5 ms·

It's fairly easy to see that this is going to be one of the great causes of worldwide instability in this century. Many of these societies will be left with lit

by wooster 17y ago

It's fairly easy to see that this is going to be one of the great causes of worldwide instability in this century. Many of these societies will be left with little choice in the face of political and societal forces but territorial expansionism, civil war, totalitarianism, or cultural suicide.

kiba 17y ago
The European and the Japanese is declining in population. Greece is already bankrupt. The United State government is racking up extraordinary debt, backed with little saving. If it keep doing that, we may entered not just stagnation but collapse. There is also the agriculture crisis in Africa as a certain fungus ravages crops all over. It has already spread to Iran, I heard. The 21st century certainly hang in the balance as we flirt with danger.
- barrkel 17y ago
  US government debt actually isn't very high, nor are interest payments very high compared to GDP. And racking up extraordinary debt is the correct counter-cyclical response to an extraordinary recession. Governments shouldn't be reducing spending or increasing taxes when the economy hits hard times. Instead, it should reduce spending and maintain or raise taxes when the economy is doing well. And Greece isn't bankrupt. You can't reasonably say that a country is bankrupt until it starts defaulting on its loans.
  - kiba 17y ago
    US government debt actually isn't very high, nor are interest payments very high compared to GDP. And racking up extraordinary debt is the correct counter-cyclical response to an extraordinary recession. Governments shouldn't be reducing spending or increasing taxes when the economy hits hard times. Instead, it should reduce spending and maintain or raise taxes when the economy is doing well. Why would government spending help the economy at all? Let give people shovels to dig holes and fill it back it in! Surely, breaking windows will make jobs for the glassmakers. Let not forget that all the fancy infrastructure projects that the government is making has to be maintained. We may like all the new roads that we're paying for right now, but too many roads mean higher maintenance bills, which mean higher taxes and less money for consumers to spend it on or save. Maybe it is better to let all the irresponsible firms bankrupt themselves and let people who made the correct bet win all the money. Let the Nassim Nicholas Taleb of world win big. The free market runs on firm failure, not just firm success.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      even the relatively intelligent and contrarian crowd on HN doesn't like hearing this. there's no way we're not screwed in the long term.
      - ars 17y ago
        The parent post was modded down to -1, but had no replies. That is NOT appropriate on this site. You only downmod for spam and stupid comments. If they are wrong they go to 0. If you disagree then reply, but you don't downmod just because you disagree.
        nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        he was at -3 when i originally responded. I can understand why a comment like that gets downvoted. to the other side it sounds like pretty bald rhetoric. unfortunately the broken window fallacy is very much with us. most people don't grasp the underlying difference between money and wealth, which is why I'm constantly handing out PG's essays.
        tokenadult 17y ago
        You only downmod for spam and stupid comments. That is still under discussion. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1057347 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1057347 (The linked comment is not the most current comment on the issue, I'm pretty sure, but one that came up readily by searching.) An older comment by pg http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 appears now to be superseded in part. I will follow the group culture here where pg (the site founder) and the moderators take it.
        nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        in reality people will always vote in accordance with making the thread look more like they think the thread should look.
      - baguasquirrel 17y ago
  - dsplittgerber 17y ago
    I think it helps no one to say "debt is high" or "debt isn't high" - relative to what? In absolute terms it's huge and a first, in relative terms you may always find a measure that says it has been higher before. You're a proponent of Keynesian economics then. How do you counter the argument that no government spending is ever only temporary? There's no such thing as a temporary countermeasure in politics. So spending now in all likelihood means spending forever. And that is surely not good at all. No politician ever will seriously reduce spending when all is well. Keynes is only cited when times are bad..
- riffic 17y ago
  the end is nigh!
  - antipaganda 17y ago
    We'll all be rooned! said Hanrahan. http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/obrienj/poetry/hanrahan.html http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/obrienj/poetry/hanraha...
- jvdh 17y ago
  You are a being very pessimistic. Europe and Japan declining in population? I find that hard to believe. Do you have figures to back that up? Greece bankrupt? Even if it were true, any negative consequences of that will be mitigated by the EU. And a country in turmoil will only have a positive effect on birthrate. Fortunately there was a lot less danger at the end of the 20th century when there were still nuclear weapons at the ready all over the globe.
  - miked 17y ago
    You are a being very pessimistic. Europe and Japan declining in population? I find that hard to believe. Do you have figures to back that up? I'm not the you responded to, but here goes: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?countryName=Greece&countryCode=gr&regionCode=eu&rank=200#gr https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... Mark Steyn's book America Alone has much more on the implications, written in a rather witty style. http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-End-World-Know/dp/1596985275/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267958172&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-End-World-Know/dp/159698... The only European country that is maintaining its population is France, and it only barely. In the Euro-Med countries the average number of births per female is about 1.3, far below the replacement rate of 2.1. In Japan (which has the oldest mean age in the world), pop is dropping so fast that they are permanently closing almost one primary school per day. Greece bankrupt? Even if it were true, any negative consequences of that will be mitigated by the EU. Technically not bankrupt yet, but Greece and most other European countries (and the US, at our current rate of debt growth) had better hope like hell for an AI breakthrough that pushes productivity rates thru the roof. Welfare states are pay-as-you-go plans, with the younger generation paying for retirement of the much smaller number of elderly. That only works as long as there are lots of young people and not many older folks. In other words, the cutbacks and riots in Greece and California these last few days are just the beginning w/o huge productivity breakthroughs. Let's hope that Ray Kurzweil is right. And a country in turmoil will only have a positive effect on birthrate. Evidence???
    - tphyahoo 17y ago
      I don't get it. So what? So the population declines? So you have more nursing homes, and more younger people employed in nursing homes taking care of the oldsters, and some kind of government subsidy along with higher taxes to enable the poorer oldsters to have some kind of dignified end of life. So what? Are we talking about the collapse of civilization if population shifts up or down by double digit percents? I find this mode of thinking very hard to swallow.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
Tangurena 17y ago
I disagree. In a country with no form of social security, the closest thing to keep you from starving in old age are sons [1]. The older generations would riot if China started waging a war that took their sons - and thus their old age pensions away. China's current massive population is the consequence of Mao's belief that the Chinese could outbreed any nuclear war. The one-child policy is an attempt to get China back to a sustainable population size, which, for China's land and resources is about 1/2 the current size. Notes: 1 - Women marry into other families, and so one would lose the support in old age, as the resources earned by the daughters would go to the family she married into.
sebastianavina 17y ago
just think about it for a moment... This women, in the vast mojority, will marry with the most succesful men they find... Most of them with education and a Degree... As the new chineses society, educated in general, they will have one or two kids... but the natality will go down... and all the young men that don't find a girl, either become depressed, and a social problem, or move away... Any way, all this men, that can't find a women to copulate, and can't have kids, eventually will get older, and the state will need to give them social security and health care... this is boyes are going to be a huge problem in the chinese society... Both as a social problem when they become men within their 20-30 years, and when they reach the jubilation age...

by wooster 17y ago

kiba 17y ago

The European and the Japanese is declining in population. Greece is already bankrupt. The United State government is racking up extraordinary debt, backed with little saving. If it keep doing that, we may entered not just stagnation but collapse. There is also the agriculture crisis in Africa as a certain fungus ravages crops all over. It has already spread to Iran, I heard. The 21st century certainly hang in the balance as we flirt with danger.

barrkel 17y ago
US government debt actually isn't very high, nor are interest payments very high compared to GDP. And racking up extraordinary debt is the correct counter-cyclical response to an extraordinary recession. Governments shouldn't be reducing spending or increasing taxes when the economy hits hard times. Instead, it should reduce spending and maintain or raise taxes when the economy is doing well. And Greece isn't bankrupt. You can't reasonably say that a country is bankrupt until it starts defaulting on its loans.
- kiba 17y ago
  US government debt actually isn't very high, nor are interest payments very high compared to GDP. And racking up extraordinary debt is the correct counter-cyclical response to an extraordinary recession. Governments shouldn't be reducing spending or increasing taxes when the economy hits hard times. Instead, it should reduce spending and maintain or raise taxes when the economy is doing well. Why would government spending help the economy at all? Let give people shovels to dig holes and fill it back it in! Surely, breaking windows will make jobs for the glassmakers. Let not forget that all the fancy infrastructure projects that the government is making has to be maintained. We may like all the new roads that we're paying for right now, but too many roads mean higher maintenance bills, which mean higher taxes and less money for consumers to spend it on or save. Maybe it is better to let all the irresponsible firms bankrupt themselves and let people who made the correct bet win all the money. Let the Nassim Nicholas Taleb of world win big. The free market runs on firm failure, not just firm success.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    even the relatively intelligent and contrarian crowd on HN doesn't like hearing this. there's no way we're not screwed in the long term.
    - ars 17y ago
      The parent post was modded down to -1, but had no replies. That is NOT appropriate on this site. You only downmod for spam and stupid comments. If they are wrong they go to 0. If you disagree then reply, but you don't downmod just because you disagree.
      - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        he was at -3 when i originally responded. I can understand why a comment like that gets downvoted. to the other side it sounds like pretty bald rhetoric. unfortunately the broken window fallacy is very much with us. most people don't grasp the underlying difference between money and wealth, which is why I'm constantly handing out PG's essays.
      - tokenadult 17y ago
        You only downmod for spam and stupid comments. That is still under discussion. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1057347 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1057347 (The linked comment is not the most current comment on the issue, I'm pretty sure, but one that came up readily by searching.) An older comment by pg http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 appears now to be superseded in part. I will follow the group culture here where pg (the site founder) and the moderators take it.
        nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        in reality people will always vote in accordance with making the thread look more like they think the thread should look.
    - baguasquirrel 17y ago
- dsplittgerber 17y ago
  I think it helps no one to say "debt is high" or "debt isn't high" - relative to what? In absolute terms it's huge and a first, in relative terms you may always find a measure that says it has been higher before. You're a proponent of Keynesian economics then. How do you counter the argument that no government spending is ever only temporary? There's no such thing as a temporary countermeasure in politics. So spending now in all likelihood means spending forever. And that is surely not good at all. No politician ever will seriously reduce spending when all is well. Keynes is only cited when times are bad..
riffic 17y ago
the end is nigh!
- antipaganda 17y ago
  We'll all be rooned! said Hanrahan. http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/obrienj/poetry/hanrahan.html http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/obrienj/poetry/hanraha...
jvdh 17y ago
You are a being very pessimistic. Europe and Japan declining in population? I find that hard to believe. Do you have figures to back that up? Greece bankrupt? Even if it were true, any negative consequences of that will be mitigated by the EU. And a country in turmoil will only have a positive effect on birthrate. Fortunately there was a lot less danger at the end of the 20th century when there were still nuclear weapons at the ready all over the globe.
- miked 17y ago
  You are a being very pessimistic. Europe and Japan declining in population? I find that hard to believe. Do you have figures to back that up? I'm not the you responded to, but here goes: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?countryName=Greece&countryCode=gr&regionCode=eu&rank=200#gr https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... Mark Steyn's book America Alone has much more on the implications, written in a rather witty style. http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-End-World-Know/dp/1596985275/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267958172&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-End-World-Know/dp/159698... The only European country that is maintaining its population is France, and it only barely. In the Euro-Med countries the average number of births per female is about 1.3, far below the replacement rate of 2.1. In Japan (which has the oldest mean age in the world), pop is dropping so fast that they are permanently closing almost one primary school per day. Greece bankrupt? Even if it were true, any negative consequences of that will be mitigated by the EU. Technically not bankrupt yet, but Greece and most other European countries (and the US, at our current rate of debt growth) had better hope like hell for an AI breakthrough that pushes productivity rates thru the roof. Welfare states are pay-as-you-go plans, with the younger generation paying for retirement of the much smaller number of elderly. That only works as long as there are lots of young people and not many older folks. In other words, the cutbacks and riots in Greece and California these last few days are just the beginning w/o huge productivity breakthroughs. Let's hope that Ray Kurzweil is right. And a country in turmoil will only have a positive effect on birthrate. Evidence???
  - tphyahoo 17y ago
    I don't get it. So what? So the population declines? So you have more nursing homes, and more younger people employed in nursing homes taking care of the oldsters, and some kind of government subsidy along with higher taxes to enable the poorer oldsters to have some kind of dignified end of life. So what? Are we talking about the collapse of civilization if population shifts up or down by double digit percents? I find this mode of thinking very hard to swallow.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

Tangurena 17y ago

I disagree. In a country with no form of social security, the closest thing to keep you from starving in old age are sons [1]. The older generations would riot if China started waging a war that took their sons - and thus their old age pensions away. China's current massive population is the consequence of Mao's belief that the Chinese could outbreed any nuclear war. The one-child policy is an attempt to get China back to a sustainable population size, which, for China's land and resources is about 1/2 the current size. Notes: 1 - Women marry into other families, and so one would lose the support in old age, as the resources earned by the daughters would go to the family she married into.

sebastianavina 17y ago

just think about it for a moment... This women, in the vast mojority, will marry with the most succesful men they find... Most of them with education and a Degree... As the new chineses society, educated in general, they will have one or two kids... but the natality will go down... and all the young men that don't find a girl, either become depressed, and a social problem, or move away... Any way, all this men, that can't find a women to copulate, and can't have kids, eventually will get older, and the state will need to give them social security and health care... this is boyes are going to be a huge problem in the chinese society... Both as a social problem when they become men within their 20-30 years, and when they reach the jubilation age...