Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let's Talk About Sex: Why More Babies Means More Economic Growth
Townhall ^ | 06/14/2013 | Jerry Boyle

Posted on 06/14/2013 9:19:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Maybe the problem is that the topic has something to do with sex. Fertility is always about sex, although sex is not always about fertility. Maybe that’s what makes everyone so tense when demographics is raised as a possible factor in the economic woes of the nation.

Or maybe it’s not sex at all: perhaps there’s something else which keeps economists and financial analysts (except for a small number of specialists) from talking about population issues when they look at economic growth and investment risk levels. After all, we don’t seem reticent about sexually-related topics the rest of the time. I seldom venture down into basic cable without finding quite a bit about sex. Sitcoms are about sex. Dramas are about sex: who will Don Draper have sex with this week? Reality shows are very much about sex, or about fighting about sex.

So maybe the reason we don’t want to talk about demography is that there is some political consensus that places it off limits. When I mention this topic in a speech occasionally, even to conservative audiences, I often sense a political correctness flinch. I have to keep reminding myself that before I talk about the problem of falling birth rates, I have to clear out the old fogs issuing forth from the Rev. Thomas Malthus in the 18th century who thought he discovered that people were the problem. It always surprises me that there is anybody out there who still imagines that the dire predictions of the Club of Rome (perhaps called a ‘club’ because it has been used to beat people about the head and make them babble incoherently) deserve any credence. Then I remember that most people have never heard of Julian Simon and his wonderful book, The Ultimate Resource. Most people just swallow what the professors spoon into their mouths.
But whether it’s prudery or PC-ness: demographics simply plays almost no serious role in the models of the people who talk about money and markets. And that is bad news for the people who depend on them for insight.

Let’s start with a few propositions to get things started:

By definition the economic output of a country has to be a result of two factors…the output per person, and the number of persons.

If you don’t increase the output per person and you don’t increase the number of people, you cannot increase the overall output.

Even if you increase output per person, but decrease the number of persons, you are likely to have stagnant or even shrinking output. Don’t believe me, ask Japan. The world can, and does, have fertility recessions.

The relationship between economic output and population is not an exceptional phenomenon. This pattern holds over very long periods of time.



It also holds over shorter periods of time.


Both data sets above show a relationship between population and GDP, but they both also show a split, in which some nations, particularly those with long histories of cultural and political hostility to commerce and economic freedom, lag behind the rest of the world. In these cases, population helps increase economic output, albeit less so than in the freer nations. Therefore, the best formula for growth is to add more people to the economy and to have each of them become more productive.

Societies which follow the above formula best and become accustomed to high growth face great difficulty when they abandon that formula of healthy demographics and economic freedom. They are forced to handle the transition when they inevitably lapse from prosperity into stagnation. Pension plans hollow out; immigrants don’t assimilate; managers lead their work forces through difficult retrenchments away from growth sectors. Downshifting from a high growth society to a zero growth society is like downshifting from 5th gear to 1st gear while driving on the Autobon – inherently dangerous.

Everything that I’ve said above becomes obscured when one fails to recognize an important demographic fact: in the short run, new people tend to lower economic output per person, because new people tend to be babies. You need babies for long-term economic prosperity, but in the short turn, they lessen that economic prosperity. This means that one of the two things most responsible for growth in the long run is emotionally and statistically associated with decreased standards of living in the short run. The failure of the economic development quasti-government industry to see that something which is essential to long run growth impedes at least one measurement of short term growth distorts the picture and leads to confusion.


Because of this, economic development literature, programs and models which center around GDP per capita tend to be hostile towards fertility. Unfortunately this has become the dominant view in the economic development field, and it tends to unduly idealize the northern European model of infertile, highly educated relatively pro-business welfare states. Genuinely good analysts with good intentions such as Swedish statistician Hans Rosling and Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill have unfortunately succumbed to this infatuation with the Nordic model. But then again they aren’t the first men who have succumbed to the temptations of Nordic models.

Given the short term distortions which occur when one focuses exclusively on fertility rates, other metrics are needed to paint a fuller picture.

One can look at fertility rates on a twenty year delay, but that does not seem to improve the picture very well (perhaps due to the sad complications having to do with infant mortality in developing economies), but a look at changes in working age population paints a much more informative picture.

What they show is a clearly discernible positive correlation between growth in the working age population and growth in the economy. The relationship is backed up both by current (that is the past couple of decades) data and by modern (that is in the past couple of centuries) data.

All of this means that fetus-phobic countries face economic irrelevance, and when they add the additional toxin of socialism, the path to oblivion becomes even steeper and more slippery. One of the things which makes it so slippery is that the road down into the pit looks, for a while at least, like the path to prosperity. By the time all of those nations of dual-earners-one-kid realize that they’re about to become nations of dual-pensioners-one-earner, it’s already too late.

____________________________________________________________

Mr. Bowyer is the author of "The Free Market Capitalists Survival Guide," published by HarperCollins, and a columnist for Forbes.com.
 


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Society
KEYWORDS: babies; demographics; growth

1 posted on 06/14/2013 9:19:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Not in the new America that Obama is crafting.Every baby born means another unemployed person.Or another welfare leech.


2 posted on 06/14/2013 9:22:16 AM PDT by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Except that respect for marriage and family appears to have gone totally out the window with the current young childbearing generation. Forcing you to consider what those children would be consigned to.


3 posted on 06/14/2013 9:25:18 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Well, just imagine what the 50,000,000 plus since Roe v. Wade could have done...


...crickets....

4 posted on 06/14/2013 9:29:35 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

More children to be greedily sought after by the perverts in the scouts and school systems?

Right.


5 posted on 06/14/2013 9:30:32 AM PDT by ScottinVA ( Liberal is to patriotism as Kermit Gosnell is to neonatal care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Practice practice practice. Then, when the day comes, you will be ready to conduct the fertility part of the exercise.


6 posted on 06/14/2013 9:33:47 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"All of this means that fetus-phobic countries face economic irrelevance, and when they add the additional toxin of socialism, the path to oblivion becomes even steeper and more slippery. One of the things which makes it so slippery is that the road down into the pit looks, for a while at least, like the path to prosperity. By the time all of those nations of dual-earners-one-kid realize that they’re about to become nations of dual-pensioners-one-earner, it’s already too late."

Oh, but the so-called "progressives," who in the late 1800's and later self identified as "liberals" (but not as in "classic liberals"), do not warn about the unintended consequences of their methods of limiting population.

Back in February of 2012, Freeper livius posted a telling statement on this subject: "This is worse than before. What we are now being forced to pay for is essentially a government funded and (as yet) indirectly government administered population control program."

My response then was that writers have been exposing socialism's tyrannical principles and goals for a century now. Those who have understood it best declared that its policies lead to tyranny and oppression.

Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people. Note the writer's warning that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."

Note the following:

From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:

"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove."
EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

7 posted on 06/14/2013 9:36:35 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

If Roe had never been, the whole ME attitude vs child sacrifice (no one else’s life matters) would not have taken over. Parents generally care about their kids. A new report is out today about how terrorism and violence rise when the price of food goes up because people can’t feed their kids.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2013/06/14/snooping-on-potato-prices-in-afghanistan-to-predict-attacks/

Also it’s been 40 years of death, and the second generation is also missing.


8 posted on 06/14/2013 9:37:33 AM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Holy correlation batman!

Did the author of the article even look at some of the graphs he put together before publishing them? They aren’t even legible . . .


9 posted on 06/14/2013 9:39:44 AM PDT by ruiner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Here are the future "All-American families."


10 posted on 06/14/2013 9:41:12 AM PDT by ScottinVA ( Liberal is to patriotism as Kermit Gosnell is to neonatal care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Saying that having more babies makes the GDP go up is stupid. For one, correlation is not causation.


11 posted on 06/14/2013 9:51:10 AM PDT by I want the USA back (If I Pi$$ed off just one liberal today my mission has been accomplished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We do need more children, but who would want to raise a kid in modern America. Queer scouts. Commie professors. I’d feel more comfortable raising a child in Lebanon.


12 posted on 06/14/2013 10:05:30 AM PDT by Viennacon (b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Even if you increase output per person, but decrease the number of persons, you are likely to have stagnant or even shrinking output. Don’t believe me, ask Japan. The world can, and does, have fertility recessions.

So what is overall output is shrinking due to population. What matters to economic well being is pre-capita output and actually Japan has experienced pre-capita growth comparable to the US even during the "lost decade".

All those graphs are tautologies because by the author's own words more people = higher output but that does not tell the story about what is happening to per-capita GDP.

13 posted on 06/14/2013 10:10:05 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

UH,....I think it matters whether those babies are born into freedom loving and respectful families....or slave like families...ie, Christian vs. Islamist


14 posted on 06/14/2013 10:18:39 AM PDT by goodnesswins (R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]




Look around you and think for a minute: Is America too crowded?

For years, we have been warned about the looming danger of overpopulation: people jostling for space on a planet that’s busting at the seams and running out of oil and food and land and everything else.

It’s all bunk. The “population bomb” never exploded. Instead, statistics from around the world make clear that since the 1970s, we’ve been facing exactly the opposite problem: people are having too few babies. Population growth has been slowing for two generations. The world’s population will peak, and then begin shrinking, within the next fifty years. In some countries, it’s already started. Japan, for instance, will be half its current size by the end of the century. In Italy, there are already more deaths than births every year. China’s One-Child Policy has left that country without enough women to marry its men, not enough young people to support the country’s elderly, and an impending population contraction that has the ruling class terrified.

And all of this is coming to America, too. In fact, it’s already here. Middle-class Americans have their own, informal one-child policy these days. And an alarming number of upscale professionals don’t even go that far—they have dogs, not kids. In fact, if it weren’t for the wave of immigration we experienced over the last thirty years, the United States would be on the verge of shrinking, too.

What happened? Everything about modern life—from Bugaboo strollers to insane college tuition to government regulations—has pushed Americans in a single direction, making it harder to have children. And making the people who do still want to have children feel like second-class citizens.

What to Expect When No One’s Expecting explains why the population implosion happened and how it is remaking culture, the economy, and politics both at home and around the world.

Because if America wants to continue to lead the world, we need to have more babies.


Fewer tells a monumental human story, largely ignored, but which promises to starkly change the human condition in the years to come. Never before have birth and fertility rates fallen so far, so fast, so low, for so long, in so many places, so surprisingly. In Fewer, Ben Wattenberg shows how and why this has occurred, and explains what it means for the future. The demographic plunge, he notes, is starkly apparent in the developed nations of Europe and Japan, which will lose about 150 million people in the next half century. Starting from higher levels, but moving with geometric speed, the demographic decline is also apparent in the less developed nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Only the United States (so far) has been exempt from the birth dearth, leaving America as more than "the sole super-power." Perhaps it should be called the global "omni-power." These stark demographic changes will affect commerce, the environment, public financing, and geo-politics. Here Wattenberg lists likely winners and losers. In Wattenberg's world of "The New Demography" readers get a look at a topic often chattered about, but rarely understood.


You’ve heard about the Death of the West. But the Muslim world is on the brink of an even greater collapse. WILL WE GO DOWN IN THE IMPLOSION? Thanks to collapsing birthrates, much of Europe is on a path of willed self-extinction. The untold story is that birthrates in Muslim nations are declining faster than anywhere else—at a rate never before documented. Europe, even in its decline, may have the resources to support an aging population, if at a terrible economic and cultural cost. But in the impoverished Islamic world, an aging population means a civilization on the brink of total collapse— something Islamic terrorists know and fear. Muslim decline poses new threats to America, challenges we cannot even understand, much less face effectively, without a wholly new kind of political analysis that explains how desperate peoples and nations behave. In How Civilizations Die, David P. Goldman—author of the celebrated “Spengler” column read by intelligence organizations worldwide—reveals how, almost unnoticed, massive shifts in global power are remaking our future.


Remarkably, most conventional wisdom about the shifting balance of world power virtually ignores one of the most fundamental components of power: population. The studies that do consider international security and demographic trends almost unanimously focus on population growth as a liability. In contrast, the distinguished contributors to this volume—security experts from the Naval War College, the American Enterprise Institute, and other think tanks—contend that demographic decline in key world powers now poses a profound challenge to global stability. The countries at greatest risk are in the developed world, where birthrates are falling and populations are aging. Many have already lost significant human capital, capital that would have helped them innovate and fuel their economy, man their armed forces, and secure a place at the table of world power. By examining the effects of diverging population trends between the United States and Europe and the effects of rapid population aging in Japan, India, and China, this book uncovers increasing tensions within the transatlantic alliance and destabilizing trends in Asian security. Thus, it argues, relative demographic decline may well make the world less, and not more, secure.


Overpopulation has long been a global concern. But between modern medicine and reduced fertility, world population may in fact be shrinking--and is almost certain to do so by the time today's children retire. The troubling implications for our economy and culture include:* The possibility of a fundamentalist revival due to the decline of secular fertility* The threat to the free market as the supply of workers and consumers declines* The eventual collapse of the American health care system as inordinate expenses are incurred by an aging populationPhillip Longman's uncompromisingly sensible solutions fly in the face of traditional ideas. State intervention is necessary, he argues, to combat the effects of an aging population. We must provide incentives for young families, and we cannot close our eyes and hope for the best as an entire generation approaches retirement age.The Empty Cradle changes the terms of one of the most important environmental, economic, and social debates of our day.


The world's population is still growing, thanks to rising longevity. But fertility rates - the average number of children born per woman - are falling nearly everywhere. More and more adults are deciding to have fewer and fewer children. Worldwide, reports the UN, there are 6 million fewer babies and young children today than there were in 1990. By 2015, according to one calculation, there will be 83 million fewer. By 2025, 127 million fewer. By 2050, the world's supply of the youngest children may have plunged by a quarter of a billion, and will amount to less than 5 percent of the human family. The reasons for this birth dearth are many. Among them: As the number of women in the workforce has soared, many have delayed marriage and childbearing, or decided against them altogether. The Sexual Revolution, by making sex readily available without marriage, removed what for many men had been a powerful motive to marry. Skyrocketing rates of divorce have made women less likely to have as many children as in generations past. Years of indoctrination about the perils of "overpopulation" have led many couples to embrace childlessness as a virtue. Result: a dramatic and inexorable aging of society. In the years ahead, the ranks of the elderly are going to swell to unprecedented levels, while the number of young people continues to dwindle. The working-age population will shrink, first in relation to the population of retirees, then in absolute terms. A world without children will be a poorer world - grayer, lonelier, less creative, less confident. Children are a great blessing, but it may take their disappearance for the world to remember why.



Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family (DVD/ Documentary) by Rick Stout

Product Overview One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree - we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe.

A groundbreaking film, Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family, reveals in chilling soberness how societies with diminished family influence are now grimly seen as being in social and economic jeopardy.

Demographic Winter draws upon experts from all around the world - demographers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, civic and religious leaders, parliamentarians and diplomats. Together, they reveal the dangers facing society and the world’s economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe. These experts will discuss how:


The “population bomb” not only did not have the predicted consequences, but almost all of the developed countries of the world are now experiencing fertility rates far below replacement levels. Birthrates have fallen so low that even immigration cannot replace declining populations, and this migration is sapping strength from developing countries, the fertility rates for many of which are now falling at a faster pace than did those of the developed countries.

The economies of the world will continue to contract as the “human capital” spoken of by Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker, diminishes. The engines of commerce will be strained as the workers of today fail to replace themselves and are burdened by the responsibility to support an aging population.

Government programs will slow-bleed by the decrease in tax dollars received from an ever shrinking work force. The skyrocketing ratio of the old retirees to the young workers will render current-day social security systems completely unable to support the aging population.

Our attempts to modernize through social engineering policies and programs have left children growing up in broken homes, with absentee parents and little exposure to extended family, disconnected from the generations, and these children are experiencing severe psychological, sociological and economic consequences. The intact family’s immeasurable role in the development and prosperity of human societies is crumbling.

The influence of social and economic problems on ever shrinking, increasingly disconnected generations will compound and accelerate the deterioration. Our children and our children’s children will bear the economic and social burden of regenerating the “human capital” that accounts for 80% of wealth in the economy, and they will be ill-equipped to do so.

Is there a “tipping point”, after which the accelerating consequences will make recovery impossible without complete social and economic collapse? Even the experts can’t tell us how far we can go down this road, oblivious to the outcomes, until we reach a point where sliding into the void becomes unpreventable.


Only if the political incorrectness of talking about the natural family within policy circles is overcome will solutions begin to be found. These solutions will necessarily result in policy changes, changes that will support and promote the natural, intact family.

Just as it took the cumulative involvement of activist organizations, policy makers, the business world and the media to create the unintended consequences we are beginning to experience, so it will take the holistic contribution of all of these entities, together with civic and religious organizations, to change the hearts and minds of all of society to bring about a reversal.

It may be too late to avoid some very severe consequences, but with effort we may be able to preclude calamity. Demographic Winter lays out a forthright province of discussion. The warning voices in this film need to be heard before a silent, portentous fall turns into a long, hard winter.



Demography is destiny. But not always in the way we imagine, begins Pearce (When the Rivers Run Dry) in his fascinating analysis of how global population trends have shaped, and been shaped by, political and cultural shifts. He starts with Robert Malthus, whose concept of overpopulation—explicitly of the uneducated and poor classes—and depleted resources influenced two centuries of population and environmental theory, from early eugenicists (including Margaret Sanger) to the British colonial administrators presiding over India and Ireland. Pearce examines the roots of the incipient crash in global population in decades of mass sterilizations and such government interventions as Mao's one child program. Many nations are breeding at less then replacement numbers (including not only the well-publicized crises in Western Europe and Japan, but also Iran, Australia, South Africa, and possibly soon China and India). Highly readable and marked by first-class reportage, Pearce's book also highlights those at the helm of these vastly influential decisions—the families themselves, from working-class English families of the industrial revolution to the young women currently working in the factories of Bangladesh.


What is the impact of demographics on the prospective production of military power and the causes of war? This monograph analyzes this issue by projecting working-age populations through 2050; assessing the influence of demographics on manpower, national income and expenditures, and human capital; and examining how changes in these factors may affect the ability of states to carry out military missions. It also looks at some implications of these changes for other aspects of international security. The authors find that the United States, alone of all the large affluent nations, will continue to see (modest) increases in its working-age population thanks to replacement-level fertility rates and a likely return to vigorous levels of immigration. Meanwhile, the working-age populations of Europe and Japan are slated to fall by as much as 10 to 15 percent by 2030 and as much as 30 to 40 percent by 2050. The United States will thus account for a larger percentage of the population of its Atlantic and Pacific alliances; in other words, the capacity of traditional alliances to multiply U.S. demographic power is likely to decline, perhaps sharply, through 2050. India's working-age population is likely to overtake China's by 2030. The United States, which has 4.7 percent of the world's working-age population, will still have 4.3 percent by 2050, and the current share of global gross domestic product accounted for by the U.S. economy is likely to stay quite high.

15 posted on 06/14/2013 10:31:22 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Don’t be silly, Mr. Boyle! Everyone knows that whining, scapegoating, and fearmongering cause economic growth!


16 posted on 06/14/2013 10:31:26 AM PDT by Tax-chick (It's a caaaaaaaat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2
I just wanted to point out these two sentences:

But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her.

Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack.

Human nature and socialism can never mix no matter how hard they try to force it on people.

Our nature is to desire freedom and liberty, on our way to fully desiring God.

When the Chinese government demands that every couple only have one child, they are disrupting everything a parent must have in order to raise their children according to human nature.

Socialism (and its allies, Marxism, Maoism, etc.) must eventually die a complete death.

17 posted on 06/14/2013 10:39:34 AM PDT by Slyfox (Without the Right to Life, all other rights are meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Depends on the kind of baby.

The kids of underclass women will tend to grow up to be unproductive tax-consuming underclass. The kids of middle-class people will tend to grow up to be productive, tax-paying middle-class.

Economic prosperity depends on convincing middle-class women to have more kids, and underclass women to have fewer kids.


18 posted on 06/14/2013 11:35:45 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Mostly, I agree, but it depends on what they’re taught. These days, more and more are becoming wards of the State and vote for some or all of their livelihood. These people are net costs to the nation and society.

That said, most do not. That is why I think abortion has reached a state where is no longer “just” a moral issue, but a National Security Issue. We’re missing ~52 million taxpayers and, boy, are we feeling it.


19 posted on 06/14/2013 11:49:19 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it gettingthe so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Bttt


20 posted on 06/14/2013 11:55:00 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It wasn't until recently, and after reading “Boom Bust and Echo” that I really appreciated the power of demographics. From a simple point of view, you can't prosper as a country if your non-working class (retired) is growing and your productive class (workers) is shrinking. Or even more simply put, someone has to be born to be around to wash the backs, to serve the pizzas, to clean the bathrooms, to produce the goods that the older generation demands.
21 posted on 06/14/2013 1:08:19 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson