Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
copydude

Is Enforced Breeding The Answer To The Financial Crisis?

Recommended Posts

More Babies = More Taxpayers = More Government Borrowing

Way to Go?

I have been very struck by the analyses of recent places that are in the Merde

It seems that taking on Sovereign debt isn't enough to bail out the banksters debt in places like . . . hmmm . . Iceland, Latvia. Estonia. Ireland, Portugal . . . 'cause there just ain't enough taxpayers for Govs to raise money against.

And when you get the countries putting the banksters debt on these few people - blimey Iceland, 300,000 . . . Latvia, Estonia, less than a milliom . . . any able bodied potential taxpayer thinks about leaving the country. Divide the taxpaying population against the sovereign debt ( having bailed out the banks ) and . . . the numbers don't add up, do they? It's never going to work.

Governments borrow against future taxpayers . . . so . . . surely you need more of them. As many as possible.

Remember Mussolini in the socialist years and his celebration of the, 'Most Prolific Mothers'. They all got medals. Because then you needed a huge industrialised workforce for a successful economy. Now you need more taxpayers to take on bank debt.

So, it's obvious, We need a 'breeding for the banks' campaign. Slogans like, 'Give Her One For RBS' come to mind.

I think we all understand that we're ' in this together'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm - trouble is babies cost money until old enough to work and pay tax.

Far cheaper to import lots of potential workers.

CONFORMITY FAIL

REPORT TO YOUR NEAREST DIVERSITY CO-ORDINATOR FOR RE-EDUCATION

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Babies = More Taxpayers = More Government Borrowing

Way to Go?

I have been very struck by the analyses of recent places that are in the Merde

It seems that taking on Sovereign debt isn't enough to bail out the banksters debt in places like . . . hmmm . . Iceland, Latvia. Estonia. Ireland, Portugal . . . 'cause there just ain't enough taxpayers for Govs to raise money against.

And when you get the countries putting the banksters debt on these few people - blimey Iceland, 300,000 . . . Latvia, Estonia, less than a milliom . . . any able bodied potential taxpayer thinks about leaving the country. Divide the taxpaying population against the sovereign debt ( having bailed out the banks ) and . . . the numbers don't add up, do they? It's never going to work.

Governments borrow against future taxpayers . . . so . . . surely you need more of them. As many as possible.

Remember Mussolini in the socialist years and his celebration of the, 'Most Prolific Mothers'. They all got medals. Because then you needed a huge industrialised workforce for a successful economy. Now you need more taxpayers to take on bank debt.

So, it's obvious, We need a 'breeding for the banks' campaign. Slogans like, 'Give Her One For RBS' come to mind.

I think we all understand that we're ' in this together'.

Hmm that'd be a good idea although in fifty years time we'll be saying that a UK population of 80 million won't sustain current levels of liabilities. In another fifty years we'll be saying 120 million won't be enough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm that'd be a good idea although in fifty years time we'll be saying that a UK population of 80 million won't sustain current levels of liabilities. In another fifty years we'll be saying 120 million won't be enough...

....that's growth for you. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Population levels at census dates and average adjustments annually

(thousands)

United Kingdom Population

at start of period Overall

annual change Births Deaths Natural change Net migration

and other changes

1901 – 1911 38 237 385 1091 624 467 -82

1911 – 1921 42 082 195 975 689 286 -92

1921 – 1931 44 027 201 824 555 268 -67

1931 – 1951 46 038 213 793 603 190 22

1951 – 1961 50 225 258 839 593 246 12

1961 – 1971 52 807 312 962 638 324 -12

1971 – 1981 55 928 42 736 666 69 -27

1981 – 1991 56 357 108 757 655 103 5

1991 – 2001 57 439 161 731 631 100 61

2001 – 2008 59 113 324 722 588 134 191

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm - trouble is babies cost money until old enough to work and pay tax.

Far cheaper to import lots of potential workers.

Nope. Sadly, you just can't rely on people breeding these days.

Think of all those potential workers' skipping off back to Poland or Lithuania, With their potential tax payin' babies.

There's about half a million Poles and Baltics who are not going to be hanging around to pay off Ireland's debt. That's a huge percentage of the 4m population.

So . . . more indigenous, locally trapped babies are the only solution.

I just thought of another propaganda poster . . . 'Comrades . . .Fertility For The Financial Sector!'

Edited by copydude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Babies = More Taxpayers = More Government Borrowing

Way to Go?

You are right, but I think it was a typo.

The problem is that, without wishing to appear judgemental, single mums tend to push out worthless scummy work-shy kids. This, as you say, will lead to more government borrowing.

What we need is to reduce benefits and taxes which should lead to more decent babies being born and a future of prosperity and plenty.

(I don't make the news, I just deliver it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble i always have with that argument, that immigration OR high birth rates is that it assumes they'll get jobs - far from a given in this environment.

Besides, with debt growing at ~15% each and every year, even a high population growth rate of 2% doesnt keep us standing still.

The problem is debt growing way beyond earnings, always has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand....

soylent-green-poster.jpg

"Soylent Green is made out of people!!!"

Remember watching this when I was about 7 years old, fairly sure it must have been been my first insight into the fact you can't trust TPTB, a truly defining moment in my life.

And if more babies is the answer, then give me the opportunity to buy a family home at an affordable price, then I might think about it, you robbing b@stards!!!

Edited by General Congreve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Population levels at census dates and average adjustments annually

(thousands)

United Kingdom Population

at start of period Overall

annual change Births Deaths Natural change Net migration

and other changes

1901 – 1911 38 237 385 1091 624 467 -82

1911 – 1921 42 082 195 975 689 286 -92

1921 – 1931 44 027 201 824 555 268 -67

1931 – 1951 46 038 213 793 603 190 22

1951 – 1961 50 225 258 839 593 246 12

1961 – 1971 52 807 312 962 638 324 -12

1971 – 1981 55 928 42 736 666 69 -27

1981 – 1991 56 357 108 757 655 103 5

1991 – 2001 57 439 161 731 631 100 61

2001 – 2008 59 113 324 722 588 134 191

Meh, raw data is so boring; what we need is an easy-on-the-eye graph to illustrate how fecked we are:

Popn_England.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, raw data is so boring; what we need is an easy-on-the-eye graph to illustrate how fecked we are:

Popn_England.gif

Did you just draw that? Why are there not even slight dips where the 2 world wars occurred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm - trouble is babies cost money until old enough to work and pay tax.

The problem is reduced if you send them out at four years. I'm sure there's many on here would think that child slavery would be a welcome return to Maggie Thatcher's values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had a powerfully growing population all these problems would be swept under the rug. With a vast population of young men wanting housing and good jobs, the state would also miraculously find the will to crush NIMBY'ism and environmentalism and push forward.

An aging, tired, shrinking population is not the stuff of a strong economy. Its more of an economy based on the past where people already made their money, and now want peace and quiet.

Capitalism needs perpetual expansion of the population or it breaks down. For example if Britain was adding a couple million a year, and you had a business you wanted to get into, you could simply go to one of the new areas under construction and get in on the ground floor. In a shrinking area the existing businesses are already in decline and downsizing, there is no room for upstarts. So you see basically young kids playing video games and smoking weed because there is no opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Babies = More Taxpayers = More Government Borrowing

Way to Go?

I have been very struck by the analyses of recent places that are in the Merde

It seems that taking on Sovereign debt isn't enough to bail out the banksters debt in places like . . . hmmm . . Iceland, Latvia. Estonia. Ireland, Portugal . . . 'cause there just ain't enough taxpayers for Govs to raise money against.

And when you get the countries putting the banksters debt on these few people - blimey Iceland, 300,000 . . . Latvia, Estonia, less than a milliom . . . any able bodied potential taxpayer thinks about leaving the country. Divide the taxpaying population against the sovereign debt ( having bailed out the banks ) and . . . the numbers don't add up, do they? It's never going to work.

Governments borrow against future taxpayers . . . so . . . surely you need more of them. As many as possible.

Remember Mussolini in the socialist years and his celebration of the, 'Most Prolific Mothers'. They all got medals. Because then you needed a huge industrialised workforce for a successful economy. Now you need more taxpayers to take on bank debt.

So, it's obvious, We need a 'breeding for the banks' campaign. Slogans like, 'Give Her One For RBS' come to mind.

I think we all understand that we're ' in this together'.

Just imagine the amount we are paying to former multi-millionaire Govt ministers in pensions.

They should be vetted and have the pension reduced to nothing if they have other 'means' in this time of Austerity and "we are all in it together!" (B@Llox)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had a powerfully growing population all these problems would be swept under the rug. With a vast population of young men wanting housing and good jobs, the state would also miraculously find the will to crush NIMBY'ism and environmentalism and push forward.

And what would happen if that was done ad infinitum? No thanks. You'd wreck far more than you solved if you keep that up for too long.

Capitalism needs perpetual expansion of the population or it breaks down. For example if Britain was adding a couple million a year, and you had a business you wanted to get into, you could simply go to one of the new areas under construction and get in on the ground floor. In a shrinking area the existing businesses are already in decline and downsizing, there is no room for upstarts. So you see basically young kids playing video games and smoking weed because there is no opportunity.

Which is a big flaw in it. It's one generation completely overstretching itself and hoping that the next will pick up the tab. We might be seeing the effects of that now - that population growth doesn't make it work, it just delays the failure. Any system that can't support itself under unchanging conditions is a failure. It might be able to improve with growth, but shouldn't need it to stay still. Perhaps it's time to chalk capitalism off as the latest in a long line of failed ideas - feudalism, communism, capitalism, and any others you can think of. The new, emerging "can't be arsedism" probably doesn't have any legs though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm - trouble is babies cost money until old enough to work and pay tax.

Far cheaper to import lots of potential workers.

Get kids out to work in factories at age 10.

It's what made Britain Great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, but I think it was a typo.

The problem is that, without wishing to appear judgemental, single mums tend to push out worthless scummy work-shy kids. This, as you say, will lead to more government borrowing.

What we need is to reduce benefits and taxes which should lead to more decent babies being born and a future of prosperity and plenty.

(I don't make the news, I just deliver it)

The gene pool in 50 years time doesn`t bear thinking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the logic in dividing the future debt up by as many workers as possible.

As long as you can have the jobs in the future and not just more unemployed people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 245 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.