Cake and Eat It

bluewolf said:
Capitalism fails.

The economy fails.

Mass job losses.

Poverty through the roof.

Civil riots.

Etc etc etc......... 
Click to expand...

Demand reduces
Less stress on the economy
No need for as many jobs
More roofs per capita so less poverty
Civil contentment
Etc Etc.
 
SocketRocket said:
Demand reduces
Less stress on the economy
No need for as many jobs
More roofs per capita so less poverty
Civil contentment
Etc Etc.
Click to expand...

I know we've had this discussion before but I'll reiterate anyway. Capitalism fails with a falling population. It needs growth and without population increase and debt growth, capitalism fails.

Unless you're making the case for responsible Socialism. In which case, fill yer boots. 👍👍👍
 
patricks148 said:
How can it be sorted by public spending when there are massive cuts to public spending.

Highland council are up Sheer hite creek as the budget is cut by central gov and they don't have funds to keep the status quo let alone increase spending on Heath and education.

Moray Council are on the verge of going Bankrupt
Click to expand...

I agree - central gov to quit austerity measures that knacker local councils when local councils have clear need for new and expanded infrastructure.
 
IanM said:
Utter nonsense, Go away and check which communities suffer from the highest level of Obesity and Heart issues - due to diet.
Click to expand...

You mean the Eastern Europeans? - because let's not beat about the bush here as that is the immigrant community we are talking about - they are a bunch of obese fatties? Not in my limited experience - so if you have evidence to support the assertion that Eastern European immigrants are as likely or more likely than the indigenous population to be obese then I'll accept that assertion.
 
bluewolf said:
I know we've had this discussion before but I'll reiterate anyway. Capitalism fails with a falling population. It needs growth and without population increase and debt growth, capitalism fails.

Unless you're making the case for responsible Socialism. In which case, fill yer boots. 
Click to expand...
I know you keep saying this but IMO you are wrong. Growth is only necessary with a growing population to support otherwise the cake gets relatively smaller. If you have a smaller population then the cake can be actually smaller yet satisfy everyone. As long as you keep the population under control a bigger cake produced through productivity and technology will make the people better off. Growing the population only leads to a stressed existence where there is competition for scarce resources, hunger, climate change, war and crime. Overpopulation has zero benefits to the quality of life.
 
Last edited:
SocketRocket said:
I know you keep saying this but IMO you are wrong. Growth is only necessary with a growing population to support otherwise the cake gets relatively smaller. If you have a smaller population then the cake can be actually smaller yet satisfy everyone. As long as you keep the population under control a bigger cake produced through productivity and technology will make the people better off. Growing the population only leads to a stressed existence where there is competition for scarce resources, hunger, climate change, war and crime. Overpopulation has zero benefits to the quality of life.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, as idyllic as your scenario sounds. It's utterly unrealistic. We have heavily indebted numerous future generations. We have very few natural resources to trade on. We have a birth rate of 1.83 (much the same as the rest of Europe).

Also, population does not shrink evenly across the demographics. We would experience an ever increasing pensioner population with fewer and fewer working age people. Taxes would rise. Inflation would accelerate. Services would shrink. Etc, etc, etc..... it's a ticking time bomb.
 
bluewolf said:
Unfortunately, as idyllic as your scenario sounds. It's utterly unrealistic. We have heavily indebted numerous future generations. We have very few natural resources to trade on. We have a birth rate of 1.83 (much the same as the rest of Europe).

Also, population does not shrink evenly across the demographics. We would experience an ever increasing pensioner population with fewer and fewer working age people. Taxes would rise. Inflation would accelerate. Services would shrink. Etc, etc, etc..... it's a ticking time bomb.
Click to expand...
The previous peaks in birthrates are working through now, the last one being Baby Boomers, we did actually have a situation in the early 1970s when deaths outstripped births for a short period. By allowing mass immigration and the increased birthrates these immigrants tend to produce we will indeed create an increase in old people and indebtedness for future generations. Just imagine if New Zealand opened up it's borders to anyone who wanted to live there and the population increased by two million over the next 10 years and many of these new people were low skilled. What effect do you think this would have, would it improve the quality of life?

Whats wrong with having fewer working people, we are told that technology will reduce the need for people to work in the future, also history tells us that when labour is short this is a driver for higher wages. The ticking time bomb is a system wherby an exponentially increasing population outstrips resources.
 
Last edited:
SocketRocket said:
The previous peaks in birthrates are working through now, the last one being Baby Boomers, we did actually have a situation in the early 1970s when deaths outstripped births for a short period. By allowing mass immigration and the increased birthrates these immigrants tend to produce we will indeed create an increase in old people and indebtedness for future generations. Just imagine if New Zealand opened up it's borders to anyone who wanted to live there and the population increased by two million over the next 10 years and many of these new people were low skilled. What effect do you think this would have, would it improve the quality of life?

Whats wrong with having fewer working people, we are told that technology will reduce the need for people to work in the future, also history tells us that when labour is short this is a driver for higher wages. The ticking time bomb is a system wherby an exponentially increasing population outstrips resources.
Click to expand...

We actually totally agree on the last sentence. Unfortunately, that's Capitalism for you... it demands an ever increasing food source until it collapses into chaos.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I agree - central gov to quit austerity measures that knacker local councils when local councils have clear need for new and expanded infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Sorry Hugh but that's just a leftie soundbite. Scottish Councils underspent by £450 million in 2017, and have reserves of over £2bn, whilst decrying austerity from Westminster. And it doesn't end there. Google council surpluses, and you will find that there is a surplus, in millions, in almost every council... bar Northampton, who in reality have only stopped spending on new projects but that hasn't stopped Corbyn blaming the Tories for forcing the council to be bankrupt. Remember the Grenfell disaster, Chelsea and West were criticised for doing the upgrade work on the cheap, even though they had £748m surplus.

Remember that Icelandic bank that went bust, owing over a billion to UK councils, note councils with an 's.' That money was surplus at the time. The local councils sold their claims to various investment houses at a reduced 'price.' Subsequently, the Icelandic govt backed a court judgement that sees all the money above returned to the local councils.
 
Thank god for a lot of immigrants-without them the NHS would prob have fallen over by now

The answer to the question will always be whatever angle you are coming from - people do live longer , even golf clubs are coming things due to people living longer and those people living longer will put a strain on the NHS and the increasing population will also put a strain on the NHS - everything is equally to blame but if you constantly look to blame immigration then that will be who some will point the finger at
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Thank god for a lot of immigrants-without them the NHS would prob have fallen over by now

The answer to the question will always be whatever angle you are coming from - people do live longer , even golf clubs are coming things due to people living longer and those people living longer will put a strain on the NHS and the increasing population will also put a strain on the NHS - everything is equally to blame but if you constantly look to blame immigration then that will be who some will point the finger at
Click to expand...
So we need 2.4 Million immigrants in five years to keep the NHS topped up with employees. Interesting!

From a Migration Watch paper:

Population - Main Points

  • The UK population now stands at 65.6 million and has increased by 2.4 million in the five years since Census day in 2011.
  • The population is growing at the fastest rate for almost a century and is projected to increase by 400,000 a year. Bristol currently has a population of 450,000.
  • An estimated 85% of the population growth since 2000 has been due to immigration and births to foreign born parents.
  • If net migration were to continue to run at current levels the UK population would rise by just under 10 million in the 25 years to 2041, of which 82% is directly or indirectly due to immigration.
  • England, where 90% of migrants settle, is currently the second most densely populated country in the EU, after the Netherlands and excluding island states such as Malta.
  • England is also more densely populated than India, the second most populous country in the world.
  • Immigration is no solution to an ageing population because, of course, immigrants themselves grow older so any benefit is temporary unless we had continuing and ever increasing levels of immigration.
  • Only by sharply reducing net migration can we slow population growth and ease pressure on housing and public services.
  • Scotland is under less pressure from immigration as it takes only 5% of immigrants. Nevertheless, its population has been stable at about five million for the past 50 years and, at current levels of immigration, is projected to grow by almost 300,000 in the next 25 years.
 
Is there a stat for the number of immigrant workers needed to work in the NHS to cope with the immigrants who are patients?
 
MegaSteve said:
Yep, we should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves...
Robbing highly trained folk, from less well off countries, because we can't be arsed to fund proper training of our own people..
Click to expand...

Yep those highly trained floor cleaners ,porters , toilet cleaners, cafe staff etc etc all those jobs that seem beneath the people “born and bred” in the UK

The thread is just an extension of the Art 50 thread the OP said he would avoid - but can continue the theme in a separate thread.

Let’s close our borders - non Brits not allowed , let’s keep out all the unclean.

It’s like Farage is on the forum

But don’t worry about the NHS struggling with the population increase - it’s about to get a massive increase in weekly funding which should boost it right up
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Yep those highly trained floor cleaners ,porters , toilet cleaners, cafe staff etc etc all those jobs that seem beneath the people “born and bred” in the UK
Click to expand...


So, absolutely none of these positions are filled by folk "born and bred" in the UK...
I would beg to differ...
And several, I know that do, find the work rewarding...

Same for those I know working in the social care sector...
 
Hobbit said:
Sorry Hugh but that's just a leftie soundbite. Scottish Councils underspent by £450 million in 2017, and have reserves of over £2bn, whilst decrying austerity from Westminster. And it doesn't end there. Google council surpluses, and you will find that there is a surplus, in millions, in almost every council... bar Northampton, who in reality have only stopped spending on new projects but that hasn't stopped Corbyn blaming the Tories for forcing the council to be bankrupt. Remember the Grenfell disaster, Chelsea and West were criticised for doing the upgrade work on the cheap, even though they had £748m surplus.

Remember that Icelandic bank that went bust, owing over a billion to UK councils, note councils with an 's.' That money was surplus at the time. The local councils sold their claims to various investment houses at a reduced 'price.' Subsequently, the Icelandic govt backed a court judgement that sees all the money above returned to the local councils.
Click to expand...

It may well be - but it's no less aspirational than the Brexiteer soundbites on the 'Brexit Dividend' that we get assailed with day after day. Maybe when we have left the EU and have £350/week extra to spend, then councils will get the funding they need to build the required infrastructure - because the current population isn't going to go down even if - IF - immigration is cut.

I look forward to the 'Brexit Dividend' delivering the infrastructure required to support and service the existing population
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top