Firstly, that isn’t a mentality many females have, but a mentality that is generated in them. A female baby has no conception of virginity. Secondly, it is generated in males too, and not just as a reaction to female mentalities.
Why is granting power over population growth to ‘communist driven’ entities dangerous, in your eyes?
Firstly, that isn’t a mentality many females have, but a mentality that is generated in them.
Generated in them? Are you giving an evolution-based outlook on this? What do you mean by “generated” in this case?
Ok, then… FEMALES WHO ARE 12+ YEARS OF AGE AND/OR ARE BIOLOGICALLY CAPABLE OF ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY. Sorry, I just felt that “caps lock” was necessary in this situation; draw your own conclusions on that.
Generated, again? If you’re trying to say that it’s some kind of “individuality”, then I’m going to have to say you’re wrong. Why? Because when you have a campaign telling you only negative downsides and information concerning STDs, and then one of the campaigners tells you to “make your own decisions”, there isn’t much of a choice based on the information they gave you. Typically, people can’t objectively view the campaign material nor separate it from reality material, and so their “individuality” ceases to exist. Likewise, these anti-sex teenagers, for example, aren’t exactly being “non-conformists” or anything, because there is now a majority of American teenagers who are refusing to have sex, which is going to take its toll on the population over the next 10 to 15 years; that’s inevitable. Look at this logic:
P1- Teenagers are refusing to have sex.
P2- Birth requires sex to happen first.
C- Refusal to have sex will lower birth rate.
Now, with the increased unemployment rate for United States, let’s look at yet another bit of logic:
P1- Higher unemployment causes higher death rate.
P2- USA’s economic recession is causing a strong increase in the national unemployment rate.
C- Recession is, ultimately, causing higher death rate.
Let’s see… what happens when birth rate is lowered and death rate is increased? Hmm… the population declines? Yes, that’s exactly what happens. In the United States, we don’t need self-righteous moralists gaining control of our population growth rate; it’s already taking a hit from the recession.
Because the death rate is increasing, and if the birth rate is lowered (e.g. if the young public buys this anti-sex nonsense) along with an increase in the death rate, the US population will go DOWN! I wonder why the Al-Quaida terrorists from Afghanistan aren’t arguing with our anti-sex campaigners…? lol
{{{Either way, this sex preaching should be stopped, because it not only is becoming obsessive, but it is also beginning to impact our birth rate, which is exponentially more dangerous when combined with the unemployment rate’s effect on the death rate… but hell, it’s already dangerous by itself; it’s business growth by lowering demand, which throws economic plans off balance as well, because businesses need more consumers each year in order to continue growing properly.}}}
This isn’t unfounded nonsense I’m stating here. And, as much as some people will vehemently defend their negative attitudes towards sex, those same people are allowing bad influences (e.g. anti-sex campaigners) to lower the birth rate. Let’s see… with the economic recession increasing the unemployment (plus death) rate… the anti-sex campaigners still going on with their sick business… good future, America! Doubt it.
I believe that they are “communist-driven”, as I said in my earlier post. Do a bit of research on China; their government officials make attempts to control the population, which are successful attempts. Just because the United States is disguising it as “propaganda” doesn’t make it less dangerous. And, again, just because you may personally agree with it doesn’t undo the cumulative damage it’s doing by significantly reducing the birth rate.
Rambled a bit… but I felt it was necessary…
I’d advise you to trivialize something a little less serious than this, someoneisatthedoor. Not sure where you live, but in the US, this is growing into a problem.
~~Jeff
It is created in them, they are encouraged to adopt this mentality. It isn’t something they ‘have’.
Plenty of girls prior to adolescence understand and even believe in this notion. It has nothing to do with biological capacity to have sex, but what sexuality means socially.
Indeed. A bit like democracy.
I don’t think they had any such individuality to begin with.
What’s the problem with a lowering of the US population? I think there are too many Americans. Look at the youtube comments sections if you don’t believe me.
Because Al Qaeda doesn’t exist.
Firstly, you only need an increase in consumption, not necessarily the number of consumers, to sustain economic growth.
Secondly, there’s no reason to enslave ourselves to a model of economic growth. And enslaving ourselves is exactly what we do.
That’s not for you to determine.
America has been bankrupt for almost a century and has survived relatively well.
China wanted to attain massive economic growth without a huge upsurge in the population. They HAD to control population numbers if they were to execute their economic plan. You’re saying the opposite is true of America.
[/quote]
I’m not trivialising it, I’m from the UK, and I don’t need your advice.
There are a lot of rural areas still in the south. In my opinion, they’re a little too rural. I mean, the north portion of United States has a much larger population, or at least, more dense cities for certain.
You got me there.
Say you’re a company that makes bathtubs, for example… usually, there is 1 bathtub per household, so with the new population wave (which is going to be quite small in 10-15 years) coming in, the company may over-stock and start to collapse. Since America has been in debt for an extended period, just as you said, the banks will probably deny the company loans, and so the bathtub company collapses. But, I’m talking about anything that is, in the majority of time, a 1-per-household product. Next generation will annihilate sales if nobody has sex to produce that generation. Anyway, for products that are purchased constantly, such as foods and cigarettes, the number of consumers might not have as high of an impact, so you’re right to an extent.
True, but I believe that everything becoming widespread will have its side effects. While there may not be as many STDs, there probably will be more businesses collapsing, for example. And, this is due to a sudden, unexpected diminish of the “demand”. But… you’re right; it’s just a model, I suppose.
Or you? 
Maybe I should move to the UK… I hear it’s better there, anyway. lol
China wanted to attain massive economic growth without a huge upsurge in the population. They HAD to control population numbers if they were to execute their economic plan. You're saying the opposite is true of America.I would say a “huge upsurge” in United States population, but just a normal birth rate instead of yielded; there’s no reason to yield the birth rate nor should anyone have the power to do so (imo).
Well the offer was up, anyway, eh? 
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Nonetheless, you’ve five times our population. Though we have the superior football league and our four fastest black guys were marginally faster than your four fastest black guys the last time we met in an Olympic final I think think it’s unfair.
Actually, something like Al Qaeda does exist, but it isn’t what it is commonly advertised to be.
You are overlooking the relevance of convincing people to throw out perfectly good bathtubs in the name of ‘fashion’ and ‘taste’ and buy new ones well before they need to do so.
It isn’t just a model. Ask yourself, why is it that we need growth? Why is it that 99.9% of economists will tell you growth is a good thing?
We’ve been bankrupt since the 1830s, or possibly the Napoleonic wars. Yet we’re still one of the main financial centres of the world. It’s alright living here, I can’t complain too much. There isn’t much on TV, but I don’t watch much TV so it doesn’t matter.
What is ‘normal’? Who defines ‘normal’ in this context? Are you not seeking the same role and authority you’re saying no one should have?
True. The same can be said about automobiles. Actually, some of the major automobile companies in the United States (especially GMC) are suffering economic difficulty due to severe overstocks. Obviously, the population wave isn’t the only factor there, but it is a crucial factor.
An increase in demand, of course.
I mean normal, as in: The birth rate that would occur without personal decisions concerning sex being influenced by propaganda. And… no, I’m simply disagreeing with the concept of restraint (or encouragement) when it comes to sex. When so many individuals are making an effort to resist having sex until a certain time, the birth rate is effected. Furthermore, when so many individuals are making an effort to have sexual conquest, the birth rate is effected. Do you see where my concern is? I mean, anti-sex or pro-sex… those are attitudes that shouldn’t be made into propaganda, but should be personal choice, because of the attitudes’ effect on the birth rate, which, in turn, influences the economic growth rate.
We’ll never get out of debt! [-o<
~Moral Jeff
An ideal society? isn’t that what gated communities are for…
There is one
behind the Pearly Gates 
No. Listen to ME and it’ll all be PERFECT!!! 
~Jeff
It’s a bit late to have savoured the taste of living in an ideal society by the time we get to the pearly gates of heaven or the rusty gates of hell or no gates at all if one doesn’t believe in an after-life 
After a while and a few more posters and it seems no one has addressed these ideas you claim to have ‘used’ me for. I guess this is because you cannot bounce dust or decayed trophy cabinets off wild and free air. I confess, my persistent re-iteration of my point was an attempt to focus my aim in the vain hope that my retorts would not continue to merely fall on deaf ears.
I think I shall discontinue to address you if there really is no engagement so feel free to re-iterate your many-times refuted idea one more time to get the last word in. I would be interested if you were to incorporate my flexibility like I did with your rigidity, but I’ve begun to think you’re simply mentally incapable of turning your thoughts to the victories of others who haven’t had life victories in the same ways that you have restricted yourself to. Rules have worked for you, as everyone: I understood your argument right from the beginning. But rules as solid as the geocentric orbit of celestial bodies and Democritus’s atom have also continuously been usurped throughout history because life is the flexible freeness that rigid rules are based on: making them inherently flawed, always. Life is not the rules. That is the last time I will say this to you. Recognise it or seal your own coffin.
I am ashamed to pity the 80% of the world who are incapable to live in sufficient and progressive knowledge and reality: who are content to stay in the mentality that all forces are just ‘God’ to them. But at least this shows that 80% of the world are servile. A small solace since I prefer equals, but a master who turns the tables to make the forces work for him can get good usage from peons to do his bidding. Who knows, some of this remaining 20% may even look past the forces and rules that will temporarily work well enough for them, and see life naked and pure once again and reveal in themselves an equal to me. Perhaps this is why you cannot see me because nearly 20% of the world stands between us.
In such an outcome, freeness has other directions to show its face.
It is simply a term to describe more obedience towards higher officially designated authority. So in the case I referred to, more officially strict rules and more disciplined action towards murder, thievery and torture.
Also, job demand is another type of demand. If there are limited jobs that are highly sought after and applied for, there is high demand for jobs. The larger the pool of people unemployed, the more people there are who are supposed to want a job, the higher the pool of applicants for the business who has advertised the job. Maybe this is what you meant by ‘individually’ and it is what I referred to. But yes, they do have to balance it with having a pool of customers that is large enough and rich enough to afford the products/services that the business provides: jobs obviously help here. On the whole, there is still a preference in capitalist economies for a decent, if moderated, pool of unemployed people. My other point, keeping inflation down is another positive effect of unemployment and maybe there are more. But these two I mentioned definitely stand.
Capitalism lives on the threshold between working employees too hard and not working them as hard as they could for supposed optimal performance. Things like drugs make people enjoy life outside of work more, so it is counter to the government’s interest as slave drivers who work employees for far more time than it would take to merely produce for their own individual needs. This is what allows capitalists to essentially be parasites and not have to work, as long as they take enough time to invest carefully. ‘Drugs cause health problems’ is just a plausibly rational cover-story to fool the public into condoning it under so-called democracy which is really just clever and predictable manipulation.
This is all reasoning that is covered in much more depth by Marx. Despite the obvious sense and will to educate the exploited majority of working class citizens in a capitalist economy, I dread to think what you’ve been told about him where you come from. Accusations such as “giving our communist-driven anti-sex (or pro-sex, doesn’t matter) campaigners power over the population growth rate, which I believe is a dangerous thing to allow” just show an astounding propaganda influence against communist ideas, like those of Marx. Being pro- or anti- anything tends towards legalising one side of the argument only, which is authoritarian, like your ‘republicans’ in the US. This is pretty much the exact opposite of the liberalism proposed by Marx in his communism. This is the real reason why america has been anti-communist. Some communism in practice has adopted authoritarianism, but this was only ever a temporary thing or something that was forced into by unwanted circumstances (which are the real reasons why communism has failed thus far).
I beg to differ. They overstocked because they assumed the boom times would continue and they didn’t, not because there’s been a massive population reduction in the US.
Demand is created afterwards, growth is the unquestioned aim of our economies.
Try again, why is it that we need growth? There’s a very simple economic reason, but I’m not going to just blurt it out because it is good for you to do this mental work for yourself.
No such thing.
I don’t really see what your concern is. You’re taking the size of the population and assuming (without any real evidence) that is has an immense impact on the economy. The UK and US have vastly different populations in terms of size and density but virtually identical economies.
Also, you seem to be focussing solely on the cult of abstinence and ignoring the abundant (far more abundant) propaganda which sexualises everything from owning a pet to buying an mp3 player to redecorating your house to how to cut your hair. Children are now sold underwear saving ‘dive in’, and t-shirts saying ‘future porn star’, and then arrested and prosecuted for sending sexy pictures of themselves to their girlfriend or boyfriend.
If you want to talk about the dangers of propagandised sexuality then this is the sort of material I’d consider if I were you. Forget the economy, it is screwed regardless of how much fucking we do.
True, but that’s because the Federal Reserve is a Ponzi scheme, regardless of how much fucking we do.
I find this statement to be contradictory. Since the “boom times” ceased to continue, a (subjectively massive) population reduction did, in fact, occur.
The profit obtained by a company from marketing a product will increase if the demand increases, which is an indisputably fact (given that the population can afford the product). But, you could go on to say that the price increases with demand… the problem there is that you’re assuming that the companies are greedy. Obviously, companies are seeking a profit, but that doesn’t mean that they’ll always increase the price outside of what the population can afford just because they want massive profits. Anyway, since demand is required for products to be marketed in a profitable fashion, and we can be fairly certain that companies are seeking profit, we can conclude the demand triggers economic growth. Demand couldn’t possibly come only after growth, unless profit is generated by magic.
I tried and I feel confident of my successful logic. How am I wrong that “demand” is the cause for “economic growth”.
You can deny what I’m speaking of in defense of your personal ego, but you can’t logically deny that people can make their own decisions without the influence of propaganda. But, I could be wrong… oh never mind: Confidence in statements doesn’t change the factual validity of them.
Very well; you seem confident, again. I haven’t researched the historically economical situations in the UK, but I have for the US.
In the following link, please take note of the oddly low birth rates in 1930 (Great Depression) and 1940(aftermath of GD; World War II):
infoplease.com/ipa/A0922289.html
The following link declares that the “Roaring Twenties” (most economically prosperous decade in US history) experienced the highest birth rate of all recorded decades:
nps.gov/history/history/onli … ap2-2a.htm
I don’t feel as if I need to cite a reference to state that the “Great Depression” in the US was the worst economic recession in the nation’s history. So, with the United State’s birth rate, which has been falling for many decades, I will now cite references for economic growth…
Here is the most severe economic recession in US history, and oddly enough, the birth rate was low at this time as well:
sniper.at/stock-market-crash-1929.htm
And now a laundry list of what I personally call “desperate attempts” in recent years within the US:[/b]
wsws.org/articles/2009/aug20 … -a10.shtml
historyguy.com/mortgage_cris … /index.htm
money.cnn.com/2008/11/07/news/ec … /index.htm
And it would go on, but time is ticking, and I’m probably heading for a party tonight.
Very well… you have the right to say anything you want. But, to quote myself from this thread:
You have a solid point, here.
LOL
~~Moral Jeff
EDIT:: Minor spelling and grammar corrections.
There has not been a massive reduction in the US population since summer 2007. Call it subjective if you must, I simply call that untrue.
Okay Jeff let’s try this again
So I’ll ask you once more - why do we need growth? Why is it the unchallenged, unquestioned, all-dominant assumption in economics?
Primarily because I’m talking about economic growth, not the growth of a single business.
Demand is created as a means of attaining growth.
I’m fine with my ego, stop trying to turn this into a personal confrontation.
There is no such thing as a ‘normal’ birth rate that exists outside of the influence of propaganda.
And you’ve completely misunderstood the material you’re reading. If the 20s had a high birth rate it was BECAUSE OF the boom. Having lots of children under the age of 10 does fuck all for the economy because none of them contribute to it. None of them make a significant amount of money that wasn’t already there. However, people having additional disposable income encourages them to have children. Similarly when the market crashed and the country entered a recession this CAUSED people to stop having so many children, the lower number of children did not CAUSE the recession.
If anything, your evidence suggests the opposite was true - the high birth rate of the 20s helped cause the depression. This isn’t true, but it is more born out by the data you’ve cited than your interpretation.
You are primarily talking about abstinence. Just because you fleetingly referred to pro-sex propaganda doesn’t mean you aren’t overlooking it in everything else you’ve written on this thread.
I could get into the rather lengthy problems of comparing 1920s America with 2000s America but I think I’ve given you enough to chew on. You make a series of unsupported assumptions about the relations between different phenomena without considering the reality of what you’re claiming. As you say, you are confident in what you’re saying. Of course you are, you believe that you came up with it (you didn’t) and that believing in it is confidence in yourself…
I have often wondered this, haven’t found a real answer. Best I did was: If a population increases then economic growth is desirable so that peoples standard of living is maintained. Only other way would be to redistribute wealth, but no politician would do that.
Here is an associated question - who pays for government deficits?
Taxation of people and companies. People may buy bonds. But here economic growth is good too, as more money means more tax revenue, no?
Now we’re getting somewhere.
Who buys bonds? Why do they buy bonds?
People buy government bonds because there is virtually no risk to the principal.
Why do i think that was a rhetorical question?
Well, a guess would be that other governments buy bonds. I read that earlier in the year the Bank of England bought some government bonds too ( not sure how that works ). Sure individuals may buy some, guessing again, I would say that is only a small percentage. I agree with Faust, the risk is virtually zero as governments have a guaranteed source of income. It would be a bit like buying shares in the BBC.
Another way is the sale of assets. I remember in the late 90s Tony Blair sold some 3G telephone licenses for 30 billion or so. No idea where that went but remember reading it was going to pay off debt. We’re also assuming that tax is always less than spending. But if economic growth is good then does that statement always equal true? Even so economic growth is good even if there is a deficit as it is smaller than it otherwise would be…