I'm economically retarded, help me out here...

I'm economically retarded, help me out here. Is there any legitimate reason why states must have growing populations to be prosperous or is it all globalist bullshit? I know a declining population is shit because there aren't enough workers to support the retirees, but what's wrong with a stable population and an average of 2 kids a couple?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY
bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22952667
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

it is indeed bullshit

The European Middle Class first arose as a result of the widespread death caused by the bubonic plague, which increased the value of every single farmer still alive at the expense of the lords

Yea it's bullshit. If it weren't China and India wouldnt be a shit

it's not about being stable or growing. it's about how many people are in the working age population. stage 1 is stable and that country probably has a shit economy. if there was a country where people over 65 were culled they'd have a good economy and declining population

Noice, thanks.

So it's partly the growing life expectancy that's pushing this shit so much? If people can't reasonably be expected beyond 65-70 to keep working but live up to 100, what's to be done? Get more kids out of uni and into the workforce?

stationary looks like my penis tip

It's a socialist pyramid scheme.

The key is to not just keep them alive, the key is to keep them employable. So either genocide them or fix them with robotics or something.

It's a fucking ponzi-scheme that feeds the social security scam and is taught even in entry level college Geography courses over here.

debt. Debt means interest which means you must always pay back more than you borrow. The only way to do this is to increase GDP. The easiest way to increase GDP is to grow the population and split the debt burden between more people.

Only neolib shits care about infiite growth, which btw is impossible.

Fuck the future
Fuck the kike debt merchants
DEGROWTH NOW

if people are healthy enough to live to 100 you'd think they could at least work past fucking 65

>So it's partly the growing life expectancy that's pushing this shit so much? If people can't reasonably be expected beyond 65-70 to keep working but live up to 100, what's to be done? Get more kids out of uni and into the workforce?

Not even joking. You make it to 80 you're taken out back and shot and your body stripped for valuable trace elements. Unless you have millions of pounds in which case you pay 100x regular rent and are put in an encampment til you die. The insane rent covers the burden you put on society.

It's not that they're "healthy enough" to live to 100 in most cases, it's that modern medicine is advanced enough to keep them barely scraping on as a sliver of existence until they're 100.

Higher population means more people trying to get into work, which means more people buying consumer goods and more people paying tax, which can then be reinvested elsewhere.
t. Economics student

>which can then be reinvested elsewhere.

Such as debt repayment? In the UK, over 100% of tax reciepts are spent by the governemnt. Much of this is spending on people, be it bennies, welfare, health, education or wages. More people just increases gov spending. Your degree is an illusion. Economics is about justifying and rationalising the fucked up system we live in. Kill yourself.

Economist here, maybe I can help.

The 4 shapes you have in your pic are the first 4 stages of the Demographic transistion model. You need a growing population to ensure a large workforce, as they pay taxes and drive the economy.

Stage 1 of the DTM is absolute 3rd world shitholes, there are none of this tier left on the planet. The shape, with curved sides, larger at the bottom, curving inwards towards the top show how they have a MASSIVE birthrate, like of 6-7 kids per couple. But they also have minimal population growth because they have a large death rate. People dont live very long. Hence the tiny peak.

When countries enter stage 2, death rate falls, due to medicine, and the nation developing. There are very few countries in this stage I think. There may be a few african banana republics at this tier, but they are rare. Birth rate hasnt fallen yet, THIS CAUSES EXPLOSIVE POPULATION GROWTH.

Stage 3 is when birthrates fall in response to lower deathrates, as less kids and people are dying, couples have less kids. The population is still growing quickly, but slows down towards the end of this stage. Nigeria, ethiopia, most countries are here, mainly african and S.american countries here. China may even be stage 4 now.

Stage 4 is developed nations, UK, France, USA, etc. Birth rate narrowly exceeds death rate. Small population growth. Long life expectancy, making that shape wider at the top.

Stage 5 is... the end.... We are still trying to work out if it truly exists. This is where shit gets real bad. Feminism caused this stage. So few people having kids, the population declines, Japan and germany are in this stage, Wonder why germany is taking in so many migrants? Cause rapefugees make lots of ficki ficki kids, this keeps the economy going. The UK is only kept in this stage buy muzzies having 6-7 kids per couple.

What about people who've put away a retirement fund/have superannuation and just use medicare and shit like normal people?

This. Modern medicine has meant that people in their 60s now are often able to continue full time work, and frankly often have to. 70s is generally where they can't possibly continue whatever work they were doing and can't really find another job so they need to hang on for possibly decades until they need a nursing home.

This is Alex Jones tier conspiracy theory

>What about people who've put away a retirement fund/have superannuation and just use medicare and shit like normal people?

Nah sorry. Well. Maybe if we had zero immigration and there wasn't a housing shortage. Of course cunts would have to be incentivized to to use the womb they were born with. I..I think I've gone full Stalin.

You fucking moron, more people doesnt just increase govt spending, it increases the size of the economy, more demand for goods, more people in the workforce, who all pay taxes. This all drives the economy.

This is interesting, thanks. So here's the thing with stage 5 - it's unprecedented, and you say shit gets real bad unless you bring in the rapefugees to have a bazillion kids. Why can't the bad effects from declining population be mitigated through policy, or even using a recession to boost reproduction back to sustainability?

>super
mate that's our thing I don't think anyone else does it.

You know if shit hits the fan hard enough we go back to stage 1 right.

The bit about economics? If you want to learn about company books, running company and finance, you do business. There's a reason economics and business are seperate schools. Economics is basically just theory. And this theory is only useful for giving you the big words to dismiss the concerns of plebs like me. Honestly, it;s rung up from psychology. Just. It is not a science as you cannot make predictive statements from it nor is economic theory falsifiable/verifiable.

Let's look at some of the prevailing theorys.

>Austrian

Gobernment GIT OUT and stay get

>kenysian

lol just print more money. Bust and boom is good. FuckThePlebs

>MMT

TIPTOP kek. All money is government money. foreign trade is an illusion

The rest of it is just self-aggrandising 'theory'. The ones who called the crahs in 08 didn't do so because of said theory but because they were paid mega bucks to sit and watch the markers. A basic grasp of maths and enough time spent going over graphs and anyone could have predicted it.

it's bullshit welfarists. their social engineering doesn't work when they don't have enough plebs to pay for it.

On stage 5 there what's stopping nations from making being a mother a literal profession, shitting out as many babies as possible. Pay some bint with passable genes a good wage to pump out a kid every from 18-36, that's 18 kiddo's not considering twins/triplet horseshit.

Not exactly the most moral touch but what's stopping this being a thing? Is it just easier for them to import shitskins? Can't they see they'll have the same damn issues later down the track with them?

>more people doesnt just increase govt spending

>just

So you acknowledge that spending must increase. And despite a growing population for the last 20 years, the difference between takings and spending has been slipping further and further into the net loss side.

There are ways to stop the declining birthrates. Here are a few.

1. Increase child benefits.
2.Child tax credits-people pay lower taxes when they have a kid
3. Bring in fuck tonnes of 3rd world migrants.

We both know which one our govts chose. Declining population is just generally a bad thing, older people are a drain on the health system, social security,

Yeh But it would have to be fucking awful, not a nuclear war, it wouldnt be bad enough. Cataclysmic event would be needed, meteorite, or plague, the flu of 1918 didnt even come close.

Then why is it that many unis offer combined degrees in econ and management?

Do you even know what interest rates are? Printing more money and loaning it to the big banks and such causes them to make loans more, which helps grow the economy, and as a side effect causes inflation.

Admittedly we take it too far, in regards to printing money, but it makes the government look good, if we have 5% GDP growth per annum, it looks great. Look at inflation adjusted growth. Its what matters.

Some gubmint intervention is necessary, but ours does too much. Lower corporate tax rates, close loopholes.

Taxes can move money from creditors to debtors arbitrarily. Or they can just print money and decrease the real value of debt while the real value of wages stays the same.

Jews will scream bloody murder when governments do this to any meaningful extent, but it's quite easy.

>Stage 5 is... the end.

Not necessarily. Two choices. monopoly or some form of planned economy.

Growing population can be pain for Average Joe if employment does not grow as well.
More people + same amount or less jobs = lower wages.
That's why my parents (and rest of the boomers) were able to and could hop from job to job due to there being demand even for basic pleb jobs to be done which of course means employers got to compete with each other.

Retirees should pay for themselves by saving heir fucking money.

REEEEEEEEEEE BOOMERS FUCK OFF!!!!

I would hope that I wouldn't fucking being paying rent at age 65

If Japan killed its old people, I mean literally put a bullet in the head of anyone over the age of 80, they wouldn't need to take in one immigrant.

The reason why its bad isn't even economical, it's just common sense.

It's called the dependency ratio (pic related).
If there are too many people out of work - then taxes must be increased more and more and more on those that are working.

Japan's doubly fucked because people aren't dying from heart attacks in their 60s anymore where they get a quick swift death, but rather their brain slowly melts with dementia into their 90s during which they're still technically alive and have to consume hospital resources.

If there's a low population NOT working, then there can be a lower population that is.

It's that simple.

Growth requires increased sales
Increased sales requires increased production either of an existing product or a new product
If it is a new product you have to actually come up with a new product, this is hard and not certain to succeed
If it is not a new product you need to convince more people to buy it
Either you can find a new market (overseas), or can increase your current market share (marketing)

Population growth makes the last bit really fucking easy; more people buy more things and you just need to make more of them. It's a growth no brainer but it is by no means the only way to encourage growth.

This is the issue with democracy, when the government is only around for 5 years (idk how often u have elections is auz) why should they care about 30 years down the line? They wont be in power then. They are letting it be someone elses problem.

Paying some slag to pump out kids too quickly would increase pressure on the school system too much. We would need many more schools.
It is far easier to import shitskins, about 83% of the population wants "refugees". Call the shitskins that and we welcome that with open arms.

this

You can only print infinite money if you're sovereign and have your own currency. We can. You can't. But even if we do, the arab monarchs and Russian oligarchs will crash the housing market if we devalue our currency too much again crashing the economy. And so the cycle continues. And if you were paying attention in 08 to today, you'd realise the only people who suffered from the recession, in meaningful and lasting ways, were the plebs, not the elite who sold themselves as too big to fail.

This is all you need to know right here.

youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY

Spending is not the problem, it is the Cash inflow:cash outflow ratio. The govt doubling spending is no issue if the cash inflow from taxation has doubled too. Spending increasing is only because of the female vote. Women vote for
1. More welfare
2. Accepting more immigrants
3. More taxes on the wealthy
4. Larger government
5. And govt healthcare

Get rid of the woman vote things will get alot better.

Well this is becoming a vert real possibility.

>How do you prepare for a lifetime of renting?

bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22952667

As the gap between haves and have-nots grows, the idea of ownership for the have-nots becomes more and more a distant memory. Especially if we keep growing the population and relying on an over-inflated housing bubble (which necessitates a housing shortage).

OYY VEYYYY DONT PRINT YOUR OWN MONEY GOYIM, YOU DONT WANT TO BE ANTI-SEMITIC DO YOU?

Pretty much this.
The anti-kid culture most young whites have is causing this.
As people grow older and there isn't a big active workforce to mantain them and the economy the country is going to face some real problems.
Of course instead of adressing the problem correctly like doing campaigns to increase birthrate they decide to import people from totally different cultures, they of course increase the birthrate greatly but that isn't going to solve the problem, it's probably making it worse since ypung whites are going to say they dont need to have kids since they can easily be replaced by young ahmed and slowly ethnic germans become a minority.

Does capitalism need growth (assume the population stays the same)? Is there some element of fractional reserve banking that will wreak havoc unless the GDP grows (e.g., debts aren't paid)

Not paying denbts would make it harder to borrow as your credit rating would be fucked. Meaning ultimately you've not enough money for shit like state sector wages. Initially I thought austerity was a good idea, cause debt is clearly bad in most cases at the levels we're talking. But 6 years of austerity has only managed to cut the deficit by half. Meanwhile debt has increased by 600bn. This increase in debt additionally costs us like 10bn a year in debt interest.

The west is trapped. The elite are still wanting more though. But new money is rare in the west these days. Hard to be profitable over here. So they're looking east. In 50 years time, the east will be rinsed too. Standards of living will have improved (or China will have revolutioned again) so profit margins will be tighter. Then they'll move again.

BURNITALL

If you have millions of dollars then your not a burden on the system are you?

You are in the UK. You still take up houses in towns and cities that employees need more and likely use the NHS, roads, local council services. Besides, old people often have loads of extra needs. Having them all in the one place dedicated to them would make this easier.

What do you think caused this "anti-kid culture"?

Seeing their parents unsuccessful or even bad marriages and how it fucked them up. That and better education and contraceptives.

That and relations between males and females are at the worst they've been since ever.

More people = More debt = more "money".

The key distinction is that a wealthier economy does not mean a wealthier populace.
>If country A has 1000 people and $1000, that's $1 each.
>If Country B has 900 people and $950, the people of country B are richer than in country A, but their economy is also smaller.
When politicians justify something as "helping the economy", they aren't lying. Technically. Mass immigration is great for the economy. It's not great for the people though. In essence these politicians are advocating for

>Country C, which has 3000 people and $1500.

>If country A has 1000 people and $1000, that's $1 each.

You missed a bit.

The bottom 50% have $50 between them. The next 40% have $100 between them. The next 5% have $150 between them. The next 4% have $200 between them. And the top 1% have $500 between them. Crisis after crisis has re-enforced this disparity with more and more landing in fewer and fewer hands. This is why the elite are almost all neo-liberal.

This, I'm 22 with a reasonably large group of friends.

Not a single one of them has parents that still live together. One has parents who divorced and are now dating again, my parents split last year and now live apart, and most of my friends have step parents, in one case 4 stepdads across the last 10 years

Fuck off with your retarded MUH ONE PERCENT horseshit, I was giving an example.

Sure but your example completely missed out WHY the elite love neoliberal globalism.

Anyway. By all means, defend the elite for some ideological reasons but don't expect them to remember this sycophantism when it really bites in Australia.

Jesus, could you be more of an insufferable cunt?

Why not introduce staged taxation based on how many kids you've got?

Imaginary exaggerated numbers
>no kids = 50% tax
>one kid = 40% tax
>two kids = 30% tax
>three kids = 20% tax

You would spread this tax between the already existing taxes so it will incentivise people to have kids, rather than it being an extra penalty that nobody's interested in.
It would also stop at three kids to prevent overpopulation and to ensure that groups that already produce 6-7 kids won't benefit from making more.
Perhaps the tax could go up if you have four or more kids and exemptions made in case the third pregnancy produces twins, triplets, etc.

>articles are saying millions of jobs are going to be lost to machines
>refugees are needed
im not following

That might work in some countries, but in the US that would just mean more niggers.

I could try. This thread is asking why (((they))) are so committed to population growth. The answer. Growth pays the debt. Who wants debt? Those who profit from it.

they don't pay taxes to begin with though

I'd say a lot of things contributed to it.
But one of the main reasons its they want to live better wich they can easily attain it by not spending money on kids.

The hypothetical was introducing taxation on people with no kids.

You guys should try convince them to not have kids.
You could easily pretend to be a group of black activists saying you don't want to have kids until black dont face the discrimination they're subjected today.
Like they're doing with hillary on twitter
That shit would catch up with them fast.

If such a system were in place, you could increase the tax for families with four kids or more, and if the third pregnancy yields twins or triplets, you can exempt them from the increase in tax.

It wouldn't stop black idiots from making more children, but it would make it more appealing for the high iq population to have children in the first place. That alone is worth it for me.

>t. Asperger with no chance of gf or kids
>just to be clear

Each couple should have an average of 2.1 kids to maintain the population, because there are always a few people who never reproduce, like the ones who die relatively young or the people on Sup Forums.