@rougy

If you nationalize their economy you're essentially expropriating the domestic capital owned by these corporations. This will put an end to all other foreign direct investment for obvious reasons. That will result in the long term in much fewer jobs, innovation, and access to lower variety of products and technology.

In the long term and with good governance, there is no reason living standards wouldn't improve. Low wages versus no employment will push down birth rates, and will reduce poverty. Good use of the tax revenue that comes from this employment could improve education and infrastructure, and create a workforce which is then sufficient trained to take on more specialized and higher paying professions, with the infrastructure in place to support new industries.

Beyond incidents where executives have undue power over the board of directors, the fact is the reason these executives are paid such high salaries is because they are short in supply and have rare skills. Nobody likes the fact there are such outrageous salary disparities between different corporate tiers, but education and training are they key to bridging this gap rather than mandates which in a globalised world are simply counter-productive.

>> ^jwray:
Earth has enough people on it; population growth must stop.

I agree to some point and I see it happening. In all developed countries birth rate goes down and approaches or even goes below replacement values (e.g. negative growth in Italy, Japan for example). So once a country reaches a sufficient level of development, population growth stops and further growth is not necessary for improved prosperity, advances in automation and efficiency will make these countries richer.

Now if me manage to help the developing countries develop, they will also level off. Because developed countries just don't need a lot of children to support themselves later in life. This will happen over a period where their population still grows rapidly, though increasingly slower. UN projection estimate that the world population growth will flat-line around 9-12 billion people. So if the Earth can support this population, were fine for the future, a very bright future indeed. I'm convinced the Earth can support this number with increases in intensive farming and technology, so more food production per acre, and by changing our energy demand and energy sources. That is develop large scale fission or fusion processes to power our more efficient society.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That chart fails to show death rates in comparison with birth rates...Afghanistan is hardly a dense place yet has an astounding birth rate. As with all things, it isn't as simple as A) more people = better for all people, or B) Less people = better for all people...there will always be haves and have not's. However, having MORE people does tend to show higher levels of specialization. For instance, in the US, we have some of the largest and most varied amount of professional athletes.
I think it is better to understand birthrates/death rates in tandem WITH the national economic context they are in. Healthy economic condition would see peoples standards of living increase as more people are added to the equation. There is a fundamental limit on this which is mainly technological in nature (traffic,food,pollution,ect). In other words, you have to compare apples to apples and realize that correlation isn't causation. Zimbabwe would not be cured if their population was halved, their condition is much more a result of political bungling then shear population size. Really, I think population isn't an issue yet on a macro level...micro though it makes all the difference. The difference of the quality of life of someone that has 5 kids and 2 is undeniable. But when the 7 kids are all older, that is 7 people to potentially contribute to the world with all their gifts and talents.
Also, what birth and death rates don't tell you about total population is immigration. Look at the US for that, birth rates here are below 2 on average (last stat I saw was 1.98), but US has always had strong immigration tendencies and our population still continues to grow. Not taking into account migration is to not paint a complete picture of the world.


Aye all good points, i just wish there was more of an emphasis on birth control in these places that currently get food aid, not that i am against giving hungry children food, but just feeding a few of them doesn't solve the core problems (i'm not saying just birth control will either). The death rates per country (as you mentioned was missing) closely matches that of the birth rates given in my earlier link, the top 40 is pretty much all African nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate

I realise some work goes into education (in regards to use of condoms etc) in these countries with rampant poverty, but there is still much ignorance, in no small part because pretty much all the major religions oppose the use of condoms because of their view that chastity is "the only sure way of preventing the spread of HIV and Aids" (Pope Benedict). When ignorance of this magnitude is present in the world, bad things happen.
edit: just saw your name is Jesusfreak, hopefully you realise i dont mean to use the religious view on condoms as a personal attack.

>> ^ghark:
Except that, while those problems exist (which they will for the forseeable future) having more children does make it worse - having more children while you are poor certainly doesn't make poverty disappear, that's wishful thinking. Have you looked at the birth rates in the coutries most affected by poverty, hunger, AIDS, malaria etc?
The groupthink speaking is actually the people that think that donating money for food is making any long term difference, it warms the cockles of their heart because they think they did something good, and it feeds a hungry child for a month, but in the meantime that childs mother had 5 more babies, like in the Congo for example.


Between 300-800 years ago, and further back of course; Europe was in a similar situation in the pre-industrial setting. The only way to succeed is to have children, because kids are useful, they can be used to *insert use here*(from dealing with crops/work/etc). The other flip side is, when you have a high child/infant mortality rate you need to replace them. Having children doesn't make it worse, it's the only way to survive. If you want to wipe out a population, then not having children is the way to go.

And actually, then we're getting back into the positive population checks theory that was in limited traction at the time too. Positive population checks = famine/death/war/etc keep the peons/serfs/peasants in line for those at the top. Sound familiar? Many parts of the world that you're talking about are strikingly similar to everywhere within the last 1000 years.

Now it's not bad, that people want to donate money. Actually, that's not really group thing. There's no MOI factors there. And again with your second paragraph, refer to my first two. As with the future, and current situation you look to the past to see how it unfolds.

That chart fails to show death rates in comparison with birth rates...Afghanistan is hardly a dense place yet has an astounding birth rate. As with all things, it isn't as simple as A) more people = better for all people, or B) Less people = better for all people...there will always be haves and have not's. However, having MORE people does tend to show higher levels of specialization. For instance, in the US, we have some of the largest and most varied amount of professional athletes.

I think it is better to understand birthrates/death rates in tandem WITH the national economic context they are in. Healthy economic condition would see peoples standards of living increase as more people are added to the equation. There is a fundamental limit on this which is mainly technological in nature (traffic,food,pollution,ect). In other words, you have to compare apples to apples and realize that correlation isn't causation. Zimbabwe would not be cured if their population was halved, their condition is much more a result of political bungling then shear population size. Really, I think population isn't an issue yet on a macro level...micro though it makes all the difference. The difference of the quality of life of someone that has 5 kids and 2 is undeniable. But when the 7 kids are all older, that is 7 people to potentially contribute to the world with all their gifts and talents.

Also, what birth and death rates don't tell you about total population is immigration. Look at the US for that, birth rates here are below 2 on average (last stat I saw was 1.98), but US has always had strong immigration tendencies and our population still continues to grow. Not taking into account migration is to not paint a complete picture of the world.

>> ^rychan:
>> ^jwray:
Actually access to cheap contraception and abortion is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty everywhere on earth.
Same resources divided among more people = poverty.

Mostly false. More people = better economies of scale = better standards of living for everyone.
Do you think a company like Intel could exist without a first world economy with billions of people? How can they afford to invest 10's of billions of dollars and millions of man hours into infrastructure and research to create a next generation CPU? Because the world economy is big enough for them to make up their investments.
Do you think the NIH could distribute 10's of billions of dollars for medical research to extend and improve your life if we didn't have hundreds of millions of taxpayers?
The larger the world economy, the more specialists such as scientists and researchers you can support to benefit the entire world. The more amazing engineering projects you can undertake because the return on investment is higher. GPS, the Internet, etc etc... You could not enjoy the quality of life that you have now if the world population were 1 million people, regardless of how educated they might be and how trivial food and energy production might be (hint: neither would be trivial, because both enjoy economies of scale and both benefit from modern science).


So by your logic the countries with the highest birth rates should have the best standards of living in the world right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

Also, I dont argue that more people = better quality of life for some of the population, but that's looking at it from a macro scale, when you look more closely you'll see that the people benefitting from the additional population are not the poor, they are just providing cheap labour for the companies, and the people who use the resources are the ones getting the most benefit - hence why choice for them makes sense.

Yes, I have a friend who does work in African countries and birth rate mixed with poverty is a huuuuuge problem. It's not a blanket equation.. if the country is stricken with poverty then these people who are taught by religion that contraceptives are bad, and desire massive families are causing the conditions to worsen.

>> ^Mashiki:
>> ^jwray:
Actually access to cheap contraception and abortion is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty everywhere on earth.
Same resources divided among more people = poverty.

The issue with poverty isn't people. That's the groupthink speaking. It's the in general internationalization of some government structures(read despots, dictators, and other forms of absolute control), or people unwilling to work up. The same issue follows through with hunger and so forth. I really couldn't care one way or the other, but we're not running short on: Food(first time in human history), supplies(again a first), energy(well wtf), so what's the issue? Power, corruption, and the inability to crawl your way up from being a dirt farmer, or being kicked back down by someone.


Except that, while those problems exist (which they will for the forseeable future) having more children does make it worse - having more children while you are poor certainly doesn't make poverty disappear, that's wishful thinking. Have you looked at the birth rates in the coutries most affected by poverty, hunger, AIDS, malaria etc?

The groupthink speaking is actually the people that think that donating money for food is making any long term difference, it warms the cockles of their heart because they think they did something good, and it feeds a hungry child for a month, but in the meantime that childs mother had 5 more babies, like in the Congo for example.

Not really that worried about it, just found the video interesting

But yeah, I agree especially since overpopulation and high birth rates are related to economic prosperity, as more countries grow themselves out of poverty, global populations will grow at a slower rate and the problem will go away by itself. Hell, it's even already projected.

Issues that appear to be less important though, which require actual action rather than happening automatically and contradict the interests of corporations, like the ones you mentioned well yeah might as well give up hope on those, so you don't let yourself down

In reply to this comment by marinara:
ahh i know you're smart real smart but dont' worry about overpopulation. worry about aquifer loss in the midwest, loss of habitat resulting in species loss... even industrial chemicals causing buildups and knocking down the ecosystem.

the big things will take care of themselves so don't worry.

Quite so Psychologic. The life expectancy metrics are not reflective of the quality of US doctors, clinics, & hospitals. It has far more to do with choices of individuals regarding diet, sedentary lifestyle, and overindulgence (booze, food, smokes & drugs). Infant mortality is a strawman. When you look at the data, it is obvious the reason is America's far greater 'pre-term' birth rates which are riskier and result in higher mortality (duh) no matter how good the doctors are.

it only takes one person to qualify a country as having excellent health care.

You can rage at the conservative perspective as much as you like if it helps, but reality is what it is. Conservatives think that excellent health care equals excellent doctors, clinics, hospitals, & medicine. Neolibs think that excellent equals a socialized entitlement.

Based on WHAT?

Based on the fact that our health care is excellent. The numbers you cite have very little to do with our health care providers being somehow 'inferior' to European counterparts. They are the result of the poor choices of our citizens. In fact, American doctors are superior at identifying and quickly beginning the treatment of patient conditions. The problem is the PEOPLE want to be 'healthy' while at the same time they are smoking, drinking, drugging up, screwing around, driving stupidly, laying out in the sun, pigging out on junk food, and not exercising.

Definition of inferior

WHO is weighted strongly towards issues that are more political and economic than they are related to actual quality of health care. Regardless, I take issue with the loaded, inaccurate use of 'inferior'. That somehow implies that the US system is full of incompetent doctors, crappy clinics, lousy hospitals, and poor quality medicine. That's simply not true.

Your beef is not that we have 'bad health care'. Your beef is that we haven't scored higher on the WHO's artifically weighted list. We're #37. Oh NO! Our system is 'terrible!'... Uh - no... Just... No. You keep bragging how much better Canada is. They're #30. That's a REALLY big difference, eh hoser? :eyeroll: Just beceause the US is not #1 on the WHO's list doesn't mean our system is 'inferior'. It means: 1. That the WHO's metrics are skewed... 2. US citizens need to stop having thier kids early just to suit thier careers... 3. Americans need to quit being hedonistic, bacchinal, sluggards and start eating less & exercising more.

"But we spend SO MUCH MORE MONEY...!" This is another strawman. Americans spend more per capita on EVERYTHING. Food. Cosmetics. Widgits. Soap. Computer games. Movies. You name it - the US spends more per capita. You think maybe - just maybe - that our spending per capita on health care has more to do with our macroeconomics?

Ideal population growth is as close to 0% as you can.

It's not complicated : Birth Rates - Death rates should = 0%~

That says nothing about a current ideal size, just the fact that sustainable growth is an oxymoron, and if we're only dying so fast, we should only ideally be born so fast. The ideal size is calculated from a carrying capacity, which can be calculated when resources are finite and growth rates/consumption rates are known (which is why the census is important data, republicans).

Carrying capacity can change as we find new improved ways to stretch our finite resources, and it's best if processes are implemented in a timely manner with forethought. This requires science and basic day to day efforts.

The idea is simple but it is obviously very difficult to realize in reality... the problem can also turn into one of underpopulation.

balance is the key. education keeps you too busy to make babies. go to school.

The pastor happens to be right.islam is a religion of hate,intolerance,oppression and violence to non muslims AND muslims (and yes,i have studied their texts).They have no interest in "building bridges"; all they are interested in, and have stated this over and over again, is the islamification of the world. And, as gadaffi rightly pointed out, their rising birth rate compared to our diminishing one, will facilitate their goal in the not too distant future(based on current birth rates Germany will be majority muslim in 30 years).I am NOT a racist, simply a man, an agnostic man, concerned for the future of his children and way of life. Any religion which DEMANDS either cringing submission,or death,is a palpable threat; for us to ignore it would be a crime our descendants will find hard to forgive. Wake up, and stop being so damn tolerant to their grievances whilst, in return, they show non for ours.

Oh god would you get over yourselves, just because a bunch of idiots are out there asking for Sharia law you somehow extrapolate it to mean that all people of that faith are the same, they are just as stupid as evangelical Christians. You take the stances of extremists of the religion, broadcast them as being representative of them all and then bitch about how no moderate voices make themselves heard even though they are there everyone from Tariq Ramadan, Imam Qazwini, Hamza Yusuf and Zarqa Nawaz .

Do you people even know what Geert Wilders stands for? He doesn't really have any beef towards Islam, he simply uses it as a political platform to attack the real elephant in the room no one mentions which is IMMIGRATION.

In the US its about Mexicans stealing jobs and weighing down the tax system because they also mostly happen to be Christians, in the Europe the debate is that they are all Muslims and are trying to steal our freedoms. Wilder's own claim is that Europeans will be 'diluted' culturally, wording that is not far from early imposition of segregation in World War 2. Only then Jews stole your money and polluted your minds.

Which is frankly stupid give that European birth rates are so low then need labor injections in the form of immigration to allow for continued Economic growth in the long run.

Netherlands is full of Moroccans, Algerians and Turks, who Wilders wants to be expelled, since alot of them are Muslim it fits in with his political stance.

Fitna was not created to create dialog or public debate, it is simply made to instigate violent confrontations between both parties, that is not public debate, that is simply creation of tension between parties. This is the same argument behind why books like Mein Kampf and the Elder Protocols of Zion are banned around Europe. Wilders himself has stated countless times that the Qu'ran needs to be ripped up, how would Christians feel about those kinds of allegations brought on by any Arab or Asian nation?

If what Fitna presents is factual, the clear logical conclusion is that all believers of Islam are thus extremist, but this flies in the face of large non violent Islamic denominations in the US, greater Europe, countries in the GCC and South East Asia.

As for the claims of Europe being a "Western society which has laid the foundation for the most equitable and enlightened era in human history." I think you need to read about colonialism, World War 2, Falkland Islands, Bosnian War and the involvement in Iraq.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Can anyone explain the difference between Madoff's scheme and Social Security?
One is private. The other is run by the government. Both can only exist because of idiots who think they actually work.

I upvoted not because I agree, but because I appreciate genuine wit when I see it.


Psychologic, you're right on the first two similarities, but not the third. In a classic Ponzi scheme, you promise a ridiculous rate of return (15% say), indefinitely. You then pay those returns on the deposits of new people coming into the system. Eventually, the amount of new investments will drop below what you need to pay your existing commitments (which has been growing at an exponential rate), or people start trying to withdraw their investment, and that's when the whole thing explodes.

With Social Security, the commitments aren't indefinite and compounding -- they're at a fixed level, and end when the recipient dies -- and there are always new people "coming into the system" by immigration and birth (and the whole getting a job thing). On top of that, you can generally predict that taxpayers stay taxpayers through most of their working lifespan, and that birth/death rates won't have wild swings (no 500% birth rates are likely), so you have a general idea about what your inputs are going to be over long periods of time.

It's true that declining birth rates and longer life expectancies can require retooling the tax rates and benefit levels to maintain solvency, but there's nothing that makes it physically impossible to balance, just politically difficult (because Democrats don't want to cut benefits, and Republicans don't want to raise taxes). Economic growth usually takes up the slack on this, but now that the baby boomers are retiring, and with wages seeming to have leveled off, it looks like we're going to have to make some hard choices. But it's not the inevitable self-destruction of a Ponzi scheme by any stretch.

So, aside from intent, there are some major functional differences between SS and a Ponzi scheme, even if it they're both pay-go systems at the core.

>> ^RedSky:
What does marriage, in it's current context as a figurative and binding resolution of love and commitment have to do with procreation though? If you want to promote population growth then by all means provide tax credits to responsible child bearing couples.


I agree with you, the exclusivity of the concept of marriage to hetero couples doesn't affect reproduction rates. It's the financial incentives associated with it that affect responsible couples' ability to have kids, and increase the chance of kids being raised responsibly in general.

Not to mention birth rates have far less to do with whether couples tie the knot or not (ahaha), as negatively in relation with affluence and living standards, and cultural influences among many others factors.

>> ^jwray:
A country's power relative to other countries may be correlated with population, but the quality of life of the individuals in that country tends to increase dramatically when the fertility rate drops.


As RedSky was saying, affluent people or people with high living standards tend to procreate less than those living in poor conditions. Which comes first, increase in quality of life or decline in birth rate? I think quality of life increase comes first, because the more affluent societies seem to be the ones that start seeing negative growth rates.