The problem is that we had real socialism here in Berlin. Not what you call socialism. The scars can still be seen. Did you now that out of the 30 corporations listed in the DAX (the equivalent of the DJIA) exactly
-> 0% percent have their headquarters in Berlin or Eastern Germany
Socialism completely destroyed the Eastern German economy. This means an immense transfer from the West to reconstruct the East, and this has not yet been accomplished after 20 years.
I have just downloaded the lastest 2010 figures from the IMF (estimates for 2011 in brackets):
general government gross debt Germany -> 80% (80%)
general government net debt Germany -> 54% (55%)
general government gross debt US -> 92 % (100%)
general government net debt US -> 65% (72%)
This contrasts with domestic estimates of 83% in Germany and 59% in the US. In the end the figures are not that much different.
How can this be explained?
The US only counts federal debt, but does not include state debt. This allows to advertise lower levels of public debt.
Never believe in any statistics, that you have not faked yourself!
The following 3 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
We're heading that way. That's my point. We're heading the WRONG direction. Compare our numbers to a decade ago.
All of these socialist liberals act like we just came out of the stone ages. We enjoyed an entire century of prosperity, had the vast majority of every major innovation in the world and all of it without universal healthcare or the extent of socialist entitlement programs we have now.
In order for a group of people to "sustain" itself, it has to reproduce at about a rate of 2.2-2.3 babies per couple. That is to say, if the average societal generational string is say 5-6 generations, in order to simply MAINTAIN the same numbers, you have to have babies at a rate slightly higher than 1:1 (2 children per couple) because of death from accidents, disease, natural disaster, etc.
Anything LESS than that, means that group of people will decline.
Look at the American census data and you'll find that the people making over $250k annually, are having babies at a rate much less than that. Ask yourself....how many wealthy people do you know with more than 4 children?
Now compare that to birth rates among those earning less than $20k a year, and they're multiplying like rabbits.
Obviously the "controversial" assumption here is that people's wealth and earnings are correlated to their value and productivity in society.
I believe that irrespective of race, there are genetically advantageous members of the human race. Whether it's resistance to disease, intelligence, ingenuity, work ethic, etc, etc, etc.
Think about it for a second....how many overweight women have children? How many people with disease pass along their genes? Our civility has TOTALLY removed any sense of natural selection.
I'm not advocating that we sterilize anyone....I'm just saying...the people who SHOULD be having babies aren't. The people who probably SHOULDN'T be having babies (at all) are not only having babies, but are having LOTS of babies.
You're a seemingly respectable guy. You definitely have what I would describe as a "skill." You seem to be exceptionally intelligent. I would venture based off my limited experience with you, that you could be successful at a number of ventures or professions....(If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me).
I'm not committing an induction here....I'm not trying to make assertations about the larger picture based upon a small sampling.
What I'm trying to do is get you to think a little differently and realize.....the smart people, the successful people, the hard workers, the innovators, the great minds, they're not having children.
The lazy, the inept, the criminal element, the overweight, the passive, the benfit draining members of our societies are having babies at an ALARMING rate.