Looks like Germany's economy is failing to grow with record low inflation. Germany, the world's No.2 exporter after China, is one of Europe's strongest economies. Yet, its economy has lost a lot of steam this year, possibly due to a number of reasons, including the entire downturn of the Eurozone and the current Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Do you think Germany will fall into the same economic trap as Japan did?
Are Germany's economic fundamentals designed better than Japan's?
This article originally appeared in Business Insider.
Three things have happened in the last 48 hours that tell you a lot about the state of the German economy:
Inflation and GDP figures were confirmed. Germany grew by 0.1 percent in the third quarter, with inflation of 0.8 percent in October. German politicians have negotiated “schwarze null,” the first balanced budget for the country since the 1960s. Jens Weidmann, the president of Germany’s Bundesbank, played down the idea of the European Central Bank buying sovereign bonds (usually described as quantitative easing). These are all microcosms of the problems facing Germany. Growth and inflation are at very low levels, politicians (and voters) are extremely reluctant to pursue fiscal stimulus, and Germany’s monetary policy representatives are some of Europe’s most hawkish.
It’s easy to see where this is going. A relatively aging population, low inflation, low growth, and a political climate that doesn’t really seem that unhappy with any of this is precisely what happened to Japan in its lost decade (or two).
It’s easy to get wrapped up in the fact that Japan saw deflation during this period. Germany might not see that, but inflation and real growth combined, known as nominal growth, looks set to be extremely low, just like it was for Japan.
Chris Scicluna and Robert Kuenzel at Daiwa Capital Markets have some policies that might help fend off the German economy’s slump.
Here are Kuenzel and Scicluna’s policy prescriptions:
Fiscal stimulus: Germany’s budget is now practically balanced. But it’s got room within the EU’s fairly strict rules to run a deficit of up to 3 percent of GDP. Borrowing costs for the country are practically nonexistent, so it’s hard to see downsides to a little loosening here. More public investment: Thankfully, Germany has a lot of things to spend a potential stimulus on. The IMF itself has flagged up the declining quality of Germany’s famous infrastructure, so the stimulus would also have its own merits. Cut taxes: Building roads and bridges and fixing ports takes a while, and the effects are spread over a long period of time. If you want to boost German spending soon, tax cuts are the way to go about it. Structural reform: Germany’s economic reforms in the early 2000s are now lauded as an example to other nations, but it has actually slipped a little. Energy policy is in a mess after Angela Merkel’s 2011 nuclear moratorium, and with the population aging, Scicluna and Kuenzel say a decision to cut retirement ages in some sectors is “plain perverse.” If that list sounds familiar, that’s because it’s not unlike Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s three arrows, with some public investment thrown in. There’s no monetary arm, because German monetary policy is controlled by the ECB (although Germany policymakers could stop arguing against easing).
Skeptics could reasonably argue that both Japan and Germany have a problem that can’t be solved by monetary or fiscal easing: that it’s just the standard for an aging, highly productive, and advanced economy. But if the Japanese experience has taught us anything so far, it’s that there’s very little harm in trying.
But it took 20 years for Japan to get Shinzo Abe and Haruhiko Kuroda as Japanese PM and Bank of Japan governor. Given the attitudes of many Germans, it might take just as long to get their own radicals.
See also: Germany Just Avoided Recession by a Hair
In my opinion economic theories about growth is becoming less and less relevant as we near the end of the industrial age.
"Skeptics could reasonably argue that both Japan and Germany have a problem that can’t be solved by monetary or fiscal easing: that it’s just the standard for an aging, highly productive, and advanced economy."
Aging is a double blow not because people retire which drains funds and stops taxes but most of all because in the age of robotics most of those jobs are not replaced (which economists doesn't seem to be able to get into their heads).
The fact is that we are rather quickly moving into a state where humans need not apply for employment.
In the basic context of capitalism this means that supply is increasing while demand is decreasing, a slowdown in growth is thus to be expected and there's nothing higher retirement age or lower taxes can do about in the long run.
There's also a high focus on globalism but that ship has sailed. It doesn't matter if jobs used to move to China because moving production is already becoming unnecessary, lower wages means nothing when you don't have to pay robots.
Western society should focus on alternate ways to boost demand and most likely they will involve convincing the 1 % that their taxes needs to be raised in proportion to the gains they do with reducing labor costs and that money has to be redistributed to common people because otherwise demand will tank in the (not so) long run and not just in Germany or Japan but everywhere.
So are we predicting mass suicides when people will no longer have jobs and robots will just be used for corporate profits?
Robotics may be implemented in manufacturing as of present but we're still a long way away before they can take over jobs like sales and even routine jobs.
For example, advanced countries still have shop assistants when we have the technology to deploy robots to take over these jobs. However robots can not (yet) give customer service, and if they do, it's very limited and not enough to satisfy the average consumer.
Growth is of huge relevance today than ever. Countries are competing with eachother over resources and economic output. That's how a country's economy and thus standard of living grows.
Japan is struggling because it's GDP just dropped by 7.1%, and it's economy is actually smaller than it was 20 years ago. Most analysts predict that Japan will no longer grow but just stagnate or maintain its current level. Some analysts are fearing the same for Germany, where recently exports have dropped by a large margin and the country is aging quite fast as well.
On November 15 2014 18:10 oBlade wrote: And I wonder how does this new evidence affect your outlook on the economy of a unified Korea, Auto?
On November 15 2014 18:10 oBlade wrote: And I wonder how does this new evidence affect your outlook on the economy of a unified Korea, Auto?
A unified Korea would be one of the most competitive economies in the world if economic policies are in line with South Korea's. Goldman Sachs predicts that its GDP would surpass Japan by 2045 and that's not even taking into account the $16 trillion+ USD in mineral wealth that North Korea has.
The reason why Goldman Sachs predicts this is because North Korea has a high fertility rate, much higher than neighboring East Asian nations. A higher fertility rate would boost the population of unified Korea to about 80 million, with a high proportion of young people, and thus a larger working population which would be sustained for at least a few decades depending on the fertility rate of a unified Korea.
The economic cost of reunification stands at about $1 trillion USD as a high-range estimate. Korea's economy would take a large hit for the first couple of years and then grow rapidly for the next few decades. Hyundai would likely become top 1-3 automaker in the world with a huge boost in production, more affordable steel and other metals from North Korea's abundant mineral resources. Also the recent speculation of North Korea having one of the world's largest oil reserves may enable unified Korea to become one of the largest oil exporters.
However if a unified Korea does not learn from Japan, then it will fall into the same trap of low/stagnant growth, low birth rates and deflation. Actually, South Korea is doing worse than Japan in terms of fertility rates but better than them in birth rates (due to the fact that Japan's fertility rates were already low by the 1970s, whereas South Korea's fertility rate only became low in the late 1990s/2000s).
South Korea is also falling into a massive trap of an extremely low birth rate. It's very surprising actually since South Korea does not even have a GDP per capita of $30,000 in nominal terms, but it's fertility rate is one of the world's lowest. I'm not sure what's happening in South Korea, but I think the cost of marriage and raising children is out of control there.
Therefore, if I was the president of South Korea, I would make sure the fertility rate is at least 1.5 births per woman. Even then, 1.5 births per woman is still very low and clearly not enough to sustain the population of any developed country. South Korea has a fertility rate of 1.18 births per woman, lower than that of Japan. This is extremely worrying as this means South Korea may become the fastest aging country ever recorded if this trend is not fixed right now.
On November 15 2014 18:13 AutoEngineer wrote: So are we predicting mass suicides when people will no longer have jobs and robots will just be used for corporate profits?
Robotics may be implemented in manufacturing as of present but we're still a long way away before they can take over jobs like sales and even routine jobs.
For example, advanced countries still have shop assistants when we have the technology to deploy robots to take over these jobs. However robots can not (yet) give customer service, and if they do, it's very limited and not enough to satisfy the average consumer.
Growth is of huge relevance today than ever. Countries are competing with eachother over resources and economic output. That's how a country's economy and thus standard of living grows.
Japan is struggling because it's GDP just dropped by 7.1%, and it's economy is actually smaller than it was 20 years ago. Most analysts predict that Japan will no longer grow but just stagnate or maintain its current level. Some analysts are fearing the same for Germany, where recently exports have dropped by a large margin and the country is aging quite fast as well.
Check the link I provided, it's a short and very good introduction to the subject. Most people think robots can only be used for manufacturing (IE that we are still in the industrial age) but it's not true anymore and robotics are advancing very rapidly. As an easy example transport is still the largest employment sector in industrialized nations and we know that robots can do that better than humans already. In a personal example my girlfriend worked in a a large brewery 2 years ago that fired all warehouseworkers/truckdrivers and exchanged them for robotic trucks and one shift supervisor.
So do I think robotics will result in some dystopian future? No, I don't. Progress is inherently a good thing. I do however think it will result in some birth pains initially and yes high unemployment is related to increased suicide rates. However democracy as a system has a remarkable ability to deal with these problems. Just as no capitalistic society can deal with 40-45 % unemployment rates (when all menial and easily replaceable jobs are gone) a democratic society won't stand for it and will reform accordingly.
We will have to stop giving people merit and status in society based of the work they do which is the central focus of today since the ability to work will be meaningless for almost half of the population and instead view worth as an intrinsic human value. I think it will happen gradually and the government will have to restructure the tax plans (again you can't tax work as your primary income when no one works) and it will redistribute with made up jobs of 4-6 hours a workday to keep people feeling as a part of the community.
An alternate way of doing it would to simply take a % of all companies shares and give them to the public as part of a national (or international) fund which also redistributes a base level of income.
If you'd like to be radical on a global level the absolutely best way of dealing with a new age would probably be to simply create an international organisation which DNA tests everyone and gives people a negative child support allowance (IE the less kids you have the more cash you get). Taking care of old people is no problem with robots helping us and even with sharp negative growth rates for a while the massive surge in demand from uplifting the third world easily compensates for a shrinking population while long term population planning aiming for a peak at about 5-6 billion people would secure resources for everyone in the future.
However if you look at history from a more reasonable standpoint all this conjecture is pretty pointless because how progress happens is impossible to predict except for that it does always happen.
Yeah Japan and Germany are similar but I think you forgot their most important point in common which is that their workers are paid badly in general and I think that's the main reason why they don't see inflation. Germany is stuck in its monetarist policy
Yes call me a socialist if you want but imo the power to consume is the main motor of growth and yes the politics of Japan failed because their society is too conservative, too malthusian.
On November 15 2014 19:49 ETisME wrote: There is a theory that the Japan economy isn't a bad one, low maintainable deflation is not bad and that it is the next stage of economy development.
Well that "theory" doesn't make any sense. It sounds like some pro-communist columnist wrote it.
The whole reason why developed economies need to grow is to maintain competitiveness.
To decrease competitiveness is like national suicide, as people will be out of jobs and there will be no drive to work.
On November 15 2014 20:08 Acertos wrote: Yeah Japan and Germany are similar but I think you forgot their most important point in common which is that their workers are paid badly in general and I think that's the main reason why they don't see inflation. Germany is stuck in its monetarist policy
Yes call me a socialist if you want but imo the power to consume is the main motor of growth and yes the politics of Japan failed because their society is too conservative, too malthusian.
I thought German workers were paid better than Japanese?
Japanese real wages have actually decreased this year while deflation is now inflation. However, inflation is still anemic at barely above 1% when the goal is 2%+.
On November 15 2014 19:49 ETisME wrote: There is a theory that the Japan economy isn't a bad one, low maintainable deflation is not bad and that it is the next stage of economy development.
Well that "theory" doesn't make any sense. It sounds like some pro-communist columnist wrote it.
The whole reason why developed economies need to grow is to maintain competitiveness.
To decrease competitiveness is like national suicide, as people will be out of jobs and there will be no drive to work.
On November 15 2014 20:08 Acertos wrote: Yeah Japan and Germany are similar but I think you forgot their most important point in common which is that their workers are paid badly in general and I think that's the main reason why they don't see inflation. Germany is stuck in its monetarist policy
Yes call me a socialist if you want but imo the power to consume is the main motor of growth and yes the politics of Japan failed because their society is too conservative, too malthusian.
I thought German workers were paid better than Japanese?
Japanese real wages have actually decreased this year while deflation is now inflation. However, inflation is still anemic at barely above 1% when the goal is 2%+.
The theory makes perfect sense. Developed economies needs to grow to maintain competitiveness but they can't because growth is limited by both a competition for resources and an increase in efficiency. If we increase production efficiency either by lowering wages or increased automation we get decreased demand which inhibits growth.
Your perfectly right that a decrease in competitive power would result in national suicide however because all countries are currently involved in a race to the bottom. But only as of now. Were heading towards a point where the primary determinant for supply will be resource cost instead of labor costs which will probably stop this race. When outsourcing production becomes meaningless because labor costs have equalized/humans need not apply to any production then other factors will determine where you choose to produce your goods.
Depends on how you see growth? Historically civilization advances because of increases in technology which makes workers more efficient which affords specialization. This is amplified by the fact that the bigger your nation is the more specialized your niche workers can become. Technology drives growth and growth drives technology because you have more people working on it. The modern age has more or less been a pyramid scheme where the new generations have always needed to be bigger to keep things running.
But say you have a stagnant society of 10 people. These 10 people all buy item A for all of the GDP. A new invention occurs which means item A now only costs half of what it used to. Those 10 people will now buy item A and can also afford item B. But in economic terms there has been no growth in this society even though people now have more stuff.
You don't need growth (either in people or in economical terms) for a civilization to advance anymore because we have reached a point where our tools are getting so advanced that it matters very little if you have 1 worker doing something or 10.
Its all because of lack of innovation due to government regulations. I mean you can't even piss these days without government telling you which toilet to use and how much water to flush.
There you have the bureaucrats striking again in Europe banning various hair dryers, putting 60% carbon tax on air companies, putting ridiculous farming and food production regulations that are reducing efficiency in production.
Not to mention all the car regulations that pretty much restrict car design to what we know as cars for 100 years. I mean if a company wanted to develop a significantly different vehicle they'll have all sort of trouble getting it on the road, the government will kill it.
So we have massive stagnation due to lack of innovation due to too much government regulations and super high taxes. We can't expect risk taking and new stuff tried when you are forced to pay 40% and more of your income in taxes and you have additional 20% of your income going to comply with absurd amount of regulations.
On November 16 2014 06:46 BillGates wrote: Its all because of lack of innovation due to government regulations. I mean you can't even piss these days without government telling you which toilet to use and how much water to flush.
There you have the bureaucrats striking again in Europe banning various hair dryers, putting 60% carbon tax on air companies, putting ridiculous farming and food production regulations that are reducing efficiency in production.
Not to mention all the car regulations that pretty much restrict car design to what we know as cars for 100 years. I mean if a company wanted to develop a significantly different vehicle they'll have all sort of trouble getting it on the road, the government will kill it.
So we have massive stagnation due to lack of innovation due to too much government regulations and super high taxes. We can't expect risk taking and new stuff tried when you are forced to pay 40% and more of your income in taxes and you have additional 20% of your income going to comply with absurd amount of regulations.
Yet...European countries (and Japan) have among the highest % of gdp ppp into research and development.
On November 15 2014 19:49 ETisME wrote: There is a theory that the Japan economy isn't a bad one, low maintainable deflation is not bad and that it is the next stage of economy development.
they've been maintaining it for decades. they don't seem to like it too much
On November 16 2014 06:46 BillGates wrote: Its all because of lack of innovation due to government regulations. I mean you can't even piss these days without government telling you which toilet to use and how much water to flush.
There you have the bureaucrats striking again in Europe banning various hair dryers, putting 60% carbon tax on air companies, putting ridiculous farming and food production regulations that are reducing efficiency in production.
Not to mention all the car regulations that pretty much restrict car design to what we know as cars for 100 years. I mean if a company wanted to develop a significantly different vehicle they'll have all sort of trouble getting it on the road, the government will kill it.
So we have massive stagnation due to lack of innovation due to too much government regulations and super high taxes. We can't expect risk taking and new stuff tried when you are forced to pay 40% and more of your income in taxes and you have additional 20% of your income going to comply with absurd amount of regulations.
Yet...European countries (and Japan) have among the highest % of gdp ppp into research and development.
Of course. Guess which part of the world actually comes up with high-quality products, and which part of the world is seemingly limited to creating cheap knock-offs.
The developed world has the know-how, the developing world has the labour force. This creates some "problems": 1) manufacturing creates much more economic growth than r&d; 2) r&d requires the state to invest in a highly educated workforce whereas anyone can work on an assembly line regardless of education level.
On the whole stagnation is inevitable. It is impossible to have unlimited growth on a planet with limited resources (something many economists are strangely reluctant to come to terms with).
On November 15 2014 20:52 Unentschieden wrote: That raises an interesting question: Can we live without growth?
Nope. Unless we restructure our society, a collapse is inevitable. It'll be slow, but it'll happen.
As this is exactly what needs to happen. Yes, we will have to live a wonderful life withouth permanent (economic, population, energy demand,...) growth some time in the future. The race for higher and higher standards of living also has to be diverted into a different direction, more to the question what the fundamentals of happiness are instead of what the next things to consume/buy/own are. Questions of fairness between global south and global north have to be asked and answered of course but fundamentally we cannot pose the question how we restructure OUR society, rather how we can build a global society of fairness and peace.
As long as growth of wealth, happiness or whatnot, let's call it wellbeing, of one society will come at the cost of the other's wellbeing or nature, living will never be sustainable (based on current knowledge).
On the topic: aeging population might be a problem if the government continues to obey xenophobic tendencies and scapegoatism of parts of the german socienty and does not finally accept that it is an immigration-dependent country. Crashing economy I can hardly evaluate. But from my point of view the system is sick in itself and alternatives to the consumerist society have to be found anyway. And as with climate change, the hotter it gets the more people will (try to) find solutions.
The Sustainable Development Commission (UK) published a report called: "Prosperity without growth - the transition to a sustainable economy" In case you're interested in some thoughts you can access it here.
Japan didn't fall in a trap the past 20 years,japan is starting to fall into a trap right now with abenomics. Its the same trap the usa has been in since about 2000. A trap that will inevitably lead to a global crash far worse then 2008.
Wow, the Japanese economy just contracted 1.6%, way off expectations for a 2.1% growth. Technically speaking, the Japanese economy is in a recession, having contracted 7.1% in the 2nd quarter and now 1.6% in the 3rd quarter. I calculated the official GDP figure for Japan to be around $4.5 trillion USD, from its peak level of $5.9 trillion USD a few years ago. So the Japanese economy has lost $1.4 trillion USD in the past few years.
I think Abe will need to postpone the tax raise in October 2015, a decision he has to make soon.
If he does decide to postpone this, then Abenomics will be a complete failure. So there are two choices: either stick with Abenomics if this is thought to be a good long term economic plan or shift away from Abenomics. It's a tough choice and I think Abe will call elections early and postpone the October 2015 tax raise so that he can gain more political support.
I think Germany may fall into the same recession trend unless Germany's car exports start to do better. Right now, German car sales are at an unprecedented low, falling unexpectedly this year. Germany makes more cars in Germany than it does overseas, so falling German car sales is not good news.
For Japan, it's a mixed story. Most Japanese cars are made in overseas countries like Thailand, so car exports are not really a problem for them. Japan's problem is a problem of domestic demand, having the most aged population in the world (currently >25% of Japanese are over 65 years old) and a conservative mindset which is xenophobic and anti-immigration. Clearly, if Japan opens its borders to immigration, it would help stem the rapid population decline and boost domestic demand. Now I'm not one of those pro-multiculturalists, but Japan is by far the most xenophobic nation.
UPDATE: The April-June GDP figures has been re-adjusted to -7.3%, worse than the -7.1% initially estimated.
low inflation has always been the goal of german politics because of the rampant inflation that took place in germany in the 1920s
if a german party would come out and say "we want higher inflation" the outcry in the media and among voters would be huge.
and really that article asks members of a hedge fund what germany should do to "fix" our economy and the first thing you hear is loan more money, yea who would have thought they would say that.
germany has always had close trade relation ships with Russia for decades. The new embargoes are the only reason the numbers are this low.
(1) the people hardly rely on internet to buy things. it's all B&M for them, which allows local shops to charge rip-off prices (i lived near one)
(2) there is no laws against housing in your own shop, so most shopowners don't lose rent for operating their business (since its their home rent). This means if the items are overpriced, owners can afford to not lower it
On November 15 2014 18:22 Snotling wrote: All economies have to develop beyond growth anyway at some point, its not like we live in a limitless system.
That's not how stocks and shareholders think companies work.
On November 17 2014 09:38 AutoEngineer wrote: Wow, the Japanese economy just contracted 1.6%, way off expectations for a 2.1% growth. Technically speaking, the Japanese economy is in a recession, having contracted 7.1% in the 2nd quarter and now 1.6% in the 3rd quarter. I calculated the official GDP figure for Japan to be around $4.5 trillion USD, from its peak level of $5.9 trillion USD a few years ago. So the Japanese economy has lost $1.4 trillion USD in the past few years.
I think Abe will need to postpone the tax raise in October 2015, a decision he has to make soon.
If he does decide to postpone this, then Abenomics will be a complete failure. So there are two choices: either stick with Abenomics if this is thought to be a good long term economic plan or shift away from Abenomics. It's a tough choice and I think Abe will call elections early and postpone the October 2015 tax raise so that he can gain more political support.
I think Germany may fall into the same recession trend unless Germany's car exports start to do better. Right now, German car sales are at an unprecedented low, falling unexpectedly this year. Germany makes more cars in Germany than it does overseas, so falling German car sales is not good news.
For Japan, it's a mixed story. Most Japanese cars are made in overseas countries like Thailand, so car exports are not really a problem for them. Japan's problem is a problem of domestic demand, having the most aged population in the world (currently >25% of Japanese are over 65 years old) and a conservative mindset which is xenophobic and anti-immigration. Clearly, if Japan opens its borders to immigration, it would help stem the rapid population decline and boost domestic demand. Now I'm not one of those pro-multiculturalists, but Japan is by far the most xenophobic nation.
UPDATE: The April-June GDP figures has been re-adjusted to -7.3%, worse than the -7.1% initially estimated.
I can agree with most of your qualitative conclusions, although using motor vehicles as a proxy seems a bit of a stretch. There are other issues with your analysis.
Your figures are a bit misleading, given how you have worded it. The contraction was 1.8% in the June quarter and 0.4% in the September quarter, after seasonal adjustments. The cumulative contraction over the two quarters was about 2.3%.
You gave an annualised figure for both quarters - which is how much the economy would contract if this negative growth rate was carried forward for an entire year, which is unlikely (and has not yet happened).
Your calculation for Japanese GDP using USD is also highly questionable. The Japanese yen has been weakening against all major currencies (especially the USD) in the last two years, owing to large-scale quantitative easing by the Bank of Japan and the withdrawal of unconventional stimulus by the US Federal Reserve. This means that the change in Japanese GDP in nominal USD terms do not accurately reflect growth in real output in the economy - in fact it understates it. The economy has grown since the end of the 2009 recession, and has certainly not lost 20% of its output. You need to strip out the exchange rate effect, so best to do the comparison in yen terms.
On November 17 2014 09:38 AutoEngineer wrote: Wow, the Japanese economy just contracted 1.6%, way off expectations for a 2.1% growth. Technically speaking, the Japanese economy is in a recession, having contracted 7.1% in the 2nd quarter and now 1.6% in the 3rd quarter. I calculated the official GDP figure for Japan to be around $4.5 trillion USD, from its peak level of $5.9 trillion USD a few years ago. So the Japanese economy has lost $1.4 trillion USD in the past few years.
I think Abe will need to postpone the tax raise in October 2015, a decision he has to make soon.
If he does decide to postpone this, then Abenomics will be a complete failure. So there are two choices: either stick with Abenomics if this is thought to be a good long term economic plan or shift away from Abenomics. It's a tough choice and I think Abe will call elections early and postpone the October 2015 tax raise so that he can gain more political support.
I think Germany may fall into the same recession trend unless Germany's car exports start to do better. Right now, German car sales are at an unprecedented low, falling unexpectedly this year. Germany makes more cars in Germany than it does overseas, so falling German car sales is not good news.
For Japan, it's a mixed story. Most Japanese cars are made in overseas countries like Thailand, so car exports are not really a problem for them. Japan's problem is a problem of domestic demand, having the most aged population in the world (currently >25% of Japanese are over 65 years old) and a conservative mindset which is xenophobic and anti-immigration. Clearly, if Japan opens its borders to immigration, it would help stem the rapid population decline and boost domestic demand. Now I'm not one of those pro-multiculturalists, but Japan is by far the most xenophobic nation.
UPDATE: The April-June GDP figures has been re-adjusted to -7.3%, worse than the -7.1% initially estimated.
You need to emphasize that these are annualized numbers, so they're all multiplied by 4 from the single-quarter data. The Japanese economy contracted 0.4% in the 3rd quarter, annualized to 1.6%. You also don't note the causes, which were a huge drop in housing (24%) and a big drop in investment spending (0.9%), even though the fact that money markets might be freezing over could explain the BOJ's recent decision to extend its own QE in a big way.
Foreigners account for 1.54% of the population so "xenophobia" doesn't really make a big difference in terms of economic impact. By contrast, foreign-born workers account for about 13% of the US population and even then people rarely say they are a substantial reason behind whether the US economy is doing well or badly. Women leaking out of the work force and aging population are Japan's real demographic problems - it's bad everywhere in the OECD but worse in Japan. Whether they want to "fix" it with an influx of young foreign people is a social and political question more than an economic one.
Do you have a source on Japan being the most "xenophobic" nation? I looked up statistics and couldn't find a solid source comparing Japan to the EU, but MIPEX has South Korea ranked with Italy, above the big three of Germany, the UK, and France (listed by rank), and Korea also has only 2% foreign-born population. Surely Japan would do better than central and eastern Europe, which are actively hostile to immigration and do virtually nothing to accommodate foreigners.
It is worth noting that the euro and yen have lost about 10% of their value this year compared to the dollar.
This article lasted a lot longer than your anti-Japan scaremongering usually does, OP. Congrats.
While most nations have debts out of control, germany stands there with its "black zero", "schwarze Null" or whatever you wanna call it. Why? We saw what high debts, quantitave instruments by the central banks and higher then 2% inflation have brought some other nations or ourselfs earlier. While the US tends to shut down the gouvernment, europeen nations who could only watch how they have to pay more and more for the debts and only shouting for Mario Draghi, german people tend to dislike these things. If you can create higher economic stimulus via debts and quantiative instruments, the germans would still disvote you and not elect you. Gouvernments who took larger debts to gain room for reforms and investments failed heavily at the next elections, while others, who did nothing during the 4 years gained even more support. It is how it works, people dont like high debts and the feeling of weak currencies here, they dont want someone in the central bank, who is know as Ben B., the helicopter dropper. This leads to the fact, that the people do accept lower growrates, while having lower inflation and possible lower debts. It has its reason why these speaks about "why small deflation can be good" or "do we need economic growth anymore?" are heavily present at Germany.
Not to speak about the problem, that national debts know only one way, being higher and higher, while the economic has no been better after a large period of nation collection of debts. And when certain hedgefonds manager tell someone to take more debts, this becomes funny because i know who will give these money.
Imho its more a cultural thing in the german speaking areas of europe. People like to save up and they don't like credit or taking much risk... At least traditionally.
If this is good or bad is an entirely diffrent topic .
On November 17 2014 19:01 Clonester wrote: While most nations have debts out of control, germany stands there with its "black zero", "schwarze Null" or whatever you wanna call it. Why? We saw what high debts, quantitave instruments by the central banks and higher then 2% inflation have brought some other nations or ourselfs earlier. While the US tends to shut down the gouvernment, europeen nations who could only watch how they have to pay more and more for the debts and only shouting for Mario Draghi, german people tend to dislike these things. If you can create higher economic stimulus via debts and quantiative instruments, the germans would still disvote you and not elect you. Gouvernments who took larger debts to gain room for reforms and investments failed heavily at the next elections, while others, who did nothing during the 4 years gained even more support. It is how it works, people dont like high debts and the feeling of weak currencies here, they dont want someone in the central bank, who is know as Ben B., the helicopter dropper. This leads to the fact, that the people do accept lower growrates, while having lower inflation and possible lower debts. It has its reason why these speaks about "why small deflation can be good" or "do we need economic growth anymore?" are heavily present at Germany.
Not to speak about the problem, that national debts know only one way, being higher and higher, while the economic has no been better after a large period of nation collection of debts. And when certain hedgefonds manager tell someone to take more debts, this becomes funny because i know who will give these money.
This black zero is a stupid strategy that is only possible because Germany is in a currency area with France, Italy, Greece, etc. This debate is not about growth but about employment ; 10 % average unemployment in europe is not sustainable in this current system. The problem is that growth is often time the solution against high employment (you have 10 % of the labor factor that is unused, it is obvious that you need an increase in production and consumption to use that excess factor).
High debts never had any bad impact : in 1950, most debt in europe were above 100 % of GDP, but the high inflation (around 5%) permitted the government to erase this debt in a decade or so. Inflation higher than 2 % never brought anything bad. If you are talking about the hyper inflation, it's set at more than 50 % inflation a month, far from the 5% a year we've seen during the thirty glorious. The 2% target has nothing to do with the bad possible impact of inflation it itself, but with the belief that an inflation higher than 2% has no impact on employment.
On November 17 2014 22:37 Velr wrote: Imho its more a cultural thing in the german speaking areas of europe. People like to save up and they don't like credit or taking much risk... At least traditionally.
If this is good or bad is an entirely diffrent topic .
Savings are high in France too, and in many european countries. But people =/= government. There are obvious problems that rise up when people manage a state like a household.
On November 17 2014 19:01 Clonester wrote: While most nations have debts out of control, germany stands there with its "black zero", "schwarze Null" or whatever you wanna call it. Why? We saw what high debts, quantitave instruments by the central banks and higher then 2% inflation have brought some other nations or ourselfs earlier. While the US tends to shut down the gouvernment, europeen nations who could only watch how they have to pay more and more for the debts and only shouting for Mario Draghi, german people tend to dislike these things. If you can create higher economic stimulus via debts and quantiative instruments, the germans would still disvote you and not elect you. Gouvernments who took larger debts to gain room for reforms and investments failed heavily at the next elections, while others, who did nothing during the 4 years gained even more support. It is how it works, people dont like high debts and the feeling of weak currencies here, they dont want someone in the central bank, who is know as Ben B., the helicopter dropper. This leads to the fact, that the people do accept lower growrates, while having lower inflation and possible lower debts. It has its reason why these speaks about "why small deflation can be good" or "do we need economic growth anymore?" are heavily present at Germany.
Not to speak about the problem, that national debts know only one way, being higher and higher, while the economic has no been better after a large period of nation collection of debts. And when certain hedgefonds manager tell someone to take more debts, this becomes funny because i know who will give these money.
This black zero is a stupid strategy that is only possible because Germany is in a currency area with France, Italy, Greece, etc. This debate is not about growth but about employment ; 10 % average unemployment in europe is not sustainable in this current system. The problem is that growth is often time the solution against high employment (you have 10 % of the labor factor that is unused, it is obvious that you need an increase in production and consumption to use that excess factor).
High debts never had any bad impact : in 1950, most debt in europe were above 100 % of GDP, but the high inflation (around 5%) permitted the government to erase this debt in a decade or so. Inflation higher than 2 % never brought anything bad. If you are talking about the hyper inflation, it's set at more than 50 % inflation a month, far from the 5% a year we've seen during the thirty glorious. The 2% target has nothing to do with the bad possible impact of inflation it itself, but with the belief that an inflation higher than 2% has no impact on employment.
On November 17 2014 22:37 Velr wrote: Imho its more a cultural thing in the german speaking areas of europe. People like to save up and they don't like credit or taking much risk... At least traditionally.
If this is good or bad is an entirely diffrent topic .
Savings are high in France too, and in many european countries. But people =/= government. There are obvious problems that rise up when people manage a state like a household.
And now we come to a point of any discussion, which is just to big for a forum: You mention the phase of "financial repression" in Anglo-Saxon Countrys, especially in Greater Britain. The forced the Inflation up to 5%, forbidded higher interestrates then 5% and watched how their GDP percentage debt gone down fast while also the savings of the people went smaller and smaller. Thus in phase where bretton woods were still in place, a whole different world wide currency system to the system of viable currencies we have since bretton woods. And we saw where the phase of financial repression, higher inflation and bretton woods lead: Implosion of bretton woods.
And you have to concider another things: The EZB is different from the FED: While the FED has to concider unemployment and currency stability, the EZB is not allowed to concider unemployment, the EZB has only one duty, to optain a stable currency in the 2% inflation goal. And another thing is, that german unemploymend is below 7%, a historical value since reunification. And Europe is not the US, it is political suicide in Germany to use debts to help the other europeen nations( at least if we talk about the billions which would be needed to help spain, france and italy ) while nobody helped during the harsh times Germany had till 2006, where everybody talked about Germany as the sick man of europe and all the partners did were pointing with the finger. Thus leads the politicians to do what they do. At the end, they want to be reelectet and you will not be reelectet, if you debt the shit out.
And a last note: While the federal Gouvernment takes no debts this year (something i dont like because look at our joke of an army for example ) the German States and the German Citys still take high debts every year. Yes they all are forbidden to use debts after 2020 ( "Schuldenbremse" ) but I dont think this will ever happen. The Cities and States just need alot of debts to optain their work they have to do due to the Grundgesetz.
Japan has severe cultural issues that Germany doesn't have. There, you are considered lazy and not a team player if you don't work a lot of overtime hours. They are paid accordingly. If you don't work overtime, you'll have a hard time making ends meet. In response, the standard 9-5 office worker in Japan does shit all day. They don't start doing anything productive until 4 pm so they have to work overtime.
And a last note: While the federal Gouvernment takes no debts this year (something i dont like because look at our joke of an army for example )
And how are these two things related (debt and army)? The Bundeswehr has enough funding (in fact, they basically "give money back", nothing would change with more funding. In fact, the BW paid 2.6 billion euros back to the "Finanzministerium". Even with all the money in the world, the BW wouldn't change in size. Because the politicians don't want a huge standing army.
On November 17 2014 19:01 Clonester wrote: While most nations have debts out of control, germany stands there with its "black zero", "schwarze Null" or whatever you wanna call it. Why? We saw what high debts, quantitave instruments by the central banks and higher then 2% inflation have brought some other nations or ourselfs earlier. While the US tends to shut down the gouvernment, europeen nations who could only watch how they have to pay more and more for the debts and only shouting for Mario Draghi, german people tend to dislike these things. If you can create higher economic stimulus via debts and quantiative instruments, the germans would still disvote you and not elect you. Gouvernments who took larger debts to gain room for reforms and investments failed heavily at the next elections, while others, who did nothing during the 4 years gained even more support. It is how it works, people dont like high debts and the feeling of weak currencies here, they dont want someone in the central bank, who is know as Ben B., the helicopter dropper. This leads to the fact, that the people do accept lower growrates, while having lower inflation and possible lower debts. It has its reason why these speaks about "why small deflation can be good" or "do we need economic growth anymore?" are heavily present at Germany.
Not to speak about the problem, that national debts know only one way, being higher and higher, while the economic has no been better after a large period of nation collection of debts. And when certain hedgefonds manager tell someone to take more debts, this becomes funny because i know who will give these money.
This black zero is a stupid strategy that is only possible because Germany is in a currency area with France, Italy, Greece, etc. This debate is not about growth but about employment ; 10 % average unemployment in europe is not sustainable in this current system. The problem is that growth is often time the solution against high employment (you have 10 % of the labor factor that is unused, it is obvious that you need an increase in production and consumption to use that excess factor).
High debts never had any bad impact : in 1950, most debt in europe were above 100 % of GDP, but the high inflation (around 5%) permitted the government to erase this debt in a decade or so. Inflation higher than 2 % never brought anything bad. If you are talking about the hyper inflation, it's set at more than 50 % inflation a month, far from the 5% a year we've seen during the thirty glorious. The 2% target has nothing to do with the bad possible impact of inflation it itself, but with the belief that an inflation higher than 2% has no impact on employment.
On November 17 2014 22:37 Velr wrote: Imho its more a cultural thing in the german speaking areas of europe. People like to save up and they don't like credit or taking much risk... At least traditionally.
If this is good or bad is an entirely diffrent topic .
Savings are high in France too, and in many european countries. But people =/= government. There are obvious problems that rise up when people manage a state like a household.
And now we come to a point of any discussion, which is just to big for a forum: You mention the phase of "financial repression" in Anglo-Saxon Countrys, especially in Greater Britain. The forced the Inflation up to 5%, forbidded higher interestrates then 5% and watched how their GDP percentage debt gone down fast while also the savings of the people went smaller and smaller. Thus in phase where bretton woods were still in place, a whole different world wide currency system to the system of viable currencies we have since bretton woods. And we saw where the phase of financial repression, higher inflation and bretton woods lead: Implosion of bretton woods.
And you have to concider another things: The EZB is different from the FED: While the FED has to concider unemployment and currency stability, the EZB is not allowed to concider unemployment, the EZB has only one duty, to optain a stable currency in the 2% inflation goal. And another thing is, that german unemploymend is below 7%, a historical value since reunification. And Europe is not the US, it is political suicide in Germany to use debts to help the other europeen nations( at least if we talk about the billions which would be needed to help spain, france and italy ) while nobody helped during the harsh times Germany had till 2006, where everybody talked about Germany as the sick man of europe and all the partners did were pointing with the finger. Thus leads the politicians to do what they do. At the end, they want to be reelectet and you will not be reelectet, if you debt the shit out.
And a last note: While the federal Gouvernment takes no debts this year (something i dont like because look at our joke of an army for example ) the German States and the German Citys still take high debts every year. Yes they all are forbidden to use debts after 2020 ( "Schuldenbremse" ) but I dont think this will ever happen. The Cities and States just need alot of debts to optain their work they have to do due to the Grundgesetz.
What's a financial repression ? And when did I mention it ? I don't understand. Bretton Woods is out of topic, it's not a floating monetary system, it was doomed, just like the EURO is doomed.
I know that the ECB does not care about employment, it's one of the few reasons why it suck. German unemployment is below 7% because germany is a free rider that profit from (and at) its partner spending (and expense). The average unemployment in the euro zone is at + than 10 %... The growth in germany is low because there is no demand anymore : the developing countries cannot (and will never) offer a sufficient substitution to the european demand because, for various reasons, a country usually trade largely with its direct regional partners.
On November 18 2014 03:56 andrewlt wrote: Japan has severe cultural issues that Germany doesn't have. There, you are considered lazy and not a team player if you don't work a lot of overtime hours. They are paid accordingly. If you don't work overtime, you'll have a hard time making ends meet. In response, the standard 9-5 office worker in Japan does shit all day. They don't start doing anything productive until 4 pm so they have to work overtime.
wait what? they are super gung ho about working hard but yet they dont start working until 4pm each day?
On November 15 2014 20:52 Unentschieden wrote: That raises an interesting question: Can we live without growth?
Nope. Unless we restructure our society, a collapse is inevitable. It'll be slow, but it'll happen.
What is growth to you? Growth is one of the most diffuse terms in science, assuming that you can actually consider economy a science. It's not uncommen to hear people in physics and other similar fields compare economics to theology in terms of scientific integrity. As long as value is decided by supply and demand we could sustain a massive reduction in GDP without lowering our living standards.
Just look at these two pair of jeans. One pair from H&M and one pair from Dolce & Gabbana. In spite of the fact that the Dolce & Gabbana jeans are actually damaged, they still hold a value more than 18 times that of the H&M jeans. A pair of jeans in mint condition mind you.
Another thing to consider is the fact that we are currently throwing away fortunes worth of all sorts of waste - food being one of them. Denmark and Sweden is currently throwing away enough food to feed Norway. USA could probably feed the whole of South America in wasted food. I spend about $250 every 6 month on new jeans because i wear out the crotch area, meaning that i own about 12 pair of jeans, that i don't use because there is a hole in the crotch area. If someone were to modify my jeans in such a manner that i could replace the crotch area as it wears out, i would probably have jeans for a few decades.
The only reason that we need to sustain a high growth rate is because our consumption has reached absurd levels.
On November 18 2014 07:44 Dwayn wrote: We have really stupid economic policies going on. Merkels popularity and austerity fetishism could be germany's downfall-
On November 18 2014 07:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Just out of curiousity, what jeans are you wearing that it gets worn out after 6 months so I know to never buy this jean.
I think he was just bragging that he has a giant penis.
as far as i can see the japan trap is a persistent self fulfilling fear of deficit contrary to near term response. that sales tax raise was just terrible.
On November 15 2014 20:52 Unentschieden wrote: That raises an interesting question: Can we live without growth?
Nope. Unless we restructure our society, a collapse is inevitable. It'll be slow, but it'll happen.
What is growth to you? Growth is one of the most diffuse terms in science, assuming that you can actually consider economy a science. It's not uncommen to hear people in physics and other similar fields compare economics to theology in terms of scientific integrity. As long as value is decided by supply and demand we could sustain a massive reduction in GDP without lowering our living standards.
Just look at these two pair of jeans. One pair from H&M and one pair from Dolce & Gabbana. In spite of the fact that the Dolce & Gabbana jeans are actually damaged, they still hold a value more than 18 times that of the H&M jeans. A pair of jeans in mint condition mind you.
Another thing to consider is the fact that we are currently throwing away fortunes worth of all sorts of waste - food being one of them. Denmark and Sweden is currently throwing away enough food to feed Norway. USA could probably feed the whole of South America in wasted food. I spend about $250 every 6 month on new jeans because i wear out the crotch area, meaning that i own about 12 pair of jeans, that i don't use because there is a hole in the crotch area. If someone were to modify my jeans in such a manner that i could replace the crotch area as it wears out, i would probably have jeans for a few decades.
The only reason that we need to sustain a high growth rate is because our consumption has reached absurd levels.
There are many things wrong with the millenials in Germany, but their tendency towards a high-recycling, high-reuse, low-consumption, low-waste, green-friendly lifestyle is not one of them. It is, at the end of a sorry century of German cultural decline, a small recompense to think and hope that the progressive Americanisation of German society is slowly receding into the past. That would be a symptom of trends far more important than anything relating to the narrow economic sphere of life, because after all, economics is merely a sub-category of politics, which is in turn a sub-category of ethics. Attempts to stimulate something as inchoate as "consumption" among German taxpayers merely begs the question of how much thought anyone actually put into the problem. And if they didn't bother to think about what they wanted the German consumer to actually consume, it is because they have the Aristotlean hierarchy flipped on its head; and man is merely seen as fodder for the economy, rather than the reverse, whatever the humanitarian protestations to the contrary.
The problem for the macroeconomist is that increasingly in the German and I suspect also Scandinavian societies, people are finding themselves happier by consuming less. Fiddling with macroeconomic manipulations to alter those discovered tastes is not only hopeless, but unethical.
notice how german debt is getting less? notice how US debt is growing at an incredible pace? dont point fingers.
Also noticed how the German self-imposed austerity is actually disastrous for infrastructure because there's no money to maintain it, let alone invest in it?
Germany is not the economic paradise many people make it out to be.
notice how german debt is getting less? notice how US debt is growing at an incredible pace? dont point fingers.
Also noticed how the German self-imposed austerity is actually disastrous for infrastructure because there's no money to maintain it, let alone invest in it?
Actually, I have not noticed this. I know that there was an article recently in Der Spiegel harping on this very hypothesis, but it does not correlate with my personal observations. It could be that I am living in a bubble, but apart from not seeing many of these fabled potholes on the Franconian highways, I have seen many unnecessary renovation and construction projects in various towns, which seem to have no purpose other than as make-work projects.
notice how german debt is getting less? notice how US debt is growing at an incredible pace? dont point fingers.
Also noticed how the German self-imposed austerity is actually disastrous for infrastructure because there's no money to maintain it, let alone invest in it?
Germany is not the economic paradise many people make it out to be.
There are people in germany who know this. But its a thing in germany nowadays that everybody rants about the things that go wrong but no one does anything.
It also depends on to what exactly you compare it.
Germanies infrastructure compared to Scandinavia/Switzerland/Netherlands....not getting as much love? Yeah, maybe. Germanies infrastructure looking bad when compared to France, the US and GB? From my personal experience and stuff I read.. No, not at all, not the slightest bit... But well... The effects of low spending on infrastructure will be visible in 10-20 years, not now... So its kinda hard to judge this "now".
On November 18 2014 18:49 Velr wrote: It also depends on to what exactly you compare it.
Germanies infrastructure compared to Scandinavia/Switzerland/Netherlands....not getting as much love? Yeah, maybe. Germanies infrastructure looking bad when compared to France, the US and GB? From my personal experience and stuff I read.. No, not at all, not the slightest bit... But well... The effects of low spending on infrastructure will be visible in 10-20 years, not now... So its kinda hard to judge this "now".
That's the problem with politics nowadays: no long-term thinking. It's all about policies that will win them the next elections, not about policies that will benefit the country in the long term.
It feels as if governments in Europe are run by accountants nowadays whose only goal is to solve the short-term problems without regard for long-term effects.
Its hardly "the goverments" fault if any Party that wants to enhance spending is not getting voted in ... At least the Germans seem to like Merkel and her policy of just doing nothing for some weird reason... A "few" prestigious and important projects being planned by total imbeciles with obviously no clue what they are doing doesn't help too (Berlin Airport among others)
On November 18 2014 19:26 Velr wrote: Its hardly "the goverments" fault if any Party that wants to enhance spending is not getting voted in ... At least the Germans seem to like Merkel and her policy of just doing nothing for some weird reason... A "few" prestigious and important projects being planned by total imbeciles with obviously no clue what they are doing doesn't help too (Berlin Airport among others)
Well a popular opinion in germany is: "it doesn´t matter which party we vote for we(the people) will get ripped off anyway so we vote for Merkel and co because it wasn´t that bad the last years"
This mentality is likely to remain unless our current government causes a huge downfall of our situation (which will eventually come but most people dont see this yet)
I really don't get this. Having too much debt is of course dangerous and should be avoided, but to contract loans at a reasonable rate means getting richer faster. Why on earth would you not invest in your rapidly aging infrastructure if you had the money to do it? Why not invest in your own demography too ? In 10 years, France will be more populous than Germany, just by natural birth rate.
Just how do you "invest" in your demography? This is the most serious crisis on the horizon, yet I have not seen any proactive proposals floated apart from basically subsidising the costs of parenting. Everyone is treating it as if it were a primarily economic problem. The entire ethical agenda has shifted towards horizontal "compassion" at the expense of the vertical. Family by its very nature implies hierarchy, and that is something our parents' generation liberated themselves from long ago.
Well yes of course you have to "subsidize" the cost of parenting. You also have to make progress in gender equality. Right now in Germany, women have to take a 3 years break or so from work to raise children. Some will say because it is socially not very well accepted not to raise your children on your own, I prefer to say that it's the lack of childcare that restrict a woman's option. So they just don't make children and continue to work. I think you invest in demography by doing the following: - Make childcare inexpensive and available for everyone - Make education inexpensive and available for everyone - State allowance for each children - The more children you have, the less tax you pay - Split equally mother and father rights to take vacations when having a newborn child And so on.
here's the result of such policies:
France:
France is an outlier among developed countries in general, and European countries in particular, in having a fairly high rate of natural population growth: by birth rates alone, France was responsible for almost all natural population growth in the European Union in 2006, with the natural growth rate (excess of births over deaths) rising to 300,000.[208] This was the highest rate since the end of the baby boom in 1973, and coincides with the rise of the total fertility rate from a nadir of 1.7 in 1994 to 2.0 in 2010.[209][210] From 2006 to 2011 population growth was on average +0.6% per year.[208]
Germany:
The fertility rate of 1.41 children born per woman (2011 estimates), or 8.33 births per 1000 inhabitants, is one of the lowest in the world.[4] Since the 1970s, Germany's death rate has continuously exceeded its birth rate.[168] The Federal Statistical Office of Germany has forecast that the population could shrink to between 65 and 70 million by 2060 (depending on the level of net migration)
There is a lot of good historical facts that are important in the video, but just wanted to precise some things: the hyperinflation that happened in Germany during the Weimar Republic is not only the result of the war reparation and the monetisation that occured to do so. Hyperinflation in itself is not, imo, an economic phenomena, but always happen when the politic institutions are unstable. The hyperinflation in Germany is both the result of the war reparation and the money that the institutions printed, but also the result of the institutions inability to control the monetary base and its evolution (and as soon as the central bank started to act in 1923, the result on hyperinflation were pretty quick). It's important because for many people, printing money will result in an uncontrolable inflation, but it is not true : hyperinflation, unlike inflation, happen with political instability.
Also, he has a completly ideologically biased view of the reason as to why unemployment and growth rise and fall, and his vision of the history is a bit poor. Compare it to polanyi, who see the "free market" as one of the main reason as to why the two world war appeared in the first place, he is just a random 1rst econ students who make quick interpretations ("free dem marketsssssss") and play with concept he does not master (growth... there is a well known catching up effect that explain the huge GDP growth in europe during the thirty glorious, so comparing those numbers with current US growth is kinda stupid).
On November 18 2014 20:17 MoltkeWarding wrote: Just how do you "invest" in your demography? This is the most serious crisis on the horizon, yet I have not seen any proactive proposals floated apart from basically subsidising the costs of parenting. Everyone is treating it as if it were a primarily economic problem. The entire ethical agenda has shifted towards horizontal "compassion" at the expense of the vertical. Family by its very nature implies hierarchy, and that is something our parents' generation liberated themselves from long ago.
On November 18 2014 20:37 aXa wrote: Well yes of course you have to "subsidize" the cost of parenting. You also have to make progress in gender equality. Right now in Germany, women have to take a 3 years break or so from work to raise children. Some will say because it is socially not very well accepted not to raise your children on your own, I prefer to say that it's the lack of childcare that restrict a woman's option. So they just don't make children and continue to work. I think you invest in demography by doing the following: - Make childcare inexpensive and available for everyone - Make education inexpensive and available for everyone - State allowance for each children - The more children you have, the less tax you pay - Split equally mother and father rights to take vacations when having a newborn child And so on.
France is an outlier among developed countries in general, and European countries in particular, in having a fairly high rate of natural population growth: by birth rates alone, France was responsible for almost all natural population growth in the European Union in 2006, with the natural growth rate (excess of births over deaths) rising to 300,000.[208] This was the highest rate since the end of the baby boom in 1973, and coincides with the rise of the total fertility rate from a nadir of 1.7 in 1994 to 2.0 in 2010.[209][210] From 2006 to 2011 population growth was on average +0.6% per year.[208]
The fertility rate of 1.41 children born per woman (2011 estimates), or 8.33 births per 1000 inhabitants, is one of the lowest in the world.[4] Since the 1970s, Germany's death rate has continuously exceeded its birth rate.[168] The Federal Statistical Office of Germany has forecast that the population could shrink to between 65 and 70 million by 2060 (depending on the level of net migration)
source: wikipedia
Germany has never matched French postwar fertility, having shed its rural population, and in recent years, receiving a larger share of immigration from lower-fertility countries. However, there is a vocal lobby moving for day care investment after the spectacular failure of Elterngeld. Why a mother would be more inclined to have children if she is going to outsource virtually all her maternal duties to the state, I do not know. However, I think that it may be beneficial to those few socially ambitious women remaining who still maintain an idyllic vision of family life. The general trend however is probably irreversible. For at least a generation now, childbearing has been associated with narrow provinciality in the intersubjective fabric of German life, and the fashion is more important than the calculation in the long term.
that's a good question, but the source is probably not as important as the integration process. demographics wise you are counting on the second generation immigrants to integrate, how successful that process is determines the quality of your new people.
there's some studies on urban vs rural immigration that bears this out. while nominally a source distinction, the effect on integration is really the driving mechanism for divergent 2nd generation results.
there's also a lot of self selection filters for immigration traditionally. the enterprising/rich/educated are the ones who move, but only if the host country has the appropriate opportunities.
The source is decisive to the integration in practical terms. There is an enormous gap between Poles and the Chinese. Not to mention the entire reason integration is so difficult in Germany is because the German view of different cultures and ethnicities is closer to the maxims of Herder than to to any ideological basis for Germanness. In their basic mental reflexes, the world of the Germans is a diverse ecology of discrete cultural essences.
On November 18 2014 20:37 aXa wrote: Well yes of course you have to "subsidize" the cost of parenting. You also have to make progress in gender equality. Right now in Germany, women have to take a 3 years break or so from work to raise children. Some will say because it is socially not very well accepted not to raise your children on your own, I prefer to say that it's the lack of childcare that restrict a woman's option. So they just don't make children and continue to work. I think you invest in demography by doing the following: - Make childcare inexpensive and available for everyone - Make education inexpensive and available for everyone - State allowance for each children - The more children you have, the less tax you pay - Split equally mother and father rights to take vacations when having a newborn child And so on.
here's the result of such policies:
France:
France is an outlier among developed countries in general, and European countries in particular, in having a fairly high rate of natural population growth: by birth rates alone, France was responsible for almost all natural population growth in the European Union in 2006, with the natural growth rate (excess of births over deaths) rising to 300,000.[208] This was the highest rate since the end of the baby boom in 1973, and coincides with the rise of the total fertility rate from a nadir of 1.7 in 1994 to 2.0 in 2010.[209][210] From 2006 to 2011 population growth was on average +0.6% per year.[208]
Germany:
The fertility rate of 1.41 children born per woman (2011 estimates), or 8.33 births per 1000 inhabitants, is one of the lowest in the world.[4] Since the 1970s, Germany's death rate has continuously exceeded its birth rate.[168] The Federal Statistical Office of Germany has forecast that the population could shrink to between 65 and 70 million by 2060 (depending on the level of net migration)
source: wikipedia
Germany has never matched French postwar fertility, having shed its rural population, and in recent years, receiving a larger share of immigration from lower-fertility countries. However, there is a vocal lobby moving for day care investment after the spectacular failure of Elterngeld. Why a mother would be more inclined to have children if she is going to outsource virtually all her maternal duties to the state, I do not know. However, I think that it may be beneficial to those few socially ambitious women remaining who still maintain an idyllic vision of family life. The general trend however is probably irreversible. For at least a generation now, childbearing has been associated with narrow provinciality in the intersubjective fabric of German life, and the fashion is more important than the calculation in the long term.
But Germany never had France's infrastructure. France has had a bad fertility way before Germany : France is the first nation in the world that faced the demographic transition. Until 1795, France population was the third biggest in the world (after China and India), but during the XIXth century, the fertility rate in France was the lowest : at this time, french policy makers started to think about a way to rise fertility.
Why a mother would be more inclined to have children if she is going to outsource virtually all her maternal duties to the state, I do not know.
This is pretty obvious tho. If making children is asking for a sacrifice, or at the source of a conflict between professionnal and private life, then it's obvious ...
uh maybe for some germans. also not sure why this matters for integration. early americans were racist as fk but they managed fine within civil institutions. this is why little italy isn't besieging chinatown. (but i guess the marginalized ghettos did besiege the whitetowns and koreatowns)
But Germany never had France's infrastructure. France has had a bad fertility way before Germany : France is the first nation in the world that faced the demographic transition. Until 1795, France population was the third biggest in the world (after w and India), but during the XIXth century, the fertility rate in France was the lowest : at this time, french policy makers started to think about a way to rise fertility.
French population only grew once for a protracted period since the end Franco-Prussian war: during the trente glorieuses, and I am unaware that this was the result of any novel policy, as it was a general European phenomenon, although France experienced it more sharply than other countries. Germany, starting from a higher base in 1871, had rates of fertility dropped off markedly during the economic proprosperity of the late Wilhelminian years. Since that time, there have only been two notable up swings in birth rates defying the downward trend: during the Nazi years, and during the postwar recovery. Because population growth was a significant element of the Nazi programme, modern German opinion is snookered in its ability to promote this useful cause by ordinary social propaganda. Economic subsidies are more or less all they dare to do, since it is relatively generic and unimaginative in the way it simply throws money at a problem.
uh maybe for some germans. also not sure why this matters for integration. early americans were racist as fk but they managed fine within civil institutions. this is why little italy isn't besieging chinatown. (but i guess the marginalized ghettos did besiege the whitetowns and koreatowns)
You were talking about integration. The Chinese junk peddlers in Manhattan's Chinatown are not integrated, by any stretching of the word. Actually, it is almost hilarious the predictability with which Germany's Chinese demographic finds itself employed in the ethnic cuisine industry.
But Germany never had France's infrastructure. France has had a bad fertility way before Germany : France is the first nation in the world that faced the demographic transition. Until 1795, France population was the third biggest in the world (after w and India), but during the XIXth century, the fertility rate in France was the lowest : at this time, french policy makers started to think about a way to rise fertility.
French population only grew once for a protracted period since the end Franco-Prussian war: during the trente glorieuses, and I am unaware that this was the result of any novel policy, as it was a general European phenomenon, although France experienced it more sharply than other countries. Germany, starting from a higher base in 1871, had rates of fertility dropped off markedly during the economic proprosperity of the late Wilhelminian years. Since that time, there have only been two notable up swings in birth rates defying the downward trend: during the Nazi years, and during the postwar recovery. Because population growth was a significant element of the Nazi programme, modern German opinion is snookered in its ability to promote this useful cause by ordinary social propaganda. Economic subsidies are more or less all they dare to do, since it is relatively generic and unimaginative in the way it simply throws money at a problem.
What ? Our fertility is twice Germany's while it was the lowest in europe for the entirety of the XIXth century. Our population has been rising very slowly, the 1rst and 2nd world war period aside, but still rising, while Germany's could go down in the few years to come. There are no huge change in our demographic, but we've still risen our fertility to a sustainable rate, enough for reproduction, and yes the policies (and some cultural phenomena) played a role. Again, saying that the global safety net, our fiscal system (that facilitate labor in child care), our preschool system and the social security, not to mention the familial allocations, did not help our fertility is quite weird to me.
I don't think fertility has much to do with the economy at least when it comes to developed countries. America has pretty high population growth in comparison and considerably less social security and more work hours /capita. It seems to be more of a cultural thing. I think the fact that people here stay with their family quite a lot longer may play a pretty important role. Nowadays you're rarely going to see someone in their twenties buying a house and marrying. (home ownership in general is extremely low here anyway)
On November 19 2014 00:15 Nyxisto wrote: I don't think fertility has much to do with the economy at least when it comes to developed countries. America has pretty high population growth in comparison and considerably less social security and more work hours /capita. It seems to be more of a cultural thing. I think the fact that people here stay with their family quite a lot longer may play a pretty important role. Nowadays you're rarely going to see someone in their twenties buying a house and marrying. (home ownership in general is extremely low here anyway)
It's not just economic, but it is politic. The US is a different beast as it is way bigger and way more diverse, from a cultural standpoint, than Europe - even from an economic perspective. The entirety of the XIXth and early XXth century, French politicians tried to raise fertility and they succeed : they started to give money to familly with more than 4 kids as soon as 1913, and a policy of familly is voted as soon as 1935 or so, with the creation of a "code of familly". I'm just stating a very simple fact : the politics took this matter seriously and helped, through various meaning, to increase fertility and it worked in stabilizing it at one of the highest rate of western europe.
But I'm not sure if you can apply this today. Monetary stimulus is probably not as effective as people are relatively financially secure here anyway. They got their material needs covered and self determination for women actually wasn't a big thing two hundred years ago either. I guess gender equality plays a big role and the huge role of religion and the high marriage rate in the US are probably more important than money.
On November 19 2014 00:36 Nyxisto wrote: But I'm not sure if you can apply this today. Monetary stimulus is probably not as effective as people are relatively financially secure here anyway. They got their material needs covered and self determination for women actually wasn't a big thing two hundred years ago either. I guess gender equality plays a big role and the huge role of religion and the high marriage rate in the US are probably more important than money.
It's not about money. In fact, the early XXth and XIXth century archaic philosphy is more adapted to the question than a relatively close minded economic perspective : its about the "moeurs", which is both customs in famillies, and the moral attitudes that are linked with them. That's what you need to change : the economy of power within the familly, the arbitrage between the professionnal and the private world, the perspective of future generation in a grand political and ideological project. But it needs spendings.
So whats the verdict here ? sell my euro stocks ?!!?!??! , i always thought having managble debt in this era is good , seeing how the US owes money to the all world and everyone letting them have more debt because they are the "big consumer" of the world doesnt seem healthy for them.... once China/Saudia decides "we had enough" i.e - we lose more money on your debt then the export you buy from us (Fuel/everything else from china) then it will be a sad day for the US , currently China cannot grow without the US buying power , but all good things come to an end , and if the debt will be soooooo big that the US will never be able to return it then China will pull the plug it lights out in a single day for the US economy , the only way they are growing these days is because the loans they get every year to conitnue to pay the internal salaries and what not. they always seemd to me like gambling addicts who get more credit , but the loanshark will stop it one day. but this is just me who never studied this field (went for the boring computer engineering )
monetary aid for children does not solve Germanys problem. May a couple solely relying on the social system get their 6th child, because it is financially "worth it"... Yes maybe. Will any educated woman, that somehow has to manage her job and career sacrifice everything to get a child, only because you give her a few hundred Euro per months? Certainly not.
In fact the last round of reforms, allowing fathers to spend a similar time at home with the child as the mothers (and increasing that total time), was imho one of the most constructive things ever to somehow solve that situation.
Funny, after "Well economic growth for Germany is probably not possible and given limited resources in this world not even desirable." this thread went to "Let's grow Germany's population!". Because that is totally not a red herring...
On November 19 2014 00:52 lord_nibbler wrote: Funny, after "Well economic growth for Germany is probably not possible and given limited resources in this world not even desirable." this thread went to "Let's grow Germany's population!". Because that is totally not a red herring...
I personally don't care about Germany's population, I'm just saying there is a link between the fertility rate and the policies/economic policies. It is not red herring, but simple analysis, to believe that the current policies are both close minded, directly detrimental to europe, have bad long term impact on Germany's global situation.
What ? Our fertility is twice Germany's while it was the lowest in europe for the entirety of the XIXth century. Our population has been rising very slowly, the 1rst and 2nd world war period aside, but still rising, while Germany's could go down in the few years to come. There are no huge change in our demographic, but we've still risen our fertility to a sustainable rate, enough for reproduction, and yes the policies (and some cultural phenomena) played a role. Again, saying that the global safety net, our fiscal system (that facilitate labor in child care), our preschool system and the social security, not to mention the familial allocations, did not help our fertility is quite weird to me.
It's more accurate to say French fertility rates are half again higher than the German, and the difference in population change is more related to deaths than births. Germany has an older popuation due to larger cohorts in the interwar and Nazi periods, whereas in 20 or so years, French deaths too must rise to eight to nine hundred thousand per annum.
As far as social spending goes to support birth giving, it has already failed in Germany (Germany is now among the most generous providers in this regard), doing nothing to increase births, while engorging the Federal budget. The idea that was floated a moment ago was merely switching one kind of failed subsidy for another, i.e. direct subsidies to parents vs indirect via investment in post-natal services.
What ? Our fertility is twice Germany's while it was the lowest in europe for the entirety of the XIXth century. Our population has been rising very slowly, the 1rst and 2nd world war period aside, but still rising, while Germany's could go down in the few years to come. There are no huge change in our demographic, but we've still risen our fertility to a sustainable rate, enough for reproduction, and yes the policies (and some cultural phenomena) played a role. Again, saying that the global safety net, our fiscal system (that facilitate labor in child care), our preschool system and the social security, not to mention the familial allocations, did not help our fertility is quite weird to me.
It's more accurate to say French fertility rates are half again higher than the German, and the difference in population change is more related to deaths than births. Germany has an older popuation due to larger cohorts in the interwar and Nazi periods, whereas in 20 or so years, French deaths too must rise to eight to nine hundred thousand per annum.
As far as social spending goes to support birth giving, it has already failed in Germany (Germany is now among the most generous providers in this regard), doing nothing to increase births, while engorging the Federal budget. The idea that was floated a moment ago was merely switching one kind of failed subsidy for another, i.e. direct subsidies to parents vs indirect via investment in post-natal services.
Germany has an older population because its fertility has been lower since 20 years or so... You're playing on words, it is exactly what I was saying. And yes spending on families is a failure in Germany, mainly because it is based on the same "moeurs" that explain the lack of birth to begin with : most of the time, it is benefit for stay at home mothers, or traditionnal famillies (married one) and usually discourage women from working, something that does not help the arbitrage between professionnal and familly life. The birth rate is then nothing but the result of a conflict between two opposite values : labor and familly.
What ? Our fertility is twice Germany's while it was the lowest in europe for the entirety of the XIXth century. Our population has been rising very slowly, the 1rst and 2nd world war period aside, but still rising, while Germany's could go down in the few years to come. There are no huge change in our demographic, but we've still risen our fertility to a sustainable rate, enough for reproduction, and yes the policies (and some cultural phenomena) played a role. Again, saying that the global safety net, our fiscal system (that facilitate labor in child care), our preschool system and the social security, not to mention the familial allocations, did not help our fertility is quite weird to me.
It's more accurate to say French fertility rates are half again higher than the German, and the difference in population change is more related to deaths than births. Germany has an older popuation due to larger cohorts in the interwar and Nazi periods, whereas in 20 or so years, French deaths too must rise to eight to nine hundred thousand per annum.
As far as social spending goes to support birth giving, it has already failed in Germany (Germany is now among the most generous providers in this regard), doing nothing to increase births, while engorging the Federal budget. The idea that was floated a moment ago was merely switching one kind of failed subsidy for another, i.e. direct subsidies to parents vs indirect via investment in post-natal services.
Germany has an older population because its fertility has been lower since 20 years or so... You're playing on words, it is exactly what I was saying. And yes spending on families is a failure in Germany, mainly because it is based on the same "moeurs" that explain the lack of birth to begin with : most of the time, it was benefit for stay at home mothers, or help traditionnal famillies (married one) and usually discourage women from working, something that does not help the arbitrage between professionnal and familly life.
Your implication was that French policy making since the 19th century had been trying to raise birth rates, but there had only been one drastic upward swing in that rate in the last century and a half. Within a few years, French population will return to the same flat line that she had experienced during the 19th century (with the help of a continual influx of fertile African migrants, otherwise it will probably decline). Germany's population cohorts will likely continue shrinking at one-third per generation, but the reasons for that are rather particular to German society.
As for the negotiation between personal and professional life, that is a marginal factor in a person's decision to have children today, because those moral milestones were crossed by a generation prior to our own. There is no reason to think that it would be more effective than any other kind of spending, because the entire post-natal care idea is merely shifting resources around and replacing one kind of incentive with another. On the balance, I don't see why we should promote absentee parenthood more than engaged parenthood either, but saying it will net better baby output is a certain way to appease a distinct protest lobby.
Only the tenor of that argument is serving an agenda of its own, and it's not the agenda of childbearing fertility.
I don't know, I am generally cautious of converting personal attitudes into national virtues, and even more of coverting national habits into universal virtues. It seems rather contageous in this thread.
Yeah, i don't get the whole "we need more fertility" thing that is going on here. Yes, we do have an aging population in germany. That is not ideal. But the solution is much simpler:
Globally, the human population is still growing greatly. There are lots of countries with very high fertility rates and a low(er than german) standards of living. If we need young people, why not just let some of the young people from those countries come to germany? They get to have a western standard of living, we get to have more young people to pay for pensions etc... Everyone wins.
That is fine, as long as you don't care what kind of country you live in. To me it has the same appeal as going to Kyrgyzstan for better marriage bids; I get to both abduct my bridal choice and share a sacrificial goat with her parents.
On November 18 2014 20:37 aXa wrote: Well yes of course you have to "subsidize" the cost of parenting. You also have to make progress in gender equality. Right now in Germany, women have to take a 3 years break or so from work to raise children. Some will say because it is socially not very well accepted not to raise your children on your own, I prefer to say that it's the lack of childcare that restrict a woman's option. So they just don't make children and continue to work. I think you invest in demography by doing the following: - Make childcare inexpensive and available for everyone - Make education inexpensive and available for everyone - State allowance for each children - The more children you have, the less tax you pay - Split equally mother and father rights to take vacations when having a newborn child And so on.
Last point was already addressed in Germany.
On November 19 2014 00:50 mahrgell wrote: In fact the last round of reforms, allowing fathers to spend a similar time at home with the child as the mothers (and increasing that total time), was imho one of the most constructive things ever to somehow solve that situation.
First point is of utmost importance, in my opinion. A place in a Kita is extremely hard to get. And even if you manage to get one, you often have to take your child during lunch hour which is completely retarded. Money isn't necessarily the problem, though, children's clothing is pretty expensive. And with the media and fashion sense, too many parents always want fitting clothes for their childs. Back in the day you bought some sizes bigger because the child will grow into it rather fast anyway. If you have more than one kid, just reuse some clothes, it's not that hard.
I'll give some anecdotal "evidence" why I think german population growth is so low.
My parents both grew up in the former GDR parts of germany they were born towards the end of the 60s and my mother had her first child in 1988.
in the GDRs school system when you went to high school you also did your apprenticeship in the same time. So when my mother was done with high school she had her apprenticeship + diploma and entered university at the age of 18. As far as she told me university curiculums in the GDR were a lot more organized then they are today, no "free" chosing of what and how many courses you take etc, which meant she was done with university around age 22. She met my father in university, he went there later because of the mandatory 2 years military service and did not finish university.
So at age 22 my mother was already through the education system had her university Diploma and went to work. Two years later she bacame pregnant and after giving birth a couple months later my father took "baby holidays" for 1 or 2 years not sure, to raise my sister and after that he went back to work and my sister was sent to kindergarten.
What I am trying to get at with this story is that in my opinion the main reason of our low birth rate is
1. our awful education system that promotes longer and longer times spent in university, I got no numbers here but it would not surprise me if the average age of people who leave university is around 25 now. Which in turn means a later entry into the job market for women which means financial stability for these women is also later. Own appartment no debts etc.
2. until recently fathers did not have the same rights to take time out to take care of the children, for what ever reason.
3. most laws that I am aware of target a model of a stay at home mom to take care of the children until they can go to school, which in the economic reality in germany is just not feasable. Most infamous for this is probably the so called "kitchenbonus" for mothers who stay at home to raise kids. This view how a family should be in my eyes is medieval and only there to appease the peasants in bavaria who stay at their farms anyway.
4. kindergarten spots have since the 1990s constantly reduced and the ones that are still around have huge waiting lists and costs. this is a cycle that leads to less births and less births mean higher costs for the remaining places and so on.
5. also another problem atm is the rising numbers of yearly limited work contracts. How are you supposed to plan for a family when next year you could be out of a job and might have to move somewhere else?
So imho what you need for a higher number of families and children is stability. Monetary incentives are fine but those are probably better used by the state to build up good daycare infrastructure and for support of people who stay at home for the first year to take care of the new born child. This would help women to get back into the workforce after the pregnancy and not force them to stay home for 3 years and then not have a job anymore.
The model of a housewive and a dad who bring home the dough is simply not possible anymore for most people in germany and it's a stupid system anyway. Our government needs to acknowledge that.
On November 19 2014 02:15 MoltkeWarding wrote: That is fine, as long as you don't care what kind of country you live in. To me it has the same appeal as going to Kyrgyzstan for better marriage bids; I get to both abduct my bridal choice and share a sacrificial goat with her parents.
Assimilation is also possible, especially if the immigrants are young. Also cultures can blend, it's not a black and white issue.
uh maybe for some germans. also not sure why this matters for integration. early americans were racist as fk but they managed fine within civil institutions. this is why little italy isn't besieging chinatown. (but i guess the marginalized ghettos did besiege the whitetowns and koreatowns)
You were talking about integration. The Chinese junk peddlers in Manhattan's Chinatown are not integrated, by any stretching of the word. Actually, it is almost hilarious the predictability with which Germany's Chinese demographic finds itself employed in the ethnic cuisine industry.
remark on your racial essences view of germans and its relevance to integration. no idea what you are going for here.
also was mainly talking about 2nd generation integration, which is through schools and the non-ghetto job market.
On November 19 2014 02:15 MoltkeWarding wrote: That is fine, as long as you don't care what kind of country you live in. To me it has the same appeal as going to Kyrgyzstan for better marriage bids; I get to both abduct my bridal choice and share a sacrificial goat with her parents.
Assimilation is also possible, especially if the immigrants are young. Also cultures can blend, it's not a black and white issue.
In the case of Germany, it is closer to the truth to assert that assimilation is only possible when young, and even then only through extremely loose parents, mixed marriages, or inter-generational rebellion. Almost no one who migrates to Germany after maturity will conceive of himself as a German. In the case of visible minorities, that almost becomes an absolute. It would be inconceivable for me to assert that I am German regardless of how long I live there or how much Goethe I can recite.
Of course, there is a natural hierarchy in the order of assimilation. I could live in Germany my entire life and never face a single demand that I should assimilate. If you emigrated to China tomorrow, you would never dream of calling yourself a Chinaman, and no one would ever complain. There is an unspoken fact in all this, and that is people demand assimilation only when they don't like you and your kind.
remark on your racial essences view of germans and its relevance to integration. no idea what you are going for here.
also was mainly talking about 2nd generation integration, which is through schools and the non-ghetto job market.
Yes, obviously if you are born into an altered culture after the fact and acclimatised to the status quo from birth, all the ethnic problems of the past and present are merely a part of what you have come to take for granted.
Second generation integration is precisely what Germany has not been able to achieve with the majority of its immigrants, and asserting class mobility as a vehicle of entry into national identity is flip flopping cause and effect. National and cultural consciousness influence class mobility and not vice versa.
On November 19 2014 03:29 MoltkeWarding wrote: Second generation integration is precisely what Germany has not been able to achieve with the majority of its immigrants, and asserting class mobility as a vehicle of entry into national identity is flip flopping cause and effect. National and cultural consciousness influences class mobility and not vice versa.
This is actually untrue. The only group that has traditionally had problems with integration are Turkish immigrants, which are the largest group of immigrants but they're very far from being the majority. Also there's very little Turkish immigration today. The overwhelming majority of new immigrants stems from Eastern Europe and they actually integrate pretty effortlessly.
this delves into empirics in germany which i have 0 idea about. however, the chinese immigrant scenario is largely about successful integration in the u.s.
yes, chinatowns and chinese restaurants exist, but they are mostly owned by integrated businesspersons but employ recent immigrants.
and obviously germans have integrated successfully into the u.s. so have a variety of other european cultures, and this is within a history that is not short on racial conflict.
i'm not sure what is going on in germany to cause the lack of integration and particularly 2nd generation integration, if this claim is true.
On November 19 2014 03:29 MoltkeWarding wrote: Second generation integration is precisely what Germany has not been able to achieve with the majority of its immigrants, and asserting class mobility as a vehicle of entry into national identity is flip flopping cause and effect. National and cultural consciousness influences class mobility and not vice versa.
This is actually untrue. The only group that has traditionally had problems with integration are Turkish immigrants, which are the largest group of immigrants but they're very far from being the majority. Also there's very little Turkish immigration today. The overwhelming majority of new immigrants stems from Eastern Europe and they actually integrate pretty effortlessly.
Most Poles and Eastern Europeans in Germany are still first generation though, with the partial exception of some young Russians. Second generation is mostly guest worker immigration. It's true that most of Poles are better integrated in one generation than Turkish or even some Italian migrants are in 3, hence the query on source country.
this delves into empirics in germany which i have 0 idea about. however, the chinese immigrant scenario is largely about successful integration in the u.s.
yes, chinatowns and chinese restaurants exist, but they are mostly owned by integrated businesspersons but employ recent immigrants.
and obviously germans have integrated successfully into the u.s. so have a variety of other european cultures, and this is within a history that is not short on racial conflict.
Germans largely immigrated to America from the 1860s to c. 1890, and probably attained WASP status around 1950 or so. Today they are indistinguishable physically through acclimatisation and intermarriage, but this was hardly always the case, and they have changed American culture in many ways for the better (music) and other ways for the worse (overuse of passive tense and phrasal nouns in modern English), but in the short term most were expendable squareheads who were very much cultural outsiders in the country where they settled. The matter is integration transforms things both ways. If you are indifferent to where those transformations may lead you, then surely you will still have some kind of culture regardless of who you let in, but if that is the case, just as you triumphantly exalt over the disappearance of Anglo-Saxon genteel America today, do not wonder if tomorrow those who follow shall ignore all your worries and hopes for the future of your country, and the visions you had entertained for its future.
On November 19 2014 03:29 MoltkeWarding wrote: Second generation integration is precisely what Germany has not been able to achieve with the majority of its immigrants, and asserting class mobility as a vehicle of entry into national identity is flip flopping cause and effect. National and cultural consciousness influences class mobility and not vice versa.
This is actually untrue. The only group that has traditionally had problems with integration are Turkish immigrants, which are the largest group of immigrants but they're very far from being the majority. Also there's very little Turkish immigration today. The overwhelming majority of new immigrants stems from Eastern Europe and they actually integrate pretty effortlessly.
I was of the opinion that there is a huge influx especially from Spain, as their economy is in shambles and Germany even appears to advertise to young people there. There might be quite the difference between eastern and western Germany though, I imagine there far more immigrants from Eastern Europe in the eastern part and a lot more people from the south/west in the western part.
i don't think germans are particularly racist so that 'visible' minorities are always going to have separate identity. don't you guys have a lot of turkish/african players on your soccer team
I think the only immigrant group that is viewed more negatively are Turkish immigrants. Generally the population is pretty conservative but there isn't really any systemic racism or something like that. Regarding Spanish immigrants, I personally don't notice a lot of Spanish immigrants or culture (West Germany/Cologne) and I do think the "Southern Europe's youth is running to Germany" is hugely overblown. They're still a relatively small minority.
Regarding East and West, I'm not 100% sure but I think immigration to the West was pretty much always higher because of more favourable working conditions and the general better condition of West Germany. That might have turned around though because the former GDR states are catching up pretty fast.
On November 18 2014 03:56 andrewlt wrote: Japan has severe cultural issues that Germany doesn't have. There, you are considered lazy and not a team player if you don't work a lot of overtime hours. They are paid accordingly. If you don't work overtime, you'll have a hard time making ends meet. In response, the standard 9-5 office worker in Japan does shit all day. They don't start doing anything productive until 4 pm so they have to work overtime.
wait what? they are super gung ho about working hard but yet they dont start working until 4pm each day?
I dont get your point
It is only the appearance of working hard. They come to work on time every morning but waste time doing nothing productive all day. They leave work late to keep up appearances as well. And since Japan is very traditional, everybody just puts up with the farce. Nobody is willing to rock the boat.
On November 19 2014 02:07 Simberto wrote: Yeah, i don't get the whole "we need more fertility" thing that is going on here. Yes, we do have an aging population in germany. That is not ideal. But the solution is much simpler:
Globally, the human population is still growing greatly. There are lots of countries with very high fertility rates and a low(er than german) standards of living. If we need young people, why not just let some of the young people from those countries come to germany? They get to have a western standard of living, we get to have more young people to pay for pensions etc... Everyone wins.
It isn't the job of first world countries to compensate for the overpopulation of third world countries. Comments from other posters here also suggest that Germany has a harder time integrating non-European immigrants vis a vis the US.
No, that might not be their job, but if there are two population problems, one with too many births, and one with too few, and you can move people between the two places with relative ease, i don't see why that shouldn't be the first thing to do to approach the whole situation, as opposed to trying to make people have more children here and less children there.
Yes, integration is obviously the key problem here, and the point that makes the whole thing be harder than it seems. This is also a problem that i utterly don't understand, because i just cannot comprehend how someone could not like freedom and democracy (which are actually the main points in my opinion, i don't really care if someone likes to go to church or to a mosque or none at all, and i am not even that interested in what language people speak, as long as there is a common language people can communicate in.)
What ? Our fertility is twice Germany's while it was the lowest in europe for the entirety of the XIXth century. Our population has been rising very slowly, the 1rst and 2nd world war period aside, but still rising, while Germany's could go down in the few years to come. There are no huge change in our demographic, but we've still risen our fertility to a sustainable rate, enough for reproduction, and yes the policies (and some cultural phenomena) played a role. Again, saying that the global safety net, our fiscal system (that facilitate labor in child care), our preschool system and the social security, not to mention the familial allocations, did not help our fertility is quite weird to me.
It's more accurate to say French fertility rates are half again higher than the German, and the difference in population change is more related to deaths than births. Germany has an older popuation due to larger cohorts in the interwar and Nazi periods, whereas in 20 or so years, French deaths too must rise to eight to nine hundred thousand per annum.
As far as social spending goes to support birth giving, it has already failed in Germany (Germany is now among the most generous providers in this regard), doing nothing to increase births, while engorging the Federal budget. The idea that was floated a moment ago was merely switching one kind of failed subsidy for another, i.e. direct subsidies to parents vs indirect via investment in post-natal services.
Germany has an older population because its fertility has been lower since 20 years or so... You're playing on words, it is exactly what I was saying. And yes spending on families is a failure in Germany, mainly because it is based on the same "moeurs" that explain the lack of birth to begin with : most of the time, it was benefit for stay at home mothers, or help traditionnal famillies (married one) and usually discourage women from working, something that does not help the arbitrage between professionnal and familly life.
Your implication was that French policy making since the 19th century had been trying to raise birth rates, but there had only been one drastic upward swing in that rate in the last century and a half. Within a few years, French population will return to the same flat line that she had experienced during the 19th century (with the help of a continual influx of fertile African migrants, otherwise it will probably decline). Germany's population cohorts will likely continue shrinking at one-third per generation, but the reasons for that are rather particular to German society.
As for the negotiation between personal and professional life, that is a marginal factor in a person's decision to have children today, because those moral milestones were crossed by a generation prior to our own. There is no reason to think that it would be more effective than any other kind of spending, because the entire post-natal care idea is merely shifting resources around and replacing one kind of incentive with another. On the balance, I don't see why we should promote absentee parenthood more than engaged parenthood either, but saying it will net better baby output is a certain way to appease a distinct protest lobby.
Only the tenor of that argument is serving an agenda of its own, and it's not the agenda of childbearing fertility.
Really I don't know what you're talking about. You really think a policy can lead to a spike or a drastic change in something as complicated as fertility. The only thing a policy can do is create a frame and watch trends evolve. France's policy did not lead to drastic change (which is obvious), it leads to slow change in mentalities and famillies morals to a point where having a child was both considered as a benefice to the society and where famillies do not have to sacrifice too much to educate this child, to a point where the population is fertile enough to reproduce itself (basically our situation today). Also, there are plenty of stats on fertility of immigrants and child of immigrants vs fertility of "french" women (since X generations), and the fertility rate is almost equal. So our fertility is not directly linked to our immigration. And I repeat: working is, in itself, a value in our society, and that if you don't permit both working and parenting without choosing one of the other, then you will have people who sacrifice one for the other, it's pretty simple.
Again, I want to make it clear, I don't care that Germany's fertility is so low, and I don't think it's the main problem Germany has, I'm just stated a simple fact, and that is that policies influence fertility.
On November 19 2014 08:15 Simberto wrote: No, that might not be their job, but if there are two population problems, one with too many births, and one with too few, and you can move people between the two places with relative ease, i don't see why that shouldn't be the first thing to do to approach the whole situation, as opposed to trying to make people have more children here and less children there.
because it doesn't solve any problems but postpones it to (much) later. birth rates are actually falling across all regions except black africa and Afghanistan. This isn't to be confused with population, because the population will still rise even after birth rates drop below 2.0 because of improved medical care. Even Iran has falling birth rates.
I have seen a funny statistic that links birth rates with TV consumption and they claimed families shown on TV tend to have less children because children on sets suck. This in return influences the women. Generally I think though that higher living standard results in lower birth rates.
So you either drain people from very uneducated countries or you just export your problems.
Uhm... The "Problem" with low fertility (Problem???) is, that its just not "normal" anymore for a Woman to have children in her early twenties here. Maybe in her late twenties but even that feels strange and kinda "early". I am not talking about "career" women here... The only ones that nowadays seem to get children before 25 are allready in our social system and not exactly what you call productive or it was an "accident" and she decided to keep it.
Same with marriage... Marrying before 25 (which i would still call early), are you nuts? I even have a friend that found his now Woman at the Age of 21... At the Age of 25 he told me: "You know, i actually would have liked to have found my girl a bit later." Despite him being happy with her now for over 9 years...
On November 19 2014 18:33 Velr wrote: Uhm... The "Problem" with low fertility (Problem???) is, that its just not "normal" anymore for a Woman to have children in her early twenties here. Maybe in her late twenties but even that feels strange and kinda "early". I am not talking about "career" women here... The only ones that nowadays seem to get children before 25 are allready in our social system and not exactly what you call productive or it was an "accident" and she decided to keep it.
Same with marriage... Marrying before 25 (which i would still call early), are you nuts? I even have a friend that found his now Woman at the Age of 21... At the Age of 25 he told me: "You know, i actually would have liked to have found my girl a bit later." Despite him being happy with her now for over 9 years...
A society that does not naturally reproduce itself it, arguably, facing some difficulties yeah. The age at which you have children is not really relevant, what's relevant is the number of kids per women at menopause.
On November 19 2014 18:33 Velr wrote: Uhm... The "Problem" with low fertility (Problem???) is, that its just not "normal" anymore for a Woman to have children in her early twenties here. Maybe in her late twenties but even that feels strange and kinda "early". I am not talking about "career" women here... The only ones that nowadays seem to get children before 25 are allready in our social system and not exactly what you call productive or it was an "accident" and she decided to keep it.
Same with marriage... Marrying before 25 (which i would still call early), are you nuts? I even have a friend that found his now Woman at the Age of 21... At the Age of 25 he told me: "You know, i actually would have liked to have found my girl a bit later." Despite him being happy with her now for over 9 years...
A society that does not naturally reproduce itself it, arguably, facing some difficulties yeah. The age at which you have children is not really relevant, what's relevant is the number of kids per women at menopause.
Coincidently, it is much easier to conceive children for 20-somethings than it is for 30 and up. I recall having read somewhere that biologically, the ideal child-bearing age for women is 18.
On November 19 2014 18:33 Velr wrote: Uhm... The "Problem" with low fertility (Problem???) is, that its just not "normal" anymore for a Woman to have children in her early twenties here. Maybe in her late twenties but even that feels strange and kinda "early". I am not talking about "career" women here... The only ones that nowadays seem to get children before 25 are allready in our social system and not exactly what you call productive or it was an "accident" and she decided to keep it.
Same with marriage... Marrying before 25 (which i would still call early), are you nuts? I even have a friend that found his now Woman at the Age of 21... At the Age of 25 he told me: "You know, i actually would have liked to have found my girl a bit later." Despite him being happy with her now for over 9 years...
A society that does not naturally reproduce itself it, arguably, facing some difficulties yeah. The age at which you have children is not really relevant, what's relevant is the number of kids per women at menopause.
Age is VERY relevant and you state the reason yourself.
Nowadays many Woman (and Men!) try to get Kids at the Age of 34+... This leads to two very simple problems: 1: They will have less chances even getting one Child, let alone 2 or even more (+ costs of medical Fertilisation if you want to go even further). 2: "Old" parents also won't have the same energy as parents in their mid-twenties/early thirties to actually raise their children (but this obviously varies depending on the individuals).
Guys, of course it's harder to get children the older you get, that's true in any country. In France, women don't get pregnant at 20 neither. It still has double Germany's fertility rate
German society is very child unfriendly. Pregnancy is almost considered an illness. Having a child puts a stress on your carreer opportunities especialy for women. And proper child care, irronicaly forged after the old german democratic republic System, has just been started, there are still plenty of daycares needed.
French society has a different Approach towards children, they are more accepted and they are treated in a different way. They dont neccesarily treat a child as the "one above all", they "dare" to tell their children to be quite when adults are talking and teach them proper manners when sitting at tables. And they have an established systems of long school days, Germany is just starting with that as well.
On November 20 2014 00:17 Velr wrote: But statistics also suggest (at least the ones I just found via Google) that actually France is "special", not Germany...
And I haven't seen any statistics on conception Ages.
Well actually both are exceptions, France is exceptionally high, and Germany exceptionally low
On November 20 2014 00:20 shubcraft wrote: German society is very child unfriendly. Pregnancy is almost considered an illness. Having a child puts a stress on your carreer opportunities especialy for women. And proper child care, irronicaly forged after the old german democratic republic System, has just been started, there are still plenty of daycares needed.
French society has a different Approach towards children, they are more accepted and they are treated in a different way. They dont neccesarily treat a child as the "one above all", they "dare" to tell their children to be quite when adults are talking and teach them proper manners when sitting at tables. And they have an established systems of long school days, Germany is just starting with that as well.
Very true. And that's exactly what I am saying. For Germany to be secure in the future, it really needs to change the environment for women having children.
I'm super late to this conversation, but I just had some general musings and questions in regards to Germany and their stance on debt.
As far as I'm aware, Germany, as a culture/society, is VERY unfriendly towards debt and debtors. For one, there are many kinds of debt in Germany which cannot be repaid early. This locks people into paying the full sticker price of a debt. It dissuades people from taking on debt since it's such a large burden for so long, while also making returns "safer," which lowers the real supply of borrowers. My main question, is this how much of German debt works? What is the societal perception on things like business loans and consumer loans (credit cards)? Is this something only seen in housing?
Japan isn't much different in that sense. There is an aversion to taking on debt at the household level. However, at the government level, this diverges. Japanese lend to other Japanese, and the Japanese government has taken advantage of this by borrowing at record low rates and now they have a comparatively large debt, except the debt is mostly owed to their own people.
Germans, however, take these excess savings and export them. The government has acted rather stupidly in this regard, treating low rates as a pat on the back instead of a sign that they are not providing enough safe places to store savings for an aging population. Germans have scoured the globe to find (safe) places to park their savings. Now Germans are exposed to external risks, and are culturally predisposed to vilify debtors and demand their investment be paid back to the full contracted amount. At the same time, they are a huge next exporter, mainly to their neighbors, so they're bleeding those around them dry from both ends. It's not a great time to be a European and it's becoming a bad time to be a German as well.
well why would anybody lend you money when they already know they will never get it back in full ... that's how the US housing bubble burst, there is nothing good about that.
as far as I am aware a lot of germans have credit cards but they are used a lot less compared to normal debit cards? ( dont know the proper english name) essentially those pull the money directly from your bank account instead you getting debt that you repay at the end of the month.
Skilledblob, I think that you represent a line of thinking that is widespread but crucially flawed. Lending is ok when done properly. Admittedly, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac crossed the line when they lowered housing lending standards too much, causing an economic depression. This depression hit markets that rely heavily on construction, like Phoenix & Nevada, especially hard & heavy, particularly small construction companies ex. Stapex. But, you have to understand, lending works for the most part. Federally backed house loans are why you live in a fully paid off house right now. They pressure consumers to work.
Germany runs into the problem that many European countries run into: an aversion to credit. They have a productive (aging) workforce that makes a lot of money but is 'tightfisted' about spending it. For example, Kesko in Helsinki works young people in a factory setting, but then these people then spend that money on rent/food/Reittiopas, and rarely buy expensive cars. The old saw about supporting the economy that one might hear from one's more conservative friends, is true. People do have to spend money to 'move the needle' of economic indicators like the S&P 500 & significantly alter the wealth of the Fortune 500 Best companies in the world.
This is the absolute latest indicator of an economic downtrend that has been going on in Japan for decades, and appears to be in the early stages in Germany. On the opposite side of the world, China has no problems with spending money, having had little of it for a long period of time, and having just recently (the last few years) become acclimated to the public 'business world' economy. China has not done much business until very recently, having trained mostly for the past few decades. The worst enemy to the (admittedly patriarchal & conservative) Chinese government is factory workers that make a lot of money and don't spend it on new houses/apartments, new phones & new Hondas. Consumer spending has increased dramatically in China recently, due to consumeristic impulses. I don't see these impulses coming into play in Germany OR Japan, but I do see that entrepreneurial attitude in the US. This may be a 'homer' opinion, but I think Americans still do business best, despite this new competition from China. The Chinese government spends too much on public infrastructure, while the US government is generally against new huge public infrastructure projects except for universities.
e: To put things in coherent general terms, the axis of power in the battle for world economic supremacy has shifted dramatically over the course of this century:
1)::: USA vs the USSR after WWII in 1941 to 2)::: USA vs the EU after the fall of the Berlin Wall & disintegration of the Russian Empire in 1988 to 3)::: NATO vs China in the post 9/11 world after 2001
I think that Germany & Japan are both on the decline in this current timeframe, although some may dispute this point in their own (hopefully coherent & interesting) posts about economics on TeamLiquid.
"Germany runs into the problem that many European countries run into: an aversion to credit"
Yes that's true. The "German perspective" on growing the economy has pretty much been that we don't really need more credit, but that the most important factor to grow the economy is how to turn the capital investments we have into technological progress or other useful investments. The position is not that troubled countries in Europe lack credit but that they lack places to actually put that money.(and that they are now too indebted because they failed to do that in the past) If the ECB pumps billions of dollars into the economy the GDP is bound to rise just by definition. But nominal growth alone is pretty useless just by itself and in the worst case turns into bubbles.
I don't really understand how someone can believe that just throwing money at everybody is going to do anything, which is pretty much the orthodox American position.
"Germany runs into the problem that many European countries run into: an aversion to credit"
Yes that's true. The "German perspective" on growing the economy has pretty much been that we don't really need more credit, but that the most important factor to grow the economy is how to turn the capital investments we have into technological progress or other useful investments.
I don't really understand how someone can believe that just throwing money at everybody is going to do anything, which is pretty much the orthodox American position.
Thats not right. You used the EU mechanism to throw a lot of money into shitty countries so that you could maintain your trade surplus vs them -- without the euro the DM would have appreciated vs Spanish/Greek currencies, the deficit would have declined and the channeling of German savings into supporting German exporters would have abetted. Now in a very drawn out process the Spanish are going to do the same thing, first by brutally slashing their wages and then by going abroad to steal consumption too.
Thats not right. You used the EU mechanism to throw a lot of money into shitty countries so that you could maintain your trade surplus vs them -- without the euro the DM would have appreciated vs Spanish/Greek currencies, the deficit would have declined and the channeling of German savings into supporting German exporters would have abetted. Now in a very drawn out process the Spanish are going to do the same thing, first by brutally slashing their wages and then by going abroad to steal consumption too.
Yeah I'll agree with you on that particular point -- Spain is pretty much F-d up. There are a lot of ppl alive in Spain that probably shouldn't be, if that makes any sense.. you know, like 86yo invalids hanging on to the point where you're like ok it merits a visit from Dr. Kevorkian.. basically I'm trying to say that there's a lot of elderly people in Spain. Spaniards spent too many decades under Franco and their economy is tanked.. It is basically a barter economy in Spain. Subway tickets are cheap there, though.. Take a plane trip from Gibraltar to Madrid for like $26 on RyanAir & then get off to your hostel in the downtown district for seriously like 50cents per subway ticket. I'm serious, that's how much things cost in Spain. Great for travelers on a budget. I went on a eurotrip a few years ago and we could do the most things there. Oh yeah it wasn't cheaper than Morocco but it is civilized in that 'EU country' sort of way whereas Morocco is definitely NOT.
"Germany runs into the problem that many European countries run into: an aversion to credit"
Yes that's true. The "German perspective" on growing the economy has pretty much been that we don't really need more credit, but that the most important factor to grow the economy is how to turn the capital investments we have into technological progress or other useful investments.
I don't really understand how someone can believe that just throwing money at everybody is going to do anything, which is pretty much the orthodox American position.
Thats not right. You used the EU mechanism to throw a lot of money into shitty countries so that you could maintain your trade surplus vs them -- without the euro the DM would have appreciated vs Spanish/Greek currencies, the deficit would have declined and the channeling of German savings into supporting German exporters would have abetted. Now in a very drawn out process the Spanish are going to do the same thing, first by brutally slashing their wages and then by going abroad to steal consumption too.
That's certainly true to a degree, (not completely though because German export products aren't exactly very price elastic anyway) but that's not an excuse for the problems Spain faces. If anything having an overvalued currency is good for the country on the receiving end(just what the US is in relation to China) because as you're rightly saying the trade surplus is nothing but capital flowing off into the countries that have a negative trade balance. The German industrial sector is certainly profiting from it but everybody else here is not really benefiting from an undervalued currency.
Germany does not have a problem with credit : it does not gain from it. It's not an economy driven by credit, unlike Italy, France, UK or the US. The role of banks in the german economy, and the banking system is not structured like in other european countries. That's one of the reasons as to why germany is always "off" in terms of growth (and also why the euro should not exist) : its economic cycle are different from the rest of the euro zone and its economy is not driven by the credit system.
On November 21 2014 06:12 A3th3r wrote: Skilledblob, I think that you represent a line of thinking that is widespread but crucially flawed. Lending is ok when done properly. Admittedly, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac crossed the line when they lowered housing lending standards too much, causing an economic depression. This depression hit markets that rely heavily on construction, like Phoenix & Nevada, especially hard & heavy, particularly small companies. But, you have to understand, lending works for the most part. Federally backed house loans are why you live in a fully paid off house right now.
Germany runs into the problem that many European countries run into: an aversion to credit. They have a productive (aging) workforce that makes a lot of money but is 'tightfisted' about spending it. For example, Kesko in Helsinki works young people in a factory setting, but then these people then spend that money on rent/food/subway tickets, and rarely buy expensive cars. The old saw about supporting the economy that one might hear from one's more conservative friends, is true. People do have to spend money to 'move the needle' of economic indicators like the S&P 500 & significantly alter the wealth of the Fortune 500 Best companies in the world.
This is the absolute latest indicator of an economic downtrend that has been going on in Japan for decades, and appears to be in the early stages in Germany. On the opposite side of the world, China has no problems with spending money, having had little of it for a long period of time, and having just recently (the last few years) become acclimated to the public 'business world' economy. China has not done much business until very recently, having trained mostly for the past few decades. The worst enemy to the (admittedly patriarchal & conservative) Chinese government is factory workers that make a lot of money and don't spend it on new houses/apartments, new phones & new (probably very small) cars for themselves. Consumer spending has increased dramatically in China recently, due to consumeristic impulses. I do not see these impulses coming into play in Germany OR Japan, but I do see that entrepreneurial attitude in the US. This may be a 'homer' opinion, but I think Americans still do business best, despite this new competition from China. The Chinese government spends too much on public infrastructure, while the US government is generally against new huge public infrastructure projects except for universities.
e: To put things in coherent general terms, the axis of power in the battle for world economic supremacy has shifted dramatically over the course of this century:
1)::: USA vs the USSR after WWII in 1941 to 2)::: USA vs the EU after the fall of the Berlin Wall & disintegration of the Russian Empire in 1989 to 3)::: USA vs China in the post 9/11 world after 2001
I think that Germany & Japan are both on the decline in this current timeframe, although some may dispute this point in their own (hopefully coherent & interesting) posts about economics on TeamLiquid.
I would disagree with this characterization of global markets because it assumes a zero-sum game - that is, for every dollar the US makes, that's one less dollar anyone else can make. It's even worse for you to assume a "tournament" format, that if the "battle for world economic supremacy" is between the US and China, that means Germany and Japan must necessarily be "out".
There is a zero-sum aspect in a micro sense - that is, every Galaxy Note 4 that Samsung sells is an iPhone 6 that Apple didn't sell, at least for the broad majority of people who only choose one. But even then, in almost every other macro dimension, there's room for Samsung and Apple and even other competitors like LG and Nokia to all grow, since the competition makes smartphones cost less, which means they are more accessible and more people can get them. Consumers around the world benefit from the trade of these products and the fact that competitive pressure continually forces all of these companies to improve their products to fit what they want.
Germany and Japan are declining relative to emerging countries and the rest of the world, but so is the West in general and the US. They can no longer assume that their citizens are better educated, better trained, more skilled, and more creative than people from countries that used to be very poor and treated and trained their citizens accordingly. To a certain extent, that's normal for mature economies with aging societies.
I still think people are looking at the numbers way to uncritically when talking about "decline" in Europe. Sure economic growth sucks, but if you look at the median household income in the US adjusted for purchasing power, it's barely higher than it was three decades ago. What is economic growth good for if it's only fuelled by the money press and inequality and the only real profiteers are 1% of the population? Growth is nice and all but if your housing, healthcare and college costs grow several times as fast as your income it doesn't mean anything at all.
I would disagree with this characterization of global markets because it assumes a zero-sum game - that is, for every dollar the US makes, that's one less dollar anyone else can make. It's even worse for you to assume a "tournament" format, that if the "battle for world economic supremacy" is between the US and China, that means Germany and Japan must necessarily be "out".
There is a zero-sum aspect in a micro sense - that is, every Galaxy Note 4 that Samsung sells is an iPhone 6 that Apple didn't sell, at least for the broad majority of people who only choose one. But even then, in almost every other macro dimension, there's room for Samsung and Apple and even other competitors like LG and Nokia to all grow, since the competition makes smartphones cost less, which means they are more accessible and more people can get them. Consumers around the world benefit from the trade of these products and the fact that competitive pressure continually forces all of these companies to improve their products to fit what they want.
Germany and Japan are declining relative to emerging countries and the rest of the world, but so is the West in general and the US. They can no longer assume that their citizens are better educated, better trained, more skilled, and more creative than people from countries that used to be very poor and treated and trained their citizens accordingly. To a certain extent, that's normal for mature economies with aging societies.
It's true that real market competition (i.e. at LEAST half a dozen major companies in a particular segment of the market ex. auto sales) tends to drive prices to a mean (for phones it is a hundred bucks or a couple hundo for a handset) and make for better products for the consumer. I think all business work markets eventually resemble a bell curve, let's take mobile phones as a general example: Apple = first/trendy iPhones, Samsung = mainstream phones that most people use, Google Mobile = phones that work the best [and the OS everybody uses, Android], Microsoft (which now owns Nokia Mobile) = inexpensive contractor handsets, HTC = obscure/gadgety handsets (got an HTC myself), and there is even a OnePlusOne cellphone that is pretty cool. So yeah you can say that Apple is most profitable in that sector & biggest market value company in the world so they 'own' that market but really it is a big ecosystem with lots of players in it. I would actually say that that describes a marketplace that is NOT zero-sum, per se.. Zero-sum games only occur in isolated markets i.e. restricted to one field or perhaps inside one company ("Gildor in accounting got the promotion I wanted so now I don't get the corner office!!")
But you have to admit that by economic indicators (GDP, best example), the country that makes the most money (highest GDP number) wins .. so everyone is making & spending money but there is a reference point here as to how countries compare to each other, economically speaking.
US has richest GDP = Winner China greatest economy & 2nd most GDP = second Germany 3rd most GDP = third Japan = 4th highest GDP India has Largest 3rd world economy & 5th best GDP = fifth
From a daily life perspective, market share is not relevant. A person who wakes up in the morning, sips some coffee, drives their car to work at an office, drives home through rush hour & eats dinner at home, it's not important. But you know their boss or the owner of a company cares about market share and that is top of the agenda in their weekly Wednesday meeting because they want their company to profit. And regular employees *should* care about economics because their business might fold from lost market share and they could lose their jobs & become unemployed (*cough* like Borders Bookstore..........just sayin).
I would disagree with this characterization of global markets because it assumes a zero-sum game - that is, for every dollar the US makes, that's one less dollar anyone else can make. It's even worse for you to assume a "tournament" format, that if the "battle for world economic supremacy" is between the US and China, that means Germany and Japan must necessarily be "out".
There is a zero-sum aspect in a micro sense - that is, every Galaxy Note 4 that Samsung sells is an iPhone 6 that Apple didn't sell, at least for the broad majority of people who only choose one. But even then, in almost every other macro dimension, there's room for Samsung and Apple and even other competitors like LG and Nokia to all grow, since the competition makes smartphones cost less, which means they are more accessible and more people can get them. Consumers around the world benefit from the trade of these products and the fact that competitive pressure continually forces all of these companies to improve their products to fit what they want.
Germany and Japan are declining relative to emerging countries and the rest of the world, but so is the West in general and the US. They can no longer assume that their citizens are better educated, better trained, more skilled, and more creative than people from countries that used to be very poor and treated and trained their citizens accordingly. To a certain extent, that's normal for mature economies with aging societies.
It's true that real market competition (i.e. at LEAST half a dozen major companies in a particular segment of the market ex. auto sales) tends to drive down prices and make for better products for the consumer. I think all business work markets eventually resemble a bell curve, let's take mobile phones as a general example: Apple = first/trendy iPhones, Google = best/mainstream phones that most people use, Blackberry = business/govt phones, Microsoft (which now owns Nokia) = inexpensive handsets, HTC = obscure/gadgety handsets (got an HTC myself), and there is even a OnePlusOne phone that is pretty cool. So yeah you can say that Apple is most profitable in that sector & biggest market value company in the world so they 'own' that market but really it is a big ecosystem with lots of players in it. I would actually say that that describes a marketplace that is NOT zero-sum, per se.. Zero-sum games only occur in isolated markets i.e. restricted to one field or perhaps inside one company ("Gildor in accounting got the promotion I wanted so now I don't get one this year!", for example)
But you have to admit that by economic indicators (GDP, best example), the country that makes the most money (highest GDP number) wins .. so everyone is making money but there is a reference point here as to how countries compare to each other. US has greatest GDP = Winner, China 2nd most GDP = second, Germany 3rd most GDP = third, Japan = 4th highest GDP, etc, economically speaking.
From a daily life perspective, market share is not relevant, for a person who wakes up in the morning, sips some coffee, goes to work at an office, drives home through rush hour & eats dinner at home. But you know their boss or the owner of a company cares about market share and that is top of the agenda in their weekly meeting because they want their company to survive. And eventually regular employees care about economics if their business folds from lost market share and they lose their jobs & become unemployed (*cough* like Borders Bookstore..........just sayin)
Why would you use GDP as indicator of winning. By that definition India wins over Norway. Where would you rather live if you were statistically normal citizen, poverty-ridden country with high GDP or country with basically no poverty and high standard of living but low GDP ?
The whole concept "it is bad to be European currently" is so stupid. Nearly all Europeans are living far beyond anything that can be termed "bad". All the current trouble might in the future lead to something bad(tm), but currently EU is doing just fine. It seems like people see the whole economy thing as some competition instead of a way to make people live decent lives. All the current "problems" are so small from historical perspective and in principle not a threat to EU being good place to live. Of course "in principle" means that it can be fucked up by people and politicians, but it is not there yet.
As for personal debt. Basically any personal debt except mortgage is stupid decision by the person in any decent country with good healthcare.
A society that does not naturally reproduce itself it, arguably, facing some difficulties yeah.
Same goes the other way around, a society with a too high fertility runs in other problems. As a french, you should be able to sing a song about it, topics would be unemployment rate, education level, inequality level. All things that france suffers from alot more than germany.
Apart from the obvious fact that while i agree that the low fertility to some degree is a problem, the other way around (the way france does it) is an inherently flawed system that eventually will collapse too. Your economy is based on domestic consumption powered by population growth. That works for now (more or less) - but it's on a timer.
Point being, low fertility is (would be) alot more of a problem for france than it is for germany. Solely based on your economy-system.
For one, there are many kinds of debt in Germany which cannot be repaid early.
As a german, i don't know where you got that from, but it's wrong. Pretty much every credit you take can be repaid early (you still have to pay the interest etc, but still), which can't be said for credits in the UK, for example (also from experience). Not to mention that in the UK you have to work with ridiculous APR rates (100% and more are common). Excluding interest rate. I got lucky that my parents helped me out of that (needed credit for moving/furniture since i couldn't bring it all from germany), otherwise i would be screwed for life.
A society that does not naturally reproduce itself it, arguably, facing some difficulties yeah.
Same goes the other way around, a society with a too high fertility runs in other problems. As a french, you should be able to sing a song about it, topics would be unemployment rate, education level, inequality level. All things that france suffers from alot more than germany.
Apart from the obvious fact that while i agree that the low fertility to some degree is a problem, the other way around (the way france does it) is an inherently flawed system that eventually will collapse too. Your economy is based on domestic consumption powered by population growth. That works for now (more or less) - but it's on a timer.
Point being, low fertility is (would be) alot more of a problem for france than it is for germany. Solely based on your economy-system.
For one, there are many kinds of debt in Germany which cannot be repaid early.
As a german, i don't know where you got that from, but it's wrong. Pretty much every credit you take can be repaid early (you still have to pay the interest etc, but still), which can't be said for credits in the UK, for example (also from experience). Not to mention that in the UK you have to work with ridiculous APR rates (100% and more are common). Excluding interest rate. I got lucky that my parents helped me out of that (needed credit for moving/furniture since i couldn't bring it all from germany), otherwise i would be screwed for life.
What kind of household did you move that the credit for if would have screwed you for life?
A society that does not naturally reproduce itself it, arguably, facing some difficulties yeah.
Same goes the other way around, a society with a too high fertility runs in other problems. As a french, you should be able to sing a song about it, topics would be unemployment rate, education level, inequality level. All things that france suffers from alot more than germany.
Apart from the obvious fact that while i agree that the low fertility to some degree is a problem, the other way around (the way france does it) is an inherently flawed system that eventually will collapse too. Your economy is based on domestic consumption powered by population growth. That works for now (more or less) - but it's on a timer.
Point being, low fertility is (would be) alot more of a problem for france than it is for germany. Solely based on your economy-system.
For one, there are many kinds of debt in Germany which cannot be repaid early.
As a german, i don't know where you got that from, but it's wrong. Pretty much every credit you take can be repaid early (you still have to pay the interest etc, but still), which can't be said for credits in the UK, for example (also from experience). Not to mention that in the UK you have to work with ridiculous APR rates (100% and more are common). Excluding interest rate. I got lucky that my parents helped me out of that (needed credit for moving/furniture since i couldn't bring it all from germany), otherwise i would be screwed for life.
What kind of household did you move that the credit for if would have screwed you for life?
Not entirely sure why i would have to explain to you what exactly i moved/bought, but feel free to do the math: i went from a 39qm appartment to a 160qm house with garden and garage. What do you think?
That's not including my car, which is left hand drive, which is really shitty on right hand drive roads. So include a new (used) car too.
And on top of that, add an APR of 40% +40% interest on it. And that is considered normal. It even get's advertised in TV up and down, with alot higher APR rates.
edit: Renovierungsarbeiten (renovation?) only partially included.
On November 21 2014 10:17 Nyxisto wrote: I still think people are looking at the numbers way to uncritically when talking about "decline" in Europe. Sure economic growth sucks, but if you look at the median household income in the US adjusted for purchasing power, it's barely higher than it was three decades ago. What is economic growth good for if it's only fuelled by the money press and inequality and the only real profiteers are 1% of the population? Growth is nice and all but if your housing, healthcare and college costs grow several times as fast as your income it doesn't mean anything at all.
don't ask dangerous questions, Nyxisto. you clearly just don't understand economics
A society that does not naturally reproduce itself it, arguably, facing some difficulties yeah.
Same goes the other way around, a society with a too high fertility runs in other problems. As a french, you should be able to sing a song about it, topics would be unemployment rate, education level, inequality level. All things that france suffers from alot more than germany.
Apart from the obvious fact that while i agree that the low fertility to some degree is a problem, the other way around (the way france does it) is an inherently flawed system that eventually will collapse too. Your economy is based on domestic consumption powered by population growth. That works for now (more or less) - but it's on a timer.
Point being, low fertility is (would be) alot more of a problem for france than it is for germany. Solely based on your economy-system.
For one, there are many kinds of debt in Germany which cannot be repaid early.
As a german, i don't know where you got that from, but it's wrong. Pretty much every credit you take can be repaid early (you still have to pay the interest etc, but still), which can't be said for credits in the UK, for example (also from experience). Not to mention that in the UK you have to work with ridiculous APR rates (100% and more are common). Excluding interest rate. I got lucky that my parents helped me out of that (needed credit for moving/furniture since i couldn't bring it all from germany), otherwise i would be screwed for life.
I dont want to be too hard on you but if you think France's fertility is too high and explain unemployment rate you re delusional.
The rest of your post is so german it's offensive. If you think an economy based on domestic consumption powered by population growth is flawed, how do you explain the XIXth and the XXth century... lol. France fertility is not a problem, being low or high, germany on the other side is a problem, because its lack of spendings - that impact on its fertility since there is no support on child education - and its high exportation makes it a clandestine passenger of the euro, profitting from the other's deficit. But I guess only german economists refuse to understand that the excedent of germany is only possible thanks to the spendings (and deficit) of the others (economically responsible) european countries.
soothsayer...still don't get why we allowed them to give each other academic titles...
as long the usa creates war zones on the world and keeps one part under permanent thread germany should be fine thx to weapon selling. still don't get why Canada buying tanks like crazy from Germany but well, just one example.
Historical seen, a country is poor, gets rich, people demand more, people get higher salary, industry finds other place to produce. China is now rising. soon the salary will be so high that our lovely industry will search for other places to produce cheap.
And to topic Germany...Schäuble pulled a lot of tricks to balance the state income. In fact 40% of Germany will be poor when they stop working. Thats already confirmed by the government, just Merkel did not hear it thats why I had to hear "Germany is doing fine..."
On November 22 2014 06:42 tadL wrote: soothsayer...still don't get why we allowed them to give each other academic titles...
as long the usa creates war zones on the world and keeps one part under permanent thread germany should be fine thx to weapon selling. still don't get why Canada buying tanks like crazy from Germany but well, just one example.
well, we have been making pretty good tanks for the last 70 or so years
Look, if you can you need to buy a house in remote country, buy a gun and sit the collapse out if possible.You do not want to be in the cities when it gets real bad.
Japan raising taxes or meandering around the edges won't do anything.Japans economy peaked when the number of working age people (In the workforce) peaked.Fukushima is still spewing toxic waste, nothing has changed there - the third largest economy in the world is in pretty horrific shape but they're not alone in that regard.
On November 21 2014 10:17 Nyxisto wrote: I still think people are looking at the numbers way to uncritically when talking about "decline" in Europe. Sure economic growth sucks, but if you look at the median household income in the US adjusted for purchasing power, it's barely higher than it was three decades ago. What is economic growth good for if it's only fuelled by the money press and inequality and the only real profiteers are 1% of the population? Growth is nice and all but if your housing, healthcare and college costs grow several times as fast as your income it doesn't mean anything at all.
Growing inequality doesn't mean that the top 1% are getting all the benefits of growth. Median household income statistics often don't account for increased public / private benefits (as with census numbers, and which growth helps pay for) or smaller household sizes.
Also, keep in mind that all developed countries have growing retiree populations. If you have no growth, that makes paying for those retirees harder for those still working.
On November 21 2014 10:17 Nyxisto wrote: I still think people are looking at the numbers way to uncritically when talking about "decline" in Europe. Sure economic growth sucks, but if you look at the median household income in the US adjusted for purchasing power, it's barely higher than it was three decades ago. What is economic growth good for if it's only fuelled by the money press and inequality and the only real profiteers are 1% of the population? Growth is nice and all but if your housing, healthcare and college costs grow several times as fast as your income it doesn't mean anything at all.
Growing inequality doesn't mean that the top 1% are getting all the benefits of growth. Median household income statistics often don't account for increased public / private benefits (as with census numbers, and which growth helps pay for) or smaller household sizes.
Also, keep in mind that all developed countries have growing retiree populations. If you have no growth, that makes paying for those retirees harder for those still working.
The US economy has grown sixteenfold since the 1970s, while median income has not even increase by what, a factor of two? There are a lot of studies out there that show that the now 20ish year olds will not be able to accumulate more wealth than the generation before. This isn't just some kind of "the good old times" illusion. Almost all accumulated wealth over the last few years has gone to the top few percent.
On November 21 2014 10:17 Nyxisto wrote: I still think people are looking at the numbers way to uncritically when talking about "decline" in Europe. Sure economic growth sucks, but if you look at the median household income in the US adjusted for purchasing power, it's barely higher than it was three decades ago. What is economic growth good for if it's only fuelled by the money press and inequality and the only real profiteers are 1% of the population? Growth is nice and all but if your housing, healthcare and college costs grow several times as fast as your income it doesn't mean anything at all.
Growing inequality doesn't mean that the top 1% are getting all the benefits of growth. Median household income statistics often don't account for increased public / private benefits (as with census numbers, and which growth helps pay for) or smaller household sizes.
Also, keep in mind that all developed countries have growing retiree populations. If you have no growth, that makes paying for those retirees harder for those still working.
The US economy has grown sixteenfold since the 1970s, while median income has not even increase by what, a factor of two? There are a lot of studies out there that show that the now 20ish year olds will not be able to accumulate more wealth than the generation before. This isn't just some kind of "the good old times" illusion. Almost all accumulated wealth over the last few years has gone to the top few percent.
Real GDP per capita has about doubled since the 70's. Median income has grown by less, due to inequality and the non-counting of items like benefits.
Not sure why wealth is the correct measure. A lot of people would rather spend than save. Personally I'd prefer people to save more, but it's their money and their prerogative.
Edit: I should also add that a no-growth economy doesn't free you from inequality. Typically, zero-growth still leaves an economy with productivity and technological advances that lead to unemployment. Typically, unemployment falls harder on lower income jobs. A no-growth economy can therefore be a big problem for those on the low end, rather than just a lack of gains for the already well-off.
Talk of increasing benefits is also a joke. Healthcare and retirement. Healthcare is a requirement, and US costs are soaring compared to other countries. Getting increased healthcare benefits just means you are getting the same quality of care as you were getting two decades ago, but your employer pays more for it. As for retirement, I shouldn't have to point out that that is a joke. The baby boomers have no retirement savings. Reverse mortgages are going through the roof as boomers sell back their house to the finance industry in order to survive into old age. What great "benefits."
On November 24 2014 09:07 IgnE wrote: Talk of increasing benefits is also a joke. Healthcare and retirement. Healthcare is a requirement, and US costs are soaring compared to other countries. Getting increased healthcare benefits just means you are getting the same quality of care as you were getting two decades ago, but your employer pays more for it. As for retirement, I shouldn't have to point out that that is a joke. The baby boomers have no retirement savings. Reverse mortgages are going through the roof as boomers sell back their house to the finance industry in order to survive into old age. What great "benefits."
Real numbers account for healthcare cost inflation. My statements were factual.
What does that mean jonny? Are you translating life expectancy into dollars? Quality of life? What does it mean to say that you are receiving more in healthcare benefits when healthcare costs more money?
On November 24 2014 11:09 IgnE wrote: What does that mean jonny? Are you translating life expectancy into dollars? Quality of life? What does it mean to say that you are receiving more in healthcare benefits when healthcare costs more money?
You can adjust for inflation. Real means that the figures have been adjusted for inflation. You can look at what people made in terms of wages and benefits, understand that some of the increase is due to inflationary effects, and adjust accordingly.
What does it mean to be purchasing more real healthcare? What does it mean to say that healthcare inflation has gone up 10%, healthcare benefits have gone up 20% and that people are now receiving 9% more real healthcare?
Discussing numbers really is a little futile. 20 or 30 years ago a single earner could pay for a complete household often without an academic background. Today your average college graduates can barely pay for a family if both work while Bill Gates personal wealth equals the economic size of small countries. "wow, big TV's have gotten really cheap!" isn't really an argument given these developments.
On November 24 2014 11:28 IgnE wrote: What does it mean to be purchasing more real healthcare? What does it mean to say that healthcare inflation has gone up 10%, healthcare benefits have gone up 20% and that people are now receiving 9% more real healthcare?
Exactly that. Not sure what you aren't getting... is this like a 'we're in the Matrix and there is no spoon' thing?
On November 24 2014 11:36 Nyxisto wrote: Discussing numbers really is a little futile. 20 or 30 years ago a single earner could pay for a complete household often without an academic background. Today your average college graduates can barely pay for a family if both work while Bill Gates personal wealth equals the economic size of small countries. "wow, big TV's have gotten really cheap!" isn't really an argument given these developments.
Fiction. A 'complete household' in the 70's is not a 'complete household' in 2014.
On November 24 2014 11:36 Nyxisto wrote: Discussing numbers really is a little futile. 20 or 30 years ago a single earner could pay for a complete household often without an academic background. Today your average college graduates can barely pay for a family if both work while Bill Gates personal wealth equals the economic size of small countries. "wow, big TV's have gotten really cheap!" isn't really an argument given these developments.
Fiction. A 'complete household' in the 70's is not a 'complete household' in 2014.
Care to elaborate? I'd bet most people would trade their smartphone for their 50k college debt, a house and two cars.
On November 24 2014 11:36 Nyxisto wrote: Discussing numbers really is a little futile. 20 or 30 years ago a single earner could pay for a complete household often without an academic background. Today your average college graduates can barely pay for a family if both work while Bill Gates personal wealth equals the economic size of small countries. "wow, big TV's have gotten really cheap!" isn't really an argument given these developments.
Fiction. A 'complete household' in the 70's is not a 'complete household' in 2014.
Care to elaborate? I'd bet most people would trade their smartphone for their 50k college debt, a house and two cars.
no smartphones, smaller houses (2-3 kids per bed room), no computer, no air conditioner, one shitty car. The complete household of the 70's had a lot less than a complete household of 2014.
And apparently even though wages haven't gone up we have "more healthcare" however that is defined by jonny, but certainly not in a way that actually reflects better health outcomes.
On November 24 2014 12:46 IgnE wrote: And apparently even though wages haven't gone up we have "more healthcare" however that is defined by jonny, but certainly not in a way that actually reflects better health outcomes.
Heath outcomes have improved over the past 30 years. Get a clue.
On November 24 2014 12:46 IgnE wrote: And apparently even though wages haven't gone up we have "more healthcare" however that is defined by jonny, but certainly not in a way that actually reflects better health outcomes.
People live both longer and healthier lives than in the seventies. Healthcare technology has improved a lot as well. HoBo is right when he says that people were happy with a lot less fourty years ago, just because there was less.
Eh, 30 years ago one shitty car was worth more than one 'good' car now is, likewise you didn't have computers or smartphones but something like a new oven model or whatever was much more valuable. Of course people were happy with less in the past, but it's not because families have 'more' now that people have to work more to afford a family budget.
Work is supposed to be much more productive with modern technologies, but the productivity doesn't go towards paying those who actually do the working.
On November 22 2014 06:42 tadL wrote: soothsayer...still don't get why we allowed them to give each other academic titles...
as long the usa creates war zones on the world and keeps one part under permanent thread germany should be fine thx to weapon selling. still don't get why Canada buying tanks like crazy from Germany but well, just one example.
Historical seen, a country is poor, gets rich, people demand more, people get higher salary, industry finds other place to produce. China is now rising. soon the salary will be so high that our lovely industry will search for other places to produce cheap.
And to topic Germany...Schäuble pulled a lot of tricks to balance the state income. In fact 40% of Germany will be poor when they stop working. Thats already confirmed by the government, just Merkel did not hear it thats why I had to hear "Germany is doing fine..."
Source? Also:
In your statement does 40% of Germans being poor after working mean:
A) Will recieve less then minimum living wage in pension. or B) Will live in poverty?
Just to clarify the distincion: My inlaws have been selfemployed (owning a specialist store) their whole live. Due to the fact how pension benefits work in Germany they do not recieve a pension that would be a living wage for an employee. On the other hand they have private Assets in excess of what a an employee could amass in a working live, which they excplicitly saved up for their retirement.
Another useless one-liner without any real point actually made or any substance to it. bookwyrm, this is meant to be an informative thread and simply pretending you're successfully shutting down anything you disagree with by pronouncing one meaningless attacking sentence here and there only works against that. Give some better examples then. Multiple of them. ...or will you use the insanity you're now plagued by, thanks to JonnyBNoHo, as an excuse for your inability to do so?
I have no idea about economics, so, help me out with understanding the problem, okay?
You say, a society can only function, if it creates more wealth every year, right? And wealth is measured by how much money the economy makes. So, how can the economy produce more money every year? The resources on this planet are finite, so, shouldn't we work towards a society that does not grow infinitely?
Or will we reach the point when there are no resources left and all those clever economists will say, whoops, nobody saw that coming? Just like they said, nobody could have seen the housing bubble burst coming. But before they all said, making debt is good, buy houses now.
On November 26 2014 00:28 Broetchenholer wrote: I have no idea about economics, so, help me out with understanding the problem, okay?
You say, a society can only function, if it creates more wealth every year, right? And wealth is measured by how much money the economy makes. So, how can the economy produce more money every year? The resources on this planet are finite, so, shouldn't we work towards a society that does not grow infinitely?
Or will we reach the point when there are no resources left and all those clever economists will say, whoops, nobody saw that coming? Just like they said, nobody could have seen the housing bubble burst coming. But before they all said, making debt is good, buy houses now.
First, wealth is usually measured in terms of Dollars and Cents, but it does not equal money. You can have wealth without money and you can have money but no wealth.
I don't think anyone pretends that resources are infinite. However it is possible to create wealth without using up (more) finite resources.
Whether we should have eventually a society without growth is really a more philosophical than practical consideration. Right now and for the foreseeable future our society does need growth.
On November 26 2014 00:28 Broetchenholer wrote: I have no idea about economics, so, help me out with understanding the problem, okay?
You say, a society can only function, if it creates more wealth every year, right? And wealth is measured by how much money the economy makes. So, how can the economy produce more money every year? The resources on this planet are finite, so, shouldn't we work towards a society that does not grow infinitely?
Or will we reach the point when there are no resources left and all those clever economists will say, whoops, nobody saw that coming? Just like they said, nobody could have seen the housing bubble burst coming. But before they all said, making debt is good, buy houses now.
This is a common misconception and certainly one perpetuated by our obsession with things like consumer demand (i.e. how much shit people buy) and ranking countries by GDP with the huge assumption that money = happiness.
That said, the economy can produce more money every year by producing things that people want. And it doesn't have to be physical - a big part of growth over the last few decades in OECD countries is the expansion of information and the consumption of media. Accordingly, miniaturization has helped people do more with less in terms of natural resources (although we are still consuming more resources than ever, which is a problem).
I would also point out that continued growth is almost definitely a reason why the most advanced economies are plateauing, especially as people try to focus in on improving quality of life with things like marrying later and having fewer children.
That said, you should be wary of predictions of the future. We're only slightly better at it than our tea-reading, bone-throwing ancestors, and you're in the wrong house if you're making life decisions based on what economists are saying. Even with things that are fairly obvious, we have a tendency to exaggerate, get lazy, and overshoot.
On December 02 2014 08:41 coverpunch wrote: We're only slightly better at it than our tea-reading, bone-throwing ancestors
I'd say we're worse, because we're under the silly delusion think that our bone-throwing actually works - I'm pretty sure that the ancients, on the other hand, understood perfectly well that divination is merely a way to make decisions arbitrarily; that is, they related to it in the same way that we would relate to a magic 8-ball
On November 19 2014 01:54 Redox wrote: I am glad that Germany has low fertility. I just wish it was the same in other countries.
THIS!
With advances in robotics (meaning getting gainful employment will be much harder in the future) and depleting global natural resources (we really don't have any reasonable substitutes for most of what we are using up), shouldn't all countries strive to decrease fertility?
Sure it'll lead to economic problems in short-to-medium run, but what about the long run? The less people we have on this planet, the larger share of renewable and non-renewable resources every person can potentially earn.
On November 19 2014 01:54 Redox wrote: I am glad that Germany has low fertility. I just wish it was the same in other countries.
THIS!
With advances in robotics (meaning getting gainful employment will be much harder in the future) and depleting global natural resources (we really don't have any reasonable substitutes for most of what we are using up), shouldn't all countries strive to decrease fertility?
Sure it'll lead to economic problems in short-to-medium run, but what about the long run? The less people we have on this planet, the larger share of renewable and non-renewable resources every person can potentially earn.
because it is a deeply misanthropic and pessimistic way of thinking. I also have the feeling that people from the environmental-sensitive side seem to underestimate the resources we have available. Coal, Oil, Gas and Uranium all will last for at least 100 years. which doesn't even account for the technological advances we will make in the future. With everyone so obsessed about their iPhone and the (cheap) consumer criticism it yields, people tend to overlook the technological advances in mining and drilling. the famous Club of Rome report was wrong not because they calculated wrong, they simply couldn't account for technological advancement. Peak Oil never came.
your focus on robotics also is steering away from the fields we need people for: research and education. There are so much more things we don't understand starting from genetics to gravity. Yet we are here trying to build a fusion core.
"preserving natural resources" also is a moot point for two reasons. The first is that humanity started to evolve away from an agricultural society to a technological advanced one when we started to used coal as energy source. The sun simply doesn't deliver enough energy to sustain our technological standard. which includes vaccines and cancer treatment and robotics. the second is that the sun will burn out eventually. so you could maybe expand humanities existence, but in the end "preserving" humanity will be in vain.
We need technological advancements to "save" humanity and we need a highly specialized work force for people to develop cutting edge technologies. this is only possible with enough people. in the end it's a simply number games: the more well educated people you have the more likely someone makes a big discovery.
On November 19 2014 01:54 Redox wrote: I am glad that Germany has low fertility. I just wish it was the same in other countries.
THIS!
With advances in robotics (meaning getting gainful employment will be much harder in the future) and depleting global natural resources (we really don't have any reasonable substitutes for most of what we are using up), shouldn't all countries strive to decrease fertility?
Sure it'll lead to economic problems in short-to-medium run, but what about the long run? The less people we have on this planet, the larger share of renewable and non-renewable resources every person can potentially earn.
because it is a deeply misanthropic and pessimistic way of thinking. I also have the feeling that people from the environmental-sensitive side seem to underestimate the resources we have available. Coal, Oil, Gas and Uranium all will last for at least 100 years. which doesn't even account for the technological advances we will make in the future. With everyone so obsessed about their iPhone and the (cheap) consumer criticism it yields, people tend to overlook the technological advances in mining and drilling. the famous Club of Rome report was wrong not because they calculated wrong, they simply couldn't account for technological advancement. Peak Oil never came.
your focus on robotics also is steering away from the fields we need people for: research and education. There are so much more things we don't understand starting from genetics to gravity. Yet we are here trying to build a fusion core.
"preserving natural resources" also is a moot point for two reasons. The first is that humanity started to evolve away from an agricultural society to a technological advanced one when we started to used coal as energy source. The sun simply doesn't deliver enough energy to sustain our technological standard. which includes vaccines and cancer treatment and robotics. the second is that the sun will burn out eventually. so you could maybe expand humanities existence, but in the end "preserving" humanity will be in vain.
We need technological advancements to "save" humanity and we need a highly specialized work force for people to develop cutting edge technologies. this is only possible with enough people. in the end it's a simply number games: the more well educated people you have the more likely someone makes a big discovery.
Thanks for your post. I am myself working on future tech (advanced research in physics and engineering). I know that resource extraction is rapidly improving. I know that technology can solve a lot of challenges if used right.
However wouldn't we be even better off with more advanced technology AND less people, at least until the point when we can massively colonise other worlds (and keep in mind that this point is very far away)?
As for research and education, most developed economies are decreasing funding for these endeavours both in public sector and in private sector. Building a career in research or education is no longer possible in most developed countries, barring school teaching. In UK only 1 out of 220 successful STEM PhDs can become a professor (i.e. a career in research and/or education). In other developed countries the situation is similar. And it's getting much worse. Another tiny fraction of PhDs may build R&D careers outside academia, but not many. A lot of companies worldwide are currently disbanding their entire R&D departments or at least massively downsizing them (Google is one of the very few notable exceptions to this trend). If research and education is the answer, than we are rapidly moving in the opposite direction.
On November 19 2014 01:54 Redox wrote: I am glad that Germany has low fertility. I just wish it was the same in other countries.
THIS!
With advances in robotics (meaning getting gainful employment will be much harder in the future) and depleting global natural resources (we really don't have any reasonable substitutes for most of what we are using up), shouldn't all countries strive to decrease fertility?
Sure it'll lead to economic problems in short-to-medium run, but what about the long run? The less people we have on this planet, the larger share of renewable and non-renewable resources every person can potentially earn.
because it is a deeply misanthropic and pessimistic way of thinking. I also have the feeling that people from the environmental-sensitive side seem to underestimate the resources we have available. Coal, Oil, Gas and Uranium all will last for at least 100 years. which doesn't even account for the technological advances we will make in the future. With everyone so obsessed about their iPhone and the (cheap) consumer criticism it yields, people tend to overlook the technological advances in mining and drilling. the famous Club of Rome report was wrong not because they calculated wrong, they simply couldn't account for technological advancement. Peak Oil never came.
your focus on robotics also is steering away from the fields we need people for: research and education. There are so much more things we don't understand starting from genetics to gravity. Yet we are here trying to build a fusion core.
"preserving natural resources" also is a moot point for two reasons. The first is that humanity started to evolve away from an agricultural society to a technological advanced one when we started to used coal as energy source. The sun simply doesn't deliver enough energy to sustain our technological standard. which includes vaccines and cancer treatment and robotics. the second is that the sun will burn out eventually. so you could maybe expand humanities existence, but in the end "preserving" humanity will be in vain.
We need technological advancements to "save" humanity and we need a highly specialized work force for people to develop cutting edge technologies. this is only possible with enough people. in the end it's a simply number games: the more well educated people you have the more likely someone makes a big discovery.
Thanks for your post. I am myself working on future tech (advanced research in physics and engineering). I know that resource extraction is rapidly improving. I know that technology can solve a lot of challenges if used right.
However wouldn't we be even better off with more advanced technology AND less people, at least until the point when we can massively colonise other worlds (and keep in mind that this point is very far away)?
As for research and education, most developed economies are decreasing funding for these endeavours both in public sector and in private sector. Building a career in research or education is no longer possible in most developed countries, barring school teaching. In UK only 1 out of 220 successful STEM PhDs can become a professor (i.e. a career in research and/or education). In other developed countries the situation is similar. And it's getting much worse. Another tiny fraction of PhDs may build R&D careers outside academia, but not many. A lot of companies worldwide are currently disbanding their entire R&D departments or at least massively downsizing them (Google is one of the very few notable exceptions to this trend). If research and education is the answer, than we are rapidly moving in the opposite direction.
I'm sorry if I projected some of my views about the "ecological movement" onto you. One of my main problems with "them" is that most of the time there is a misanthropy or even "mankind-hating" lingering through their views together with an overly romantic view of nature ("mother nature", "natural balance").
I'm also well aware that I was describing more of an ideal world myself, maybe even putting a naive hope on technological advancement myself.
It's just that I want to believe that mankind can "dug itself out of the hole in which we put ourselves". Every generation before us could have held pretty much the same view of "resources are running out" and restrain themselves. But they didn't and just carried on. And here we are, with more knowledge and possibilities than every generation before us. Taking the preserving-stance has a very defeatist stench for me. Falling into the trap that we might become caretakers instead of creators.
there's also a very practical problem (which also plagues global warming): you can't enforce this worldwide. not only would there be an uproar in the "western" world (or so I tend to believe), underdeveloped countries simply don't have the administrative measures to enforce such a policy. So you would simply reinforce an already existing problem: technologically advanced societies will be shrinking while other will grow. And they will simply start using the resources "we" won't. just take a look at China: They are well aware that coal plants pollute their air, but they build them anyway without air filters because having cheap, dirty electricity is better than not having electricity at all. And it simply won't happen that the chinese government says: hey, sorry, you can't go for western living standard because we have to protect "the planet".
On November 19 2014 01:54 Redox wrote: I am glad that Germany has low fertility. I just wish it was the same in other countries.
THIS!
With advances in robotics (meaning getting gainful employment will be much harder in the future) and depleting global natural resources (we really don't have any reasonable substitutes for most of what we are using up), shouldn't all countries strive to decrease fertility?
Sure it'll lead to economic problems in short-to-medium run, but what about the long run? The less people we have on this planet, the larger share of renewable and non-renewable resources every person can potentially earn.
because it is a deeply misanthropic and pessimistic way of thinking. I also have the feeling that people from the environmental-sensitive side seem to underestimate the resources we have available. Coal, Oil, Gas and Uranium all will last for at least 100 years. which doesn't even account for the technological advances we will make in the future. With everyone so obsessed about their iPhone and the (cheap) consumer criticism it yields, people tend to overlook the technological advances in mining and drilling. the famous Club of Rome report was wrong not because they calculated wrong, they simply couldn't account for technological advancement. Peak Oil never came.
your focus on robotics also is steering away from the fields we need people for: research and education. There are so much more things we don't understand starting from genetics to gravity. Yet we are here trying to build a fusion core.
"preserving natural resources" also is a moot point for two reasons. The first is that humanity started to evolve away from an agricultural society to a technological advanced one when we started to used coal as energy source. The sun simply doesn't deliver enough energy to sustain our technological standard. which includes vaccines and cancer treatment and robotics. the second is that the sun will burn out eventually. so you could maybe expand humanities existence, but in the end "preserving" humanity will be in vain.
We need technological advancements to "save" humanity and we need a highly specialized work force for people to develop cutting edge technologies. this is only possible with enough people. in the end it's a simply number games: the more well educated people you have the more likely someone makes a big discovery.
Thanks for your post. I am myself working on future tech (advanced research in physics and engineering). I know that resource extraction is rapidly improving. I know that technology can solve a lot of challenges if used right.
However wouldn't we be even better off with more advanced technology AND less people, at least until the point when we can massively colonise other worlds (and keep in mind that this point is very far away)?
As for research and education, most developed economies are decreasing funding for these endeavours both in public sector and in private sector. Building a career in research or education is no longer possible in most developed countries, barring school teaching. In UK only 1 out of 220 successful STEM PhDs can become a professor (i.e. a career in research and/or education). In other developed countries the situation is similar. And it's getting much worse. Another tiny fraction of PhDs may build R&D careers outside academia, but not many. A lot of companies worldwide are currently disbanding their entire R&D departments or at least massively downsizing them (Google is one of the very few notable exceptions to this trend). If research and education is the answer, than we are rapidly moving in the opposite direction.
I'm sorry if I projected some of my views about the "ecological movement" onto you. One of my main problems with "them" is that most of the time there is a misanthropy or even "mankind-hating" lingering through their views together with an overly romantic view of nature ("mother nature", "natural balance").
I'm also well aware that I was describing more of an ideal world myself, maybe even putting a naive hope on technological advancement myself.
It's just that I want to believe that mankind can "dug itself out of the hole in which we put ourselves". Every generation before us could have held pretty much the same view of "resources are running out" and restrain themselves. But they didn't and just carried on. And here we are, with more knowledge and possibilities than every generation before us. Taking the preserving-stance has a very defeatist stench for me. Falling into the trap that we might become caretakers instead of creators.
there's also a very practical problem (which also plagues global warming): you can't enforce this worldwide. not only would there be an uproar in the "western" world (or so I tend to believe), underdeveloped countries simply don't have the administrative measures to enforce such a policy. So you would simply reinforce an already existing problem: technologically advanced societies will be shrinking while other will grow. And they will simply start using the resources "we" won't. just take a look at China: They are well aware that coal plants pollute their air, but they build them anyway without air filters because having cheap, dirty electricity is better than not having electricity at all. And it simply won't happen that the chinese government says: hey, sorry, you can't go for western living standard because we have to protect "the planet".
Well, previous generation had the feeling that the industrial age would have irremediable effect on nature : it's at the core of Nietzsche and Heidegger's work believe it or not, it's in Marx's early writtings, it's in Jevons' early work on coal usage. That we achieved technical progress doesn't make our way of life sustainable. The main problem is that this unsustainability is not directly understandable for a generation, but kicks in after many generations. I prefer misanthropy over blind faith in progress : it's more rational.
If we manage to switch to renewable energy by the end of this century I don't see why we couldn't sustain our current standard of living. This has nothing to do with blind faith. Industrialized England one or two-hundred years ago looked way worse environmentally than it does now. That developing countries like China are actually pretty heavily investing into renewable energy seems to be a good sign, too. If anything the environmental situation has improvement pretty considerable since the early industrial times, when Marx and others brought these issues of sustainability up.
On November 19 2014 01:54 Redox wrote: I am glad that Germany has low fertility. I just wish it was the same in other countries.
THIS!
With advances in robotics (meaning getting gainful employment will be much harder in the future) and depleting global natural resources (we really don't have any reasonable substitutes for most of what we are using up), shouldn't all countries strive to decrease fertility?
Sure it'll lead to economic problems in short-to-medium run, but what about the long run? The less people we have on this planet, the larger share of renewable and non-renewable resources every person can potentially earn.
because it is a deeply misanthropic and pessimistic way of thinking. I also have the feeling that people from the environmental-sensitive side seem to underestimate the resources we have available. Coal, Oil, Gas and Uranium all will last for at least 100 years. which doesn't even account for the technological advances we will make in the future. With everyone so obsessed about their iPhone and the (cheap) consumer criticism it yields, people tend to overlook the technological advances in mining and drilling. the famous Club of Rome report was wrong not because they calculated wrong, they simply couldn't account for technological advancement. Peak Oil never came.
your focus on robotics also is steering away from the fields we need people for: research and education. There are so much more things we don't understand starting from genetics to gravity. Yet we are here trying to build a fusion core.
"preserving natural resources" also is a moot point for two reasons. The first is that humanity started to evolve away from an agricultural society to a technological advanced one when we started to used coal as energy source. The sun simply doesn't deliver enough energy to sustain our technological standard. which includes vaccines and cancer treatment and robotics. the second is that the sun will burn out eventually. so you could maybe expand humanities existence, but in the end "preserving" humanity will be in vain.
We need technological advancements to "save" humanity and we need a highly specialized work force for people to develop cutting edge technologies. this is only possible with enough people. in the end it's a simply number games: the more well educated people you have the more likely someone makes a big discovery.
Thanks for your post. I am myself working on future tech (advanced research in physics and engineering). I know that resource extraction is rapidly improving. I know that technology can solve a lot of challenges if used right.
However wouldn't we be even better off with more advanced technology AND less people, at least until the point when we can massively colonise other worlds (and keep in mind that this point is very far away)?
As for research and education, most developed economies are decreasing funding for these endeavours both in public sector and in private sector. Building a career in research or education is no longer possible in most developed countries, barring school teaching. In UK only 1 out of 220 successful STEM PhDs can become a professor (i.e. a career in research and/or education). In other developed countries the situation is similar. And it's getting much worse. Another tiny fraction of PhDs may build R&D careers outside academia, but not many. A lot of companies worldwide are currently disbanding their entire R&D departments or at least massively downsizing them (Google is one of the very few notable exceptions to this trend). If research and education is the answer, than we are rapidly moving in the opposite direction.
I'm sorry if I projected some of my views about the "ecological movement" onto you. One of my main problems with "them" is that most of the time there is a misanthropy or even "mankind-hating" lingering through their views together with an overly romantic view of nature ("mother nature", "natural balance").
I'm also well aware that I was describing more of an ideal world myself, maybe even putting a naive hope on technological advancement myself.
It's just that I want to believe that mankind can "dug itself out of the hole in which we put ourselves". Every generation before us could have held pretty much the same view of "resources are running out" and restrain themselves. But they didn't and just carried on. And here we are, with more knowledge and possibilities than every generation before us. Taking the preserving-stance has a very defeatist stench for me. Falling into the trap that we might become caretakers instead of creators.
there's also a very practical problem (which also plagues global warming): you can't enforce this worldwide. not only would there be an uproar in the "western" world (or so I tend to believe), underdeveloped countries simply don't have the administrative measures to enforce such a policy. So you would simply reinforce an already existing problem: technologically advanced societies will be shrinking while other will grow. And they will simply start using the resources "we" won't. just take a look at China: They are well aware that coal plants pollute their air, but they build them anyway without air filters because having cheap, dirty electricity is better than not having electricity at all. And it simply won't happen that the chinese government says: hey, sorry, you can't go for western living standard because we have to protect "the planet".
First robotics will make most "research" jobs disappear as well. It's an illusion that all the things even PhD students do require the degrees at all times. Sure if you don't have the education you can never do any part of the job because you lack understanding that drives the process but a successful professor juggles several different projects and PhD students at the same time. If robots could help you do the mundane research tasks and help with things like gathering research and drafting papers (yes there are "robots" which can write already) fewer researchers would be able to do more.
Secondly "new jobs" have yet to replace even close to the amount of old jobs that have disappeared. Sure new markets pop up the amount of people who work in them are not even close to the ones that disappear.
Thirdly not all people have the ability or desire for the advanced higher education that these new jobs would require. Even in states with free higher education we struggle with getting people through the system at a massive cost, most countries don't have the educational system to make everyone a top graduate which will be required to compete.
That the people who lose their jobs will be employed in some new work is a myth, and it's a very dangerous myth. Because it makes us blind to the reality that unemployment will continue to rise over time and the fact that we need to deal with that.
Scarcity of resources is not a problem, we won't run out before we either have a solution or we have crashed. Environmental issues are a compounding factor but also not the core problem.
We need to realize that society needs to change. If capitalism is to survive we need to protect demand probably by taxing production. For sure we can solve the problems with massive unemployment some other way as well.
Because robotics is something inherently good. Were simply getting better at doing stuff and we can produce more, cheaper, faster, easier. It's a good thing in itself and we can just build a better future around it everyone will have a better life.
On December 03 2014 04:19 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: We need to realize that society needs to change. If capitalism is to survive we need to protect demand probably by taxing production. For sure we can solve the problems with massive unemployment some other way as well.
easy! start a war. that's the obvious solution, and the one that will be/is being pursued
On December 03 2014 04:19 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: We need to realize that society needs to change. If capitalism is to survive we need to protect demand probably by taxing production. For sure we can solve the problems with massive unemployment some other way as well.
easy! start a war. that's the obvious solution, and the one that will be/is being pursued
As long as your fighting an inferior enemy so you can keep using humans and you employ enough people to not let unemployment go over 20-25 % it works.
What?? When you fight an inferior enemy, you use robots and magic sky bombs. The entire US engagement in the middle east in the last decade has involved a laughably small number of troops. When you fight a REAL war, you use humans. Wartime mobilization is the only way that the crises of capitalism have ever been solved in the past.
On December 03 2014 03:34 Nyxisto wrote: If we manage to switch to renewable energy by the end of this century I don't see why we couldn't sustain our current standard of living. This has nothing to do with blind faith. Industrialized England one or two-hundred years ago looked way worse environmentally than it does now. That developing countries like China are actually pretty heavily investing into renewable energy seems to be a good sign, too. If anything the environmental situation has improvement pretty considerable since the early industrial times, when Marx and others brought these issues of sustainability up.
On December 03 2014 04:58 bookwyrm wrote: What?? When you fight an inferior enemy, you use robots and magic sky bombs. The entire US engagement in the middle east in the last decade has involved a laughably small number of troops. When you fight a REAL war, you use humans. Wartime mobilization is the only way that the crises of capitalism have ever been solved in the past.
Can't fight a real war with humans for long enough. To many people will die because your side is inferior and opinion will turn on you. Humans today have to much information in a democracy, sustained warfare with high casualties is doomed after Vietnam.
You need a way to mobilize a massive amount of people in a large region against inferior forces. Most actual combat can be done by drones though but you need to employ actual people. Like invading africa + the middle east or something like that, it could work.
But is fucking over the rest of the world really the solution we want?
I also agree it's on topic. Islam / IS / Al-Queda is more and more becoming seen as the enemy. The countries in (northern) Europe has traditionally been welfare states were people expected the state to provide certain services AND they have traditionally taken in a very large number of middle eastern and African refuges.
As a deflationary crisis fueled by people becoming obsolete quagmires the economy and leads to massive unemployment >35 % a welfare state becomes unsustainable. We know human nature so we can assume they want a scapegoat when the state can't handle the unemployable masses. We also know the immigrants are at the bottom rung of society already and will be hit the hardest by the crisis, their unemployment will be higher. We already see radicalization of some youths in this group. The logical followup to the development is increased terrorism in Europe furthering the mistrust and hate towards Islam as a religion.
And when you need a war next, where do you turn?
I'd much prefer we just tax corporations and employ people as caretakers for elderly or schoolteachers or nurses or something.
On December 03 2014 03:34 Nyxisto wrote: If we manage to switch to renewable energy by the end of this century I don't see why we couldn't sustain our current standard of living.
Because of the economy? There are a lot of other constrains besides energy. If the economy does not grow fast enough (and it's quite possible that it won't grow fast enough in a resource constrained world despite advances in technology), then inequality, poverty and underemployment levels rise. That's what has been happening in Japan in the last 2 decades and may also start happening in Germany if it follows the same path.
On December 03 2014 05:12 bookwyrm wrote: Yeah, I just don't believe in the "now we are too civilized for total war" line. I think people thought that in the 10's and the 30's also.
I'm not ADVOCATING the solution. I'm saying that this is the solution that will be pursued.
edit @below: I don't understand what's off topic, we are discussing the geopolitical consequences of deflationary crises. But okay...
How do you fight a global war that involves hundreds of thousands of casualties without blowing up the whole planet with nuclear weapons? It's one thing to talk about some middle eastern ethnic conflict and another to talk about wartime mobilization of a major first world power. I wouldn't say we are too civilized for war; we are scared of it, and for good reason. Without the threat of total nuclear annihilation the US couldn't possibly do what it's been doing for the last 40 years.
as we've seen wtih the rare earth thing, without outright crazy distortions from the govt technology and resources can be sorted out by market price signal. there's a great deal of externalities with energy generation and that need to be solved, but in the eventuality of some resource running out, people will develop substitutes, change behavior or technology it up because of the price increase.
On December 03 2014 05:12 bookwyrm wrote: Yeah, I just don't believe in the "now we are too civilized for total war" line. I think people thought that in the 10's and the 30's also.
I'm not ADVOCATING the solution. I'm saying that this is the solution that will be pursued.
edit @below: I don't understand what's off topic, we are discussing the geopolitical consequences of deflationary crises. But okay...
How do you fight a global war that involves hundreds of thousands of casualties without blowing up the whole planet with nuclear weapons? It's one thing to talk about some middle eastern ethnic conflict and another to talk about wartime mobilization of a major first world power. I wouldn't say we are too civilized for war; we are scared of it, and for good reason. Without the threat of total nuclear annihilation the US couldn't possibly do what it's been doing for the last 40 years.
There are two ways, both fairly obvious. The most obvious is of course that you do not fight with someone else who has nuclear weapons. The US has fought several major wars in the postwar period, at least two "major" even by the horrifying standard set by the world wars (Korea, Vietnam). The other is to ensure that the goals are limited and very clear in scope, in particular emphasizing that the goals are not expansion of territory or total destruction of the enemy's resources. We see this today with how limited President Obama has tried to frame its goals in Syria and Iraq.
We aren't too civilized for war and we are scared of it, but we fight them nonetheless. The US government has been very good through its history at shielding the American public from directly experiencing the horrors of war, but don't mistake that with an implication that the United States does not fight wars.
On December 03 2014 05:12 bookwyrm wrote: Yeah, I just don't believe in the "now we are too civilized for total war" line. I think people thought that in the 10's and the 30's also.
I'm not ADVOCATING the solution. I'm saying that this is the solution that will be pursued.
edit @below: I don't understand what's off topic, we are discussing the geopolitical consequences of deflationary crises. But okay...
How do you fight a global war that involves hundreds of thousands of casualties without blowing up the whole planet with nuclear weapons? It's one thing to talk about some middle eastern ethnic conflict and another to talk about wartime mobilization of a major first world power. I wouldn't say we are too civilized for war; we are scared of it, and for good reason. Without the threat of total nuclear annihilation the US couldn't possibly do what it's been doing for the last 40 years.
There are two ways, both fairly obvious. The most obvious is of course that you do not fight with someone else who has nuclear weapons. The US has fought several major wars in the postwar period, at least two "major" even by the horrifying standard set by the world wars (Korea, Vietnam). The other is to ensure that the goals are limited and very clear in scope, in particular emphasizing that the goals are not expansion of territory or total destruction of the enemy's resources. We see this today with how limited President Obama has tried to frame its goals in Syria and Iraq.
We aren't too civilized for war and we are scared of it, but we fight them nonetheless. The US government has been very good through its history at shielding the American public from directly experiencing the horrors of war, but don't mistake that with an implication that the United States does not fight wars.
The casualties on the US side are a fraction of what they were in Vietnam. We are talking about total war here, not the adventure wars of Cheney and Bush.
This thread has gone off topic too often, and the original thread's topic has little left to discuss. The OP has also abandoned the thread and only makes anti East Asian threads. I don't see any point in keeping this around any longer.