A more realistic measure of 'economy'

FOS » 01 Dec 2022, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑
01 Dec 2022, 10:13 am
Sorry.. but the way most of you people talk about the economy is complete rubbish. I am quite tired of all debates over whether we are in a 'recession' and nonsense like that. All your numbers and charts and graphs are irrelevant and fake and stupid.

Here's the bottom line; Humans are life forms. In order for us to 'break even' ...everyone needs to have an average of slightly more than one child (slightly more to account for untimely death)...or slightly more than 2 per couple

and they need to have a decent quality of life.

That means

1) a single income household (somebody has to raise, cook,clean, change diapers, etc)

2) their own house

3) a decent education

4) a decently safe neighborhood...being able to actually play in the backyard without getting abducted raped and killed

5) the ability to retire and survive as some point (70 or so)

And you know...whatever else is a basic necessity.

That needs to be the AVERAGE. Maybe there is wealth inequality. Say 50% of the people cannot afford this. Then the other 50% need to be able to have 4 children...and they also would need to actually do it...since a bunch of rich infertile people will still cause population decline.

Such a 50/50 division would be cause for serious concern, however...since the survivors would be increasingly inbred and the people who failed to reproduce may have been poor for reasons other than being useless, and their heritable traits are being lost to the gene pool.

Now since we survive, it is clear that EVERY European society in history was able to manage this. You might think the English of the 12th century were desperately poor, but they could manage the above stipulations...and even better...since their population grew

what about the usa? What % of our housholds can afford 2 children with a decent quality of life?

I'm sorry...but just my personal experience of the cost of raising children decently and living in a decent area...I can't help but feel like less than 10% of thr people can even afford it. Me and my gf are bothe technically in the 1%, and we would struggle to afford such a thing. I can't get health insurance...and she only just recently paid off student loans.

This is the ultimate paradox of a hyper financialized eCONomy. As more and more “assets” that were previously treated as utility goods (housing) become “market goods,” they become tethered to a system designed to serve investors and speculators looking to make a quick profit.

GDP rises but the actual standard of living goes DOWN since the dollars of the typical, cash strapped, CC debt burdened consumer need to compete against the dollars of BlackRock and Berkshire Hathaway. (As well as wealthy entrepreneurs from overseas)

This is something many economists understand deep down, but do not say since they’re supposed to tout the virtues of “neoliberal economics.” (Paid shills for the globalist oligarchs)

With automation and outsourcing white collar jobs to the likes of the Philippines, India, and E. European countries (Poland, Romania, and Latvia have blooming IT sectors where software professionals are paid 25-40% of what American engineers make) continuing to decrease the available supply of jobs and a nasty recession coming in the next 6-15 months, things will look ugly.

People will hearken to this post GFC era (2009-2024) as the “good times.”

Japan & S. Korea are poster kids for neoliberal economics. High GDPs and far below replacement birth levels.

Conservative and liberal retards are too low IQ (trash) to understand this paradox which is why they are confused or spout propaganda / lies in direct contradiction to the reality you boldly prefaced here.

Liberal Forum

Who is online