceable), and the 1-child policy was simply replaced with a policy that is still below replacement rate.

    I can tell what news sources you're looking at as well, as its often the left-wing feminist rags that tend to focus on China's gender ratio, which is not that extreme in any shape or form.

    For example, its far far lower than countries like the UAE, that have 2.19 males for every female, whereas China's 1.06 male to female ratio is quite reasonably close to 1:1 ratio.

    And how many people have you heard complain about Russia, which has .86 male to female ratio, which again is WAAAAY more out of whack than China's mere 0.06 gender discrepancy?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio

    You gotta stay away from those leftist news sites, they rot your brain by feeding you fake news.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  26. Morlock

    Morlock Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    219
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    But it is interesting that feminists promote abortion, while globally it's probably being used to kill substantially more female babies than male.
     
  27. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,556
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    That doesn't matter. What does is total population growth, and in particular, what percent of that population is working (so they can be taxed).

    We've been having big budget battles for years already. The issue there is the rich aren't really getting taxed enough given their total share of the nation's wealth. Fixing things like SS is easily done by just raising the Top Wage Base from where it currently tends to hover to cover people who make millions. The rate wouldn't even have to be changed yet. Not for decades.

    No its not. Their population is shrinking and so the people that can get taxed decreases while the number of people who depend on govt. pensions increase as they get older. That is the economic timebomb they're facing. All the obvious means to "defuse" it also would cause terrible economic and/or political issues. It'd be like they'd forced themselves to have their own Great Depression all over again. And they never even really recovered from the housing bubble they had back in the late 80's. Economic growth there has been terrible for decades.

    Compared to other nations and Japan's recent past (ie. 70's, 80's) drastically shrinking is completely correct.


    I said be specific. In particular address how FDR era redlining laws dictate what private grocery stores do (they don't, redlining is a issue for poor minorities not grocery stores). You have to really prove what you're saying and a handwave at a google search is ridiculous at this point. I mean if you knew what you were talking about you'd have quality sources already lined up right?

    You can compare 1st world countries to the US. Some of them even do a bit better in some areas than the US does now in terms of economic freedoms and well being while also having similar political freedoms.

    There actually isn't any good proof of this. It gets brought up a lot but if you dig into the actual finances you'll find that drug companies keep raising prices no matter what to increase profits and that more than half of their spending is on drug promotion/advertising and not R&D. This has been true for years. Examples:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-companies-marketing_n_1760380.html
     
  28. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    More lies, as Japan's population decline is so infinitesimally small as to be non-existent.

    The 2000 census at the turn of the century for Japan was 125,714,674. The 2017 census shows a population of 126,045,211, which means that nearly two decades later the Japan population size has finally stabilized. That also means that Japan is still very crowded with one of the highest population densities in the world, and really needs to try to reduce their population size to improve quality of life and put less of a strain on natural resources (again, as mentioned, for a European style standard of living, the world can only support about 2 billion, and we're waaaaaaaaaaaaay over that).

    Then you talk about more nonsense regarding their housing bubble and economic growth, when the same can be said for the United States which experienced considerable population growth and still suffered a subprime lending disaster, and Japan's "lost decade" of economic growth nevertheless outpaced that of Europe as a whole, which has seen the economic collapse of several nations, including the bankruptcy of Greece. So while the insane levels of economic growth that Japan had seen were unsustainable (where Japan was greater than all the other superpowers in that respect), it still managed to outpace economic powerhouses like Germany that are keeping the EU afloat, so I think you can chill out with your FUD: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...any_India_Japan_UK_USA_per_Angus_Maddison.png

    I'm not surprised by your fake-news views though, considering you quote from sources like HuffingtonPost... *cringe*
     
  29. DigitalGriffin

    DigitalGriffin 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,791
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    I partially agree with you. But it was still generating problems. As pointed out by others there was an inbalance of girls to boys. Boys were responsible for supporting families in China. So if you had a girl, and were only allowed one, you had a problem on your hands if you didn't save up.

    Also a healthy economy requires a certain growth rate which China was not sustaining the older population

    And this:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/japan-population-decline-youth-no-sex_n_1242014.html
     
  30. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,604
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    That's what I get for responding when distracted.
     
  31. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,556
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    ANY decrease in the population growth, much less negative growth which is what they're currently experiencing, is a huge problem under the economic system they currently have set up. Even if growth was 0% they'd be in trouble. In order to support the pensioners an ever increasing number of people providing their taxes from their income is necessary or the whole thing falls apart. Now if their debt to GDP ratio was low maybe they'd be able to do something about that but its already incredibly high. That is why all the economists refer to Japan as a economic time bomb.

    Its not nonsense, its true. Their (edit)GDP growth rate still hasn't caught up to where it was back then and the standard of living in Japan has dropped from where it used to be back then too.

    (edit)A decent story IMO on the subject: http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...anese-work-non-permanent-contracts-struggling

    The tl&dr takeaway:

    You're misreading my post if you think I'm suggesting that the US housing bubble would lead to some sort of population decrease in the US.

    All of that "growth" is debt spending though for Japan. That is why their debt to GDP ratio is so incredibly high. That is also why they're a economic time bomb. They were selling debt to their own populace for that whole decade to fund their govt. (so its internal and not externally held debt which is why their country's economy hasn't already blown up) but now its getting to the point they can't really do that anymore. The EU and US had actual non-debt fueled economic growth during that time period.

    Even worse the article you linked uses GDP per capita to try to inflate its numbers. Remember, the population is shrinking there so of course GDP per capita will go up by default.

    (edit)Here is their real GDP: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Real_GDP_growth_rate_in_Japan_(1956-2008).png/500px-Real_GDP_growth_rate_in_Japan_(1956-2008).png

    I posted 2 sources and Huffington isn't a fake news source, they're quite factual. If you think something is factually wrong in the Huffington link I posted quote it and prove that it is wrong. If you know what you're talking about this should be easy for you.

    I'd also point out the Huffington link cites a BMJ report for evidence as well as other links too. Its not a opinion piece and they aren't just making stuff up or quoting people out of context.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2017
  32. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    More lies, do you ever read anything other than Huffington Post? The costs of caring for the elderly are mitigated by the reduced cost of caring for the young, and besides, with more and more desk jobs and less manual labor jobs with advancing automation, people can comfortably work and contribute to society for longer than before. This is the same tired propaganda used by immigration proponents that want to try to convince people to act against their own self-interest by opening the flood gates to impoverished aliens, in spite of the fact that its know the per capita GDP will drop when doing so. The only benefit it serves is to provide votes for Democrat politicians to keep them in power and cheap labor for Republicans pressured by special interest groups, while importing crime and poverty. I already showed you articles with numbers that show that Japan's per capita GDP growth exceeds most other markets, including Europe that did open the floodgates to foreigners based on this lie that a stable population is a BAD thing (when it is in fact a necessary thing).

    This idea that even the most population dense area of the world should subject itself to unceasing population growth is so irresponsible and idiotic, is very irritating.
    You really hate facts don't you? I literally just showed you two articles demonstrating that Japan's per capita (what matters) growth rate has outperformed most other nations: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...ng-economies-of-the-last-decade/#1a4164e23911

    No sane citizen cares about raw GDP growth over per-capita GDP growth. India has a tremendous raw GDP, because they have a massive population and growing at that. Yet the population is so painfully poor and uneducated and living in horribly dirty smelly crowded conditions BECAUSE of their out of control birth rate, and so the per capita GDP is horrendous. In fact, its so bad that the government can't even manage to get the majority of the population to poop and pee in toilets, with the highest rate of open defecation in the world.
    What... what are you talking about? *facepalm* Clearly I was pointing out that the United States has experienced considerable population growth and yet also suffered a housing bubble, making your previous claim that Japan's housing bubble was due to their stabilized population an obvious lie.
    Over 90% of Japanese government bonds are owned by the people of Japan, meaning that interest rates are virtually non-existent. This is not like Greece where they had a high debt owned by foreign investors at high interests rates where they can default. Its a totally different culture in Japan where you have a patriotic and homogeneous population, and besides their "internalized" debt is falling at 15 points a year, faster than any other country in the world as well.
    HOLY SHIT! Thank you, I can't believe you have now finally not only acknolwedged it, but act like its a matter of fact.

    YES, a thousand times YES, you are right OF COURSE PER CAPITA GDP INCREASES with a stabilized population. :D

    Per capita GDP deals with the quality of life of each INDIVIDUAL in Japan. What you advocate for is that each INDIVIDUAL becomes poorer, as a country becomes more and more overpopulated, so that a per capita GDP can decline, while the total GDP increases due to the extra people.

    That's the equivalent of saying that you can have a medium pizza split between two people, and each person gets 1000 grams of pizza, versus what you prefer is that you have a large pizza split between eight people and each person gets 200 grams of pizza. It is far better for the environment and the quality of life to have fewer people that get a bigger slice of the pie each. No one cares how big the total pizza is, they care how much pizza each person gets to eat, and as you say OF COURSE each person gets more pizza if they get their population growth under control.

    It boggles the mind that you know this, and yet advocate for rapid resource exhaustion, environmental ruin, and an impoverished population where each individual is poorer than the year before due to overpopulation.
     
  33. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,556
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    I've linked multiple articles in this thread from all over but you seem to only see the HuffPo one for some reason.

    And its not a lie. That is fundamentally how their economy and pension system work together to function. They constantly need more people entering the work force so that those people's wages can be taxed and those taxes can be used to fund their govt. There are no if's, and's, or but's about this.

    Elder care is so expensive as to wipe out whatever savings are gained from taking care of new births. This chart doesn't have Japan on it but it does have the US and several other countries and the trend is quite clear cut.

    What you're not understanding is that is a deceptive way to look at their economy since their population is shrinking so per capital GDP can go up even if their real GDP is effectively stagnant!

    Population density doesn't matter much for the discussion at hand since it won't do much of anything at all to improve or worsen tax revenues or for that matter increase or decrease the number of old/young people in their system.

    All other things being equal? Sure. But they're not equal. They're not even close to equal. So per capita GDP growth isn't all that interesting too look at here. Especially since the numbers of Japanese who are becoming poor is increasing steadily. Something which should, in theory, be impossible if per capita GDP was going up in as reasonable a fashion as that number suggests.

    I didn't say this. You're still mis-reading my post. I brought up the bubble to give some insight as to the current state of their economy. If you're reading anything else into it that is your fault.

    Yes but the debt ratio is getting so out of whack (250% debt to GDP ratio) that even just 10% of those bonds being external is problematic. Everyone world wide knows the other 90% will never be paid back at face value and at some point soon there'll be some sort of de facto default. The exact way it pans out isn't clear to anyone at all but at this point its looking pretty grim.

    I said declining, not stabilized. If it was stabilized while GDP growth was also stagnant then per capita GDP would remain constant. But as the article you linked notes its not constant, its going up despite a decrease in pop. and a stagnant real GDP, which is bad if you're trying to paint a picture of a prosperous nation with plenty of economic growth.

    Nope. Per capital GDP is just GDP divided by the number of people. Its an average of sorts.

    It will not give you actual quality of life for individuals. Its also subject to skewing if the population decreases and/or due to extreme wealth inequality.

    The quality of life of many Japanese is on the decline though, as you can tell from the article I linked for you. I even cut n' pasted the key paragraph for you so you don't have to read the whole thing.

    That is a strawman. I've never advocated for that. I haven't even given my opinion on overpopulation and how to address it at all in this thread much less in context with regard to Japan.
     
  34. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    See, repeating something ad nauseum doesn't make it true. Lets work in facts to break your broken circular logic of "I say it so its true".

    Do you agree that Japan has hovered around 0% population growth, give or take an insignificant 1% since 1970, yes or no? If no, show source.

    You admit finally that Japan has had a healthy per capita GDP, to provide for good quality of life for its citizens for almost 50 years, yes or no? If no, show source.

    Now, nothing has drastically changed, and yet you insist that they are on the verge of collapse, despite evidence to the contrary that Japan is doing better than most nations on a per capita GDP growth basis, right? Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?
    YES, THANK YOU!!! Read that back to yourself. Think really hard, take a deep breath, make your mind blank, and read back what you said to yourself. Per capita GDP is going up, even if their gross GDP is stagnant. You say this yourself, you understand this, right?

    A country with out of control population growth will likely achieve gross GDP growth that is very high, while at the same time because so many more mouths are competing for the same resources, every individual in that country is poorer than they were the year before. The quality of life for the Japanese people is better thanks to their stabilized population; each person has more money than the year before versus each person being poorer than the year before but there are more people total so the GDP still goes up.

    To explain this to you again, lets say there are 10 people that make $100K each, for a total of $1 million total product. Now what if you increased that to 50 people that make $25K each, which creates a total of $1.25 million.

    With 10 people, the GDP is less, but each person is four times richer, and they have more land, less traffic, less pollution, less waste, and consume less food and thus have a smaller impact on the environment.

    With 50 people, each person is four time poorer than the first example, in spite of having a 25% higher GDP combined between them, and all those people are fighting for housing, commuting at the same time, they all have to eat and drink and poop increasing their carbon footprint, and they produce more trash and pollution. The increased population density combined with decreased per-capita income almost always means more criminality and lower quality of life.

    Since you probably can't grasp the concept, lets compare China and Japan.

    China has a much larger GDP than Japan, because it has so many more citizens, so China boasts a $9 trillion economy compared to Japan's $5 trillion. But because Japan has fewer citizens, the people of Japan have a much higher quality of life with far less pollution than Chinese cities, much safer roads, much nicer housing, and each person is overall much wealthier than each Chinese person on average, with a per capita GDP of around $40K versus China's per capita GDP of around $7K.

    I know, you hate facts, but sometimes you have to accept that facts are important even when they debunk everything you are advocating for.
     
  35. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,556
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Its not because "I say its so", its a fact.

    Its common sense even. Where else do you think the tax revenue comes from to fund the govt. or their pension system?

    No. I've said per capita GDP is deceptive, told you why, and linked an article on the declining standard of living for most Japanese. Address those in a substantial manner or don't bother posting further because I won't bother replying.
     
  36. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    So you agree that there has been no drastic change in the birth rate in Japan since 1970, and that the Japanese per capita GDP has been healthy for fifty years... I noticed you ignored this fact. So nothing has changed, and yet somehow, inexplicably, the world is collapsing because they aren't having more babies or inviting in foreign hordes? Sounds pretty dumb when you use that "common sense" you're talking about.
    You understand how the total GDP of a country is related to the size of the population, but the wealth of the individuals is related to the per-capita GDP, right?

    A very small but extremely wealthy economy will have a small GDP but a very high per-capita GDP, meaning few people, but lots of rich people. Luxembourg for example is a very small economy, so their GDP is minuscule, but they have one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world, meaning their citizens are rich earning triple digits on average, and so have a high quality of life (which is true, its one of the most posh, clean, and beautiful areas of Europe). India is a very large economy due to the number of people and so has a large and growing GDP accordingly, but their people are dirt poor and have a per-capita GDP of only $6.7K per person, meaning many people don't even have clean running water or access to toilets, and so have a low quality of life.

    You understand these basic concepts, right?

    Thus per capita GDP is a far better indicator of average wealth and quality of life than total GDP, and as you admit Japan has had a healthier per-capita GDP than most nations in the last two decades. A growing population fuels a greater GDP, but as you admit, a stabilized population generally results in a far greater per-capita GDP, or average wealth for the individual. I don't know about you, but I would rather live in a less populated area with a lot more money than to live in an overpopulated area and be poorer to boot.
     
  37. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,556
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    I've said the exact opposite multiple times there is no ignoring going on except on your end. The rest of your post is still essentially ignoring the information I've already given you too.

    (edit) You trying to do some amateur level gas-lighting or what?

    If you're not going to actually reply to what I'm saying WTH are you doing posting at all? Because you sure aren't changing anyone's mind here or informing anyone of anything.
     
  38. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Wait, so you say the population growth rate in Japan HAS drastically changed since 1970, good! See, now that's something we can quickly fact check:

    Population growth rate Japan:
    1970: +1.1%
    1980: +0.8%
    1990: +0.3%
    2000: +0.2%
    2010: -0.1%

    That means that from 1970 to today, there is only a ~1% difference in growth rate in Japan, no drastic change considering how long a period of time that took place in, and that Japan has been stabilizing its population size very gradually for decades now.

    Now, the Japanese per capita GDP for the last 50 years is something we can also check:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...any_India_Japan_UK_USA_per_Angus_Maddison.png

    We can also look at the Japanese per capita GDP growth, to see if the average Japanese person is getting richer or poorer, and we can see Japan's growth has been top tier as well:
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oVnlnDk3Y...g6aWyM4o/s1600/Real+GDP+per+Capita+Growth.png

    I do agree that logic and facts are unlikely to change your opinion, but I do think its important that's out there.
     
  39. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,556
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    AAAaaaaand you're misreading my posts intentionally again. And pretty much everything you're saying has already been addressed in previous posts of mine.

    At this point you're posting is indiscernible from a chat bot so welcome to my ignore list.
     
  40. Ducman69

    Ducman69 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,461
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    I asked you a simple direct question.

    My point was obvious, there has been no drastic change in Japan's population growth rate in nearly 50 years, and for 50 years Japan has had a healthy per capita GDP and above average per capita GDP growth rate, and yet you claim that suddenly the sky is falling and Japan is doomed... even though nothing major has changed, as Japan has had a stabilized growth rate very gradually for decades.

    Nothing major has changed, and yet everything has changed! Makes no sense, right?

    So we're establishing facts:
    1) Japan's population has been quite stable and flat for a very long time
    2) Japan's population enjoys a healthy per capita GDP
    3) Japan has enjoyed an above average per capita GDP growth rate
    4) By your admission, countries that stabilize their population generally experience an increased per capita GDP growth rate (meaning the average citizen has more wealth)
    5) A smaller population, all else equal, has less negative environmental impact, uses less energy, produces less pollution, needs less land, and has higher quality of life fighting fewer people for the limited resources available.
    6) According to the UN, global population is anticipated to hit 11 billion by 2100, but the GFN reports that at European standards of living (which is about half the consumption rate and twice the recycling rate of Americans), that the environment can only support a population of 2 billion.
    7) When I was born, the world population was 4.3 billion, and hardly underpopulated, and already seeing massive habitat loss, competition for limited resources, and pollution issues.
    8) Even if we began terraforming Mars today, estimates indicate it would not be complete with a breathable atmosphere for 100K years.