Demography and the future of the West

[TCBF]

Be typical if the Kadrs came back and got better medical treatment for their combat wounds than Canadian soldiers did who were wounded in Afghanistan..

Tom

 

[GO!!!]

Whatever, you fail to understand that it is the blood of the Norse that drives Canada forward!!!   :dontpanic:

True, but as a fine and refreshing beverage for Highland conquerors.  >

 

[TCBF]

This isn't another one of those threads that will degenerate into a booster club for sheep shagging, skirted, gap toothed, semi-literate, needle-tracked, socialist-wildcat-strike-organizing , foul mouthed, unintelligible gits, is it?

;D

Tom

 

[GO!!!]

Of course not, leader-of-those-who-require-axle-grease-to-squeeze-into-the-turrets-of-their-rolling-pillboxes-whilst-swilling-helmetfuls-of-gravy!

GIAB - Go Strats!

;D

 

[TCBF]

Hard for me to type something about me being outraged while I had a mouthfull of the "Turtles" I bought my wife for Christmas!



Mmmmmnnnnn.....  Turtles.

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

(Trying to salvage the thread)

Here is an article about Germany, where the Nanny State discourages job creation and business in general. In response, the Germans are fleeing from Germany(!). If we get a fair share of them, the Norse and Scots may have to deal with the Goths again....

http://freewillblog.com/

All About Germany

It's unbelievable that a country that can come up with anything as hot as those Oktoberfest dirndls is such a bad place to live, but it seems that liberal policy created a nice place to flee.

    Germans are leaving their country in record numbers but unlike previous waves of migrants who fled 19th century poverty or 1930s Nazi terror, these modern day refugees are trying to escape a new scourge -- unemployment.

    Flocking to places as far away as the United States, Canada and Australia as well as Norway, the Netherlands and Austria more than 150,000 Germans packed their bags and left in 2004 -- the greatest exodus in any single year since the late 1940s.

    High unemployment that lingers at levels of more than 20 percent in some parts of Germany and dim prospects for any improvement are the key factors behind the migration. In the 15 years since German unification more than 1.8 million Germans have left.

    "It's hard for me to even imagine any more what it's like to have so much unemployment," said Karin Manske, 45, who moved to the United States with her two children eight years ago to start her own business as a consultant.

    "It's hard to fathom because Germans are such skilled workers," Manske said in an interview with Reuters in Los Angeles. "I love the adventurous spirit and won't go back. You can start a business on a shoe string and work hard to succeed."

    "There are actually far more Germans moving abroad than the numbers reflected in the official statistics,"...Klaus Bade, a University of Osnabrueck professor who studies migration...told Stern magazine in a cover story that gave Germans useful tips on how to emigrate.

    "Sure there are some things I miss but I am very happy here," said Klug, a 35-year-old designer taking evening Dutch lessons. "Work is less stressful, people leave on time, and the atmosphere is much more relaxed and informal among colleagues."

    "In the Netherlands, there isn't the constant moaning you have in Germany," he said. "I'm staying here, at least for now."

    Dagmar Hovestadt had a good job at a Berlin television station but grew bored and quit six years ago, moved to Los Angeles and now works as a freelance journalist.

    "People said I was crazy," she said. "I always dreamed about living in California. The mentality is about as opposite from Berlin as it gets. It's a tough working environment and you're on your own. But I really wanted to get away from Germany."

Many Canadians feel the same way as well....

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Where would a bunch of WASPS relocate to?  Everything in the world is our fault, so who would have us.  No, we are stuck here to wallow in our shame of Western success.

 

[Glorified Ape]

In fact, one could argue that the Khadr family is Canada's principal contribution to the war on terror

:

 

[TCBF]

"the Germans are fleeing from Germany(!). If we get a fair share of them, the Norse and Scots may have to deal with the Goths again...."

- Well, if in defeat, the Norse and Scots are bred to a higher teutonic standard, some good may come of it.

;D

Tom

 

[Revelations2005]

So if Canada wants to exist in the future of the 21st Century we're going to have to fight for it.

Even if that means Canada Vs. the US in a North American Civil War.

How many Cdn Soldiers here are prepared to resist the rise of the American Empire?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

So if Canada wants to exist in the future of the 21st Century we're going to have to fight for it.

Even if that means Canada Vs. the US in a North American Civil War.

How many Cdn Soldiers here are prepared to resist the rise of the American Empire?

"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my ass"
"Aww, Bullwinkle, that trick never works"

Dude, where are you coming from?
First, if it is Canada and the US, it wouldn't exactly be a civil war would it?
And I will be the first to challenge you to show that the US is trying to make any sort of empire.  All they have been doing is policing the rest of the planet because everyone is content to sit back and watch them and bitch like a bunch of ingrates and do nothing.

 

[GO!!!]

So if Canada wants to exist in the future of the 21st Century we're going to have to fight for it.

Even if that means Canada Vs. the US in a North American Civil War.

How many Cdn Soldiers here are prepared to resist the rise of the American Empire?

Wellll, I'm typing this on a Hewlett Packard Computer, I drove home in a Jeep, worked with a Colt weapon all day, and had Coke and Subway for lunch. The list goes on, but how do you think that we are resisting right now?  We already have so much in common, it is difficult to tell us apart, so drop the militant leftist adbusters-esque drivel, and either ground yourself in reality, or stop posting.

Have a nice day.

 

[a_majoor]

The "Empire meme has been discussed here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23427/post-130339.html#msg130339, and,

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33469.0.html

Quick summary, an Empire extracts tribute and taxes from foreign nations under its control. No American Proconsuls are levying and collecting taxes on the people of the world, ergo, no Empire.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Obviously, you need to read 1984, right Revelation? :dontpanic:

 

[TCBF]

"Beware the man of one book."

;D

Tom

 

[squealiox]

maybe a declining population is not such a bad thing anyway:

Incredible shrinking countries - Declining populations
7 January 2006
The Economist

(c) The Economist Newspaper Limited, London 2006. All rights reserved
Rich countries' populations are beginning to shrink. That's not necessarily bad news
DURING the second half of the 20th century, the global population explosion was the big demographic bogey. Robert McNamara, president of the World Bank in the 1970s, compared the threat of unmanageable population pressures with the danger of nuclear war. Now that worry has evaporated, and this century is spooking itself with the opposite fear: the onset of demographic decline.
...
Even China's population will be declining by the early 2030s, according to the UN, which projects that by 2050 populations will be lower than they are today in 50 countries.
Demographic decline worries people because it is believed to go hand in hand with economic decline. At the extremes it may well be the result of economic factors: pessimism may depress the birth rate and push up rates of suicide and alcoholism. But, in the main, demographic decline is the consequence of the low fertility that generally goes with growing prosperity. In Japan, for instance, birth rates fell below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman in the mid-1970s and have been particularly low in the past 15 years.
But if demographic decline is not generally a consequence of economic decline, surely it must be a cause? In a crude sense, yes. As populations shrink, GDP growth will slow. Some economies may even start to shrink, too. The result will be a loss of economic influence.
Governments hate the idea of a shrinking population because the absolute size of GDP matters for great-power status. The bigger the economy, the bigger the military, the greater the geopolitical clout: annual GDP estimates were first introduced in America in the 1940s as part of its war effort. Companies worry, too: they do not like the idea of their domestic markets shrinking. People should not mind, though. What matters for economic welfare is GDP per person.
The crucial question is therefore what the effect of demographic decline is on the growth of GDP per person. The bad news is that this looks likely to slow because working-age populations will decline more rapidly than overall populations. Yet this need not happen. Productivity growth may keep up growth in GDP per person: as labour becomes scarcer, and pressure to introduce new technologies to boost workers' efficiency increases, so the productivity of labour may rise faster. Anyway, retirement ages can be lifted to increase the supply of labour even when the population is declining.
People love to worry—maybe it's a symptom of ageing populations—but the gloom surrounding population declines misses the main point. The new demographics that are causing populations to age and to shrink are something to celebrate. Humanity was once caught in the trap of high fertility and high mortality. Now it has escaped into the freedom of low fertility and low mortality. Women's control over the number of children they have is an unqualified good—as is the average person's enjoyment, in rich countries, of ten more years of life than they had in 1960. Politicians may fear the decline of their nations' economic prowess, but people should celebrate the new demographics as heralding a golden age.

 

[48Highlander]

Wow, talk about misrepresentation of the facts....

The reason China's birth rate may begin to decline by 2030 I'm sure has a lot to do with the fact that they're actively trying to curb their growth by legislating how many children a family can have.  It also doesn't change the fact that they make up more than 1/6th of the world's population.  And then there's the birth rate in Africa.  The only thing that's stopping them from having a population explosion is the high mortality rates/low life expectancy.  And let's not forget about India, which currently has almost as large a population as China, and about twice their birth rate.  Right now the global population sits at just over 6 billion; 40 years from now it's expected to be anywhere between 8 and 10 billion.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Wow, talk about misrepresentation of the facts....

The reason China's birth rate may begin to decline by 2030 I'm sure has a lot to do with the fact that they're actively trying to curb their growth by legislating how many children a family can have.  It also doesn't change the fact that they make up more than 1/6th of the world's population.  And then there's the birth rate in Africa.  The only thing that's stopping them from having a population explosion is the high mortality rates/low life expectancy.  And let's not forget about India, which currently has almost as large a population as China, and about twice their birth rate.  Right now the global population sits at just over 6 billion; 40 years from now it's expected to be anywhere between 8 and 10 billion.

Indeed, and the carrying capacity of the Earth is estimated at 10-13 billion, if I recall correctly. Things are going to get mighty uncomfortable in the years to come if people keep popping out kids the way they have been. While I can't say I like all the repercussions of China's reproductive policy, I think it's a good thing they recognized the problem and have taken steps to remedy it (however effective they may or may not be). I'd like to see India do the same, but given the religiousity of the populous and its democratic government, I doubt it will happen.

 

[a_majoor]

The population = GDP argument is wrong, and the article alluded to this fact.

Productivity growth may keep up growth in GDP per person: as labour becomes scarcer, and pressure to introduce new technologies to boost workers' efficiency increases, so the productivity of labour may rise faster.

Some historians believe this was the main factor for the end of the "dark ages" in Europe; 1/3 of the population had dies from the Black Plague, so the bonds of old social order HAD to be cast off, and innovation became necessary and rewarded.

A small nation may have a high GDP (as well as a high GDP/person) if the people are very productive. In history, this generally occurs when people are unfettered. Up until the end of the British lease, Hong Kong had a fantastic GDP and GDP/person, and the situation is true even today in Tiawan.

The bulk of the population in Hong Kong and Tiawan are Chinese, speak Chinese languages and, in general share most of the same cultural values as their brethren on the mainland. Because they live on islands, they have a more restricted access to resources than mainlanders, and have smaller populations, but until the "Four Modernizations" were launched, the mainlanders lived in relative poverty and squalor.

Africa's high birth rates will avail them nothing unless and until their social organizations and structures get in gear, and the high birth rates of the Arab and Persian Middle East are only a source of trouble for their own societies, since their economies are in no way able to provide jobs and economic opportunities for the masses of young people (even discounting the growing number of young women, who are traditionally excluded from economic and political participation anyway). The most reliable indicator of GDP is actually energy use per person; people who have more energy at their disposal are able to do more of anything.

I think the more important aspect of Steyn's argument is the loss of confidence and will overall in our civilization, declining birth rates may well be a symptom rather than a cause. Lurid worries about being overrun by hordes of angry young Arabs or Africans kind of overlooks the fact that only the West has the transportation and logistical ability to move masses of people (those illegal immigrants arn't coming over on African or Arab ships and airplanes now, are they?)

 

[a_majoor]

Once again, the structural weakness of Europe will hobble them in the future, economically, politically, diplomatically and so on. Canada's political class adheres to many of the "European" nostrums, so this is instructive as a possible look at our future as well:

The Decline and Fall of Europe
Talk to top-level scientists and educators about the future of scientific research and they will rarely even mention Europe.

By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek

Feb. 20, 2006 issue - Cartoons and riots made the headlines in Europe last week, but a far less fiery event, the publication of an academic study, might shed greater light on the future of the Continent. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, headquartered in Paris, released a report, Going for Growth, that details economic prospects in the industrial world. It is 160 pages long and written in bland, cautious, scholarly prose. But the conclusion is clear—Europe is in deep trouble. These days we all talk about the rise of Asia and the challenge to America, but it might well turn out that the most consequential trend of the next decade will be the economic decline of Europe.

It's often noted that the European Union has a combined gross domestic product that is approximately the same as that of the United States. But the EU has 170 million more people. Its per capita GDP is 25 percent lower than that of the U.S. and, most important, that gap has been widening for 15 years. If present trends continue, the chief economist at the OECD argues, in 20 years the average U.S. citizen will be twice as rich as the average Frenchman or German. (Britain is an exception on most of these measures, lying somewhere between Continental Europe and the U.S.)

People have argued that Europeans simply value leisure more and, as a result, are poorer but have a better quality of life. That's fine if you're taking a 10 percent pay cut and choosing to have longer lunches and vacations. But if you're only half as well off as the U.S., that will translate into poorer health care and education, diminished access to all kinds of goods and services, and a lower quality of life. Two Swedish researchers, Frederik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag, note in a monograph published last year that "40 percent of Swedish households would rank as low-income households in the U.S." In many European countries, the percentage would be even greater.

In March 2000, the EU's heads of state agreed to make the EU "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy by 2010." Today this looks like a joke. The OECD report goes through the status of reforms country by country, and all the major continental economies get a B-minus. Whenever some politician makes tiny, halting efforts at reform, strikes and protests paralyze the country. In recent months, reformers like Nicolas Sarkozy in France, Jose Manuel Barroso in Brussels and Angela Merkel in Germany have been backtracking on their proposals and instead mouthing pious rhetoric about the need to "manage" globalization. EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's efforts to liberalize trade have been consistently undercut. As a result of the EU's unwillingness to reduce its massive farm subsidies, the Doha trade-expansion round is dead.

Talk to top-level scientists and educators about the future of scientific research, and they will rarely even mention Europe. There are areas in which it is world-class, but they are fewer than they once were. In the biomedical sciences, for example, Europe is not on the map, and it might well be surpassed by much poorer Asian countries. The CEO of a large pharmaceutical company told me that in 10 years, the three most important countries for his industry would be the United States, China and India.

And I haven't even gotten to the demographics. In 25 years, the number of working-age Europeans will decline by 7 percent, while those over 65 will increase by 50 percent. One solution: let older people work. But Europe's employment rate for people over 60 is low: 7 percent in France and 12 percent in Germany (compared with 27 percent in the U.S.). Modest efforts to allow people to retire later have been met with the usual avalanche of protests. And while economists and the European Commission keep proposing that Europe take in more immigrants to expand its labor force, it won't. The cartoon controversy has powerfully highlighted the difficulties Europe is having with its existing immigrants.

What does all this add up to? Less European influence in the world. Europe's position in institutions like the World Bank and the IMF relates to its share of world GDP. Its dwindling defense spending weakens its ability to be a military partner of the U.S., or to project military power abroad even for peacekeeping purposes. Its cramped, increasingly protectionist outlook will further sap its vitality.

The decline of Europe means a world with a greater diffusion of power and a lessened ability to create international norms and rules of the road. It also means that America's superpower status will linger. Think of the dollar. For years people have argued that it is due for a massive drop as countries around the world diversify their savings. But as people looked at the alternatives, they decided that the chief rivals, the euro and the yen, represented economies that were structurally weak. So they have reluctantly stuck with the dollar. It's a similar dynamic in other arenas. You can't beat something with nothing.

Write the author at comments@fareedzakaria.com.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11298986/site/newsweek/