Muh economic growth, muh old people

Why the fuck must we have constant growth? It seems to be the end of it all and not sustainable in the long run.

>We have more old boomers (long life expectancy)
>To maintain their lifestyle we must immediately import third worlders just to take care of them
>When we grow old, we must also import third worlders to take care of us because muh entitled to care and long life

Seriously, what would happen if we just ditched keynesian and accepted a population decline while at the same time protecting ourselves (and not feeding) third world peoples?

Isn't this literally sacrificing the young for the sake of the old?

Other urls found in this thread:

economics.mit.edu/files/12536
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

(((I Wonder Why)))
The jews get richer and richer.

Get ready for price increases and drop in your standard of living then.
The lifestyle West is accustomed to for 50+ years completely depends on the current system.

Drop in living standards if population is cut in half without third worlders?

Would literally be

>market suddenly flooded with property
>more demand for jobs than supply
>easier to stay environmentally friendly etc
>automation could literally pick up the whatever slack there is
>manufacturing / use of natural resources needn't be so high if the population is lower

this

We don't need constant growth.

The population will eventually even out and a better standard of living would be enjoyed by all.

The only reasons why population decline is a problem is because of pensioners but who gives a fuck they supported the welfare state in the first place and maybe they should of concentrated on having a stable family to take care of them instead of the government.

Its a problem for the politicians because they want more tax cattle to support their socialist programs.

The biggest problem about population decline is only a problem when you bring in third world savages who have 10 babies each.

Then you are effectively replacing the population.

Well, everyone seems to have answered OP's question accurately.

/thread.

I personally think this is all engineered because in the early eighties and nineties they were constantly harping on about how having too many children is irresponsible.

I think they are bringing third world savages in because a massive financial collapse is coming and the elites would rather have the natives fighting the savages than putting their heads on pikes.

Oh no, you mean we might have to interrupt the spic nig cycle and reboot the system? Tell me it isn't so, wise Latvian.

This is the result of decades of dodging a simple question : how are we going to pay for all the social security the (((greatest generation))) voted itself after WW2. It's a ponzi scheme, it's that simple. Whatever people pay in taxes over the course of their working life isn't enough to pay for comfy pensions and rising healthcare costs. Besides, the people we keep letting in aren't exactly net contributors.

Over half of the greatest generations men were dead after WW2. Only the cucks and women were left, they outnumbered the surviving veterans and voted it in.

Its the same as how prohibition of alcohol got approved in the USA during WW1 when allot of men were away fighting.

Women in politics have consequences.

>He fell for the old people jew meme

HAHAHAHAHAHHA

>[2017] Several recent theories emphasize the negative effects of an aging population on economic growth, either because of the lower labor force participation and productivity of older workers or because aging will create an excess of savings over desired investment, leading to secular stagnation. We show that there is no such negative relationship in the data. If anything, countries experiencing more rapid aging have grown more in recent decades
economics.mit.edu/files/12536

But muh investment property value.

modern society is a pyramid scheme.
Simple thats why.

The world will not wait for you to get your shit together. Other will take your benefits and you will crumble down to 3rd world status.

Also won't these immigrants get old too and their pensions will have to be paid. And doesn't it cost alot to bring them here and why do they tend to be 3rd worlders? But yea Japan style is best. Especially with robots coming to take jobs low skileld labour might not be needed

Welfare state.

It's that simple.

Bunch of old boomers want their gibs, so they need a constant growth to pay down their debt that was accrued to pay for their retirements that they didn't save for (and didn't have kids to help them with). On top of that, they want the cheap labor that drives down prices and they want to drive up the prices on their property investments that they accrued cheaply.

Our nations are dyign and our standards of living (soon to be follow by our basic WAY of living) was sunk so a bunch of parasitic lazy greedy faggots could get a free ride.

For all their preaching about diversity and tolerance, they will retire to the suburbs in their nice white neighborhoods while the rest of us share space in their investment properties alongside Abdul, Change and Jamal and their 50 kids.

The lifestyle the Western BOOMERS are accustomed to is well protected - for them. Our standards of living for millenials, Gen X and further on down are massively lower than before.

The average Australian here in the 1970's could leave school at 16, get a union job working 35 hours a week, buy an inner city home, pay for a wife and 2.5 kids plus 4-6 weeks of holidays a year. They retired early, getting a government pension, with millions in assets that were snapped up in the sometimes tens of thousands.

Their kids and grandkids will NEVER own a home. They will be lucky to get a job that pays a living wage that pulls less than 50 hours a week, and they will have uncertain futures since they will be in debt for school (Boomers got it for free) and health care (Boomers got it for free) and facing mandatory retirement ages of 70 with no guarantee of social welfare (that Boomers are collecting).

There are always more brown people.

Multi-cultural/racial is best because it keeps society divided and competitive and stops the working class from unionizing.

3rd world immigrants don't even help with the boomer retirement thing, at least not in Europe. They have huge unemployment rates and if they work, it's always some low-income, low-skill work which is still a net drain because they consume more government services than what they pay in taxes. And also we already have on over-supply of low-skilled workforce anyway

I agree but first we would need to reinstate the family as the core block of society, with children being responsible for paying / taking care of their elders when they get old. This way we can slash welfare for the elderly, and not worry about the economical consequences of population decline (if it happens).

Burke warned us. Now we have to mop the mess that boomers left behind them.

The authors failed at basic logic. Correlation does not prove causality

>Why the fuck must we have constant growth? It seems to be the end of it all and not sustainable in the long run
Because otherwise we'd live in mud huts like niggers.
What amount of economic growth do you think it takes to go from mud huts to New York skyscrapers?

Yeah exactly, it's almost unfathomable. If we stop growing some other race is going to outgrow and eventually rule us.

Problem is there would be a major recession first, as banks collapse because people default on their housr loans. This causes liquidity problems with nearly all companies, which won't be able to pay each other and then their labourers. This eventually leads to major disorder and political instability.

The proper way would be to start hyperinflation, making all debts void; next the government seizes the banks and housing. Any second homes of people should be state property, all others will be sold for low amounts to their owners or renters.

Meanwhile a steady supply of food en necesarry goods should be maintained to prevent disorder. Only problem the jews ruling other countries won't allow this and will call for "action by the international community" so sanctions and destabilizing measures.

Yeah the have no education nor the capacity to get it

>Because otherwise we'd live in mud huts

No we wouldn't. Are you seriously argument that debt-fueled growth for it's own sake is good?

Keynes says print money.

Printing money requires constant growth.


Conspiracy Territory:
Colleges get more money from the government under the Keynes system of print and hand out. This is why the Austrian economics system is never discussed or taught in college.

I do not condone governments giving free money to friends like they do now, but debt was a revolutionary instrument without which it would have been impossible to reach even the level of sophistication we had 100 years ago.
Before that Capital just accumulated and wasn't reinvested because there was very little incentive to do that.
Offering to lend Capital to someone both allows the person without Capital to build a self sustaining business they couldn't build without it and the investing person to put his Capital to use in order to earn something for the risk.

You tell me how someone without any Capital (from a poor family for example) could build a business that requires to rent a place, buy machinery and to pay for employees.

>You tell me how someone without any Capital (from a poor family for example) could build a business that requires to rent a place, buy machinery and to pay for employees.
Btw, if you are some kind of dumb Marxist please don't tell me how you think it could be done.
I know already, someone's gonna give you for free because you're such a great guy and deserve it so much.

Dude, the west won the war. Plenty of good men lived on and they went on to have kids at twice the usual rate, offsetting any losses. The decline since then has simply been cultural and financial. America went full jew after WWII, took in shitskins, took to degeneracy, ended the gold standard, and here we are.

God this is depressing to know what we could have. A glut of jobs, an affordable housing market, no crime, no debt. We can have it, we just have to deal with these cocksucking millienials

Increase in growth basically means increase In production per person, which causes your living standards to go up.

Atleast if they are doing it right

If we are going to play this game nothing can be proven

>What would happen if we ditched keynesian

We did, in the fucking 1970s. That's how we got into this mess. Keynesianism costed everything and taxed accordingly. The problem is people assume you can cut the fuck out of the tax base and still provide keynesian level public services- you can't.

If you want the western world to become Africa tier then yeah , right now our goal is to keep the chinks at bay

>We need UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME because in the near future ROBOTS will create MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT because of ALL THE WORK THEY DO

>We need MASS IMMIGRATION because in the future there will be LOTS OF WORK BUT NOBODY AT ALL TO DO IT

pick one