Sure, a problem in the sense that it requires a solution. Capitalisms solution is infinite population growth via forced pregnancy. A non capitalist option is to simply use the very large amount of resources available to take care of the old folks. It’s not profitable, but that’s not the point.
A non capitalist option is to simply use the very large amount of resources available to take care of the old folks. It’s not profitable, but that’s not the point.
Oh, the capitalists have very much figured out how to cash in on old folks. It’s incredibly lucrative. I can’t imagine them abandoning that gravy train until they’ve siphoned off all that filthy lucre that’s settled out in the aging class.
You can’t just borrow or create money to fund things that are not profitable. Not saying infinite population growth is desirable but spending the large amount of resources on old folk does mean not spending it on the young folk = less money to education, health care and infrastructure. It’s not fair to reduce real world problems to ‘you just need to spend your money wiser’
Edit: just to clarify the comment I made above, it doesn’t say we shouldn’t care for retirerees, it is saying you can’t keep the price we pay for supporting them the same if the size of the group if old people rises and the group of people who work to pay for it shrinks. An aging population is a burden to any population in any financial system just like a growing population is a boon. Again, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care for old people.
Hear me out. Maybe we consider the resources available directly rather than the made up paper system we have to abstract the concept of wealth. Aka, fuck money
You can’t just borrow or create money to fund things that are not profitable.
BWAHAHA
That’s a good one!
You absolutely can borrow billions of dollars to fund things that have no clear path towards profitability. It’s called Silicon Valley VC. If you’re a member of the aristocracy, it’s easy to borrow money for things that aren’t profitable.
Ok you can, but you have to pay for it. Were talking about society as a while. In a fair world if the people collectively borrow money, the next generation will have to foot the bill.
In a non-zero-sum game, it is possible for two parties to both benefit from a decision.
It also lists examples for each.
Zero sum games are often misunderstood and used as a vehicle of misinformation to perpetuate the lie that if you do one desirable thing, you lose the status quo.
Therefore, looking after the young and looking after the old is a non-zero sum game because you can literally do both. My best example is Australia; we have aged care and child care, with plenty of room for subsidising mining corporations.
Can’t you See, that when you have a smaller percentage in young folk, you can improve the quality of living (of education, If health Car, infrastructure) for them and the old Folks? As Thread Opener Said, it would Not be profitable, but it don’t have to be in a post-capitalism World. Its sufficient enough for it to become a Zero sum Game, where expenses are the Same as the realized gains.
And once the Population has been reduced to a sustainable amount, we as humanity could start over again, then growing in a sustainable way ( and hopefully Out of this planets restrictions). But oh Well, in Out current track record, this all will be nill, AS capitalism will have Destroyed our fixed Environment - earth - by then.
Yes, less young folk is lower cost. But more old people is higher cost. So the cost of supporting old folk is higher per young person. Even in a fair world, an aging population is a borden tot the young people. I’m not saying we shouldn’t support the old folk, I’m saying there is no magic fix you can achieve by changing how we spend money.
But the larger older Population will only exist in a (relatively) small time frame, until the (significantly) smaller Young Population have catched Up to that age, thereby eliminating this conundrum.
And because you can’t burden the young people of the full Impact of the larger old Population, you should subsidize the hell Out of those benefits to the elderly. Because it is only temporary.
It is true it isn’t a problem for the rest of eternity, but this small time frame is indeed relatively as in the people alive at that time will have to go through the consequences for at least a decade probably longer. You can spread that out over a longer period of time with all kinds of economic tools but you can’t erase it entirely is my original point.
Well If your economic system is not built to sustain your countries people sufficiently, and by means of debt for a small timeframe, what is the Point of your economic system then?
Maybe its my Point of View of an entitled European, we learn early in school, that the Economy is there to Support the society, and in Turn the society supporting the Economy. As economic success alone has no inherent purpose by itself. That is also why you can Not govern a Country Like a Corporation, and you can Not govern a Corporation Like a Country.
A Country has to govern their society and Economy for long term success, this shaping their economic system Like so.
I totally agree with you, but that is often not how reality works. For example Norway when they found oil they put (most of) the income from that in a fund and now only use the interest they earn so it is like an infinite source of income. The Netherlands on the other hand invested their money in infrastructure, social subsidies and other stuff that was useful to the people alive when the money was flowing. Now I don’t want to say one of those choices was the better choice, because that is actually not my point. Because either you save up money when the population is growing (meaning people in that time frame have less benefits), or you spend your money and you have a deficit later on. In either case a group ‘misses out’. The same here, because the population is getting older and less people remain to pay the bill, the working people have less money left. In a perfect scenario when this money was saved up earlier, that money wouldn’t have been spent before. Either way, and I agree the society should take care of it self by organising an economy that benefits the society, you end up in a situation were the expenses have to be paid. The right argument is on whether it is worth spending the money (which I think it is), but the argument made is that it only is a problem for capitalists /in a capitalist society and that is just not true. Also communists or for example hunter gatherer societies would face the problem of increased costs of supporting a part of the population that is to sick and old do work.
Sorry long ramble, but it being true that it’s not a problem when you zoom out enough doesn’t mean it’s true that it’s not a problem for the individuals alive during that time frame.
Can’t agree more with ya, i ignored the Impact of such an society to the Individuum, and yes, you need to get that Money either in advance or have to bank on the success of following generations. Which is why a responsible society and government should Always keep the longterm success in their mind, Not blindly chasing shortterm benefits.
But alas, this is what we currently have in capitalist societies, and so as you Point Out reality is another Case.
Sure, a problem in the sense that it requires a solution. Capitalisms solution is infinite population growth via forced pregnancy. A non capitalist option is to simply use the very large amount of resources available to take care of the old folks. It’s not profitable, but that’s not the point.
Oh, the capitalists have very much figured out how to cash in on old folks. It’s incredibly lucrative. I can’t imagine them abandoning that gravy train until they’ve siphoned off all that filthy lucre that’s settled out in the aging class.
The clone army is right around the corner. Boy that’s gonna be spicy.
You can’t just borrow or create money to fund things that are not profitable. Not saying infinite population growth is desirable but spending the large amount of resources on old folk does mean not spending it on the young folk = less money to education, health care and infrastructure. It’s not fair to reduce real world problems to ‘you just need to spend your money wiser’
Edit: just to clarify the comment I made above, it doesn’t say we shouldn’t care for retirerees, it is saying you can’t keep the price we pay for supporting them the same if the size of the group if old people rises and the group of people who work to pay for it shrinks. An aging population is a burden to any population in any financial system just like a growing population is a boon. Again, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care for old people.
Hear me out. Maybe we consider the resources available directly rather than the made up paper system we have to abstract the concept of wealth. Aka, fuck money
I’m not against, but it won’t change the facts that every expense can only be made once.
BWAHAHA
That’s a good one!
You absolutely can borrow billions of dollars to fund things that have no clear path towards profitability. It’s called Silicon Valley VC. If you’re a member of the aristocracy, it’s easy to borrow money for things that aren’t profitable.
Ok you can, but you have to pay for it. Were talking about society as a while. In a fair world if the people collectively borrow money, the next generation will have to foot the bill.
Mate, it’s not a zero sum game. You can do both.
In a perfect world you can do both because a society has a very wide range of sources of income, but in the end it actually is a zero sum game.
This
Particularly about the misunderstandings section.
Or if you don’t like Wikipedia, here’s an economics website:
This
It also lists examples for each.
Zero sum games are often misunderstood and used as a vehicle of misinformation to perpetuate the lie that if you do one desirable thing, you lose the status quo.
Therefore, looking after the young and looking after the old is a non-zero sum game because you can literally do both. My best example is Australia; we have aged care and child care, with plenty of room for subsidising mining corporations.
Can’t you See, that when you have a smaller percentage in young folk, you can improve the quality of living (of education, If health Car, infrastructure) for them and the old Folks? As Thread Opener Said, it would Not be profitable, but it don’t have to be in a post-capitalism World. Its sufficient enough for it to become a Zero sum Game, where expenses are the Same as the realized gains. And once the Population has been reduced to a sustainable amount, we as humanity could start over again, then growing in a sustainable way ( and hopefully Out of this planets restrictions). But oh Well, in Out current track record, this all will be nill, AS capitalism will have Destroyed our fixed Environment - earth - by then.
Yes, less young folk is lower cost. But more old people is higher cost. So the cost of supporting old folk is higher per young person. Even in a fair world, an aging population is a borden tot the young people. I’m not saying we shouldn’t support the old folk, I’m saying there is no magic fix you can achieve by changing how we spend money.
But the larger older Population will only exist in a (relatively) small time frame, until the (significantly) smaller Young Population have catched Up to that age, thereby eliminating this conundrum. And because you can’t burden the young people of the full Impact of the larger old Population, you should subsidize the hell Out of those benefits to the elderly. Because it is only temporary.
It is true it isn’t a problem for the rest of eternity, but this small time frame is indeed relatively as in the people alive at that time will have to go through the consequences for at least a decade probably longer. You can spread that out over a longer period of time with all kinds of economic tools but you can’t erase it entirely is my original point.
Well If your economic system is not built to sustain your countries people sufficiently, and by means of debt for a small timeframe, what is the Point of your economic system then? Maybe its my Point of View of an entitled European, we learn early in school, that the Economy is there to Support the society, and in Turn the society supporting the Economy. As economic success alone has no inherent purpose by itself. That is also why you can Not govern a Country Like a Corporation, and you can Not govern a Corporation Like a Country. A Country has to govern their society and Economy for long term success, this shaping their economic system Like so.
I totally agree with you, but that is often not how reality works. For example Norway when they found oil they put (most of) the income from that in a fund and now only use the interest they earn so it is like an infinite source of income. The Netherlands on the other hand invested their money in infrastructure, social subsidies and other stuff that was useful to the people alive when the money was flowing. Now I don’t want to say one of those choices was the better choice, because that is actually not my point. Because either you save up money when the population is growing (meaning people in that time frame have less benefits), or you spend your money and you have a deficit later on. In either case a group ‘misses out’. The same here, because the population is getting older and less people remain to pay the bill, the working people have less money left. In a perfect scenario when this money was saved up earlier, that money wouldn’t have been spent before. Either way, and I agree the society should take care of it self by organising an economy that benefits the society, you end up in a situation were the expenses have to be paid. The right argument is on whether it is worth spending the money (which I think it is), but the argument made is that it only is a problem for capitalists /in a capitalist society and that is just not true. Also communists or for example hunter gatherer societies would face the problem of increased costs of supporting a part of the population that is to sick and old do work.
Sorry long ramble, but it being true that it’s not a problem when you zoom out enough doesn’t mean it’s true that it’s not a problem for the individuals alive during that time frame.
Can’t agree more with ya, i ignored the Impact of such an society to the Individuum, and yes, you need to get that Money either in advance or have to bank on the success of following generations. Which is why a responsible society and government should Always keep the longterm success in their mind, Not blindly chasing shortterm benefits. But alas, this is what we currently have in capitalist societies, and so as you Point Out reality is another Case.