Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PanH]

Hmmm Trump? And I don't follow American politics enough but in France, Mr "I'd do anything to win" is Manuel "El blanco" Valls.

It'd be actually one of the main selling point of Trump, ala "self made businessman". Also, it's curious to say that of someone who is not running, and pretty much attest to what Neonivek said (it's not considered its "main" criticism). Ambition is seen badly only based on a priori of the person it concerns.

[Antioch]

Hmmm Trump? And I don't follow American politics enough but in France, Mr "I'd do anything to win" is Manuel "El blanco" Valls.

It'd be actually one of the main selling point of Trump, ala "self made businessman". Also, it's curious to say that of someone who is not running, and pretty much attest to what Neonivek said (it's not considered its "main" criticism). Ambition is seen badly only based on a priori of the person it concerns.

In what universe is Trump a self made businessman? He inherited many millions of dollars from his father and that is together with all the top management jobs and contacts he got through his dad.....

[Wolfhunter107]

Hmmm Trump? And I don't follow American politics enough but in France, Mr "I'd do anything to win" is Manuel "El blanco" Valls.

It'd be actually one of the main selling point of Trump, ala "self made businessman". Also, it's curious to say that of someone who is not running, and pretty much attest to what Neonivek said (it's not considered its "main" criticism). Ambition is seen badly only based on a priori of the person it concerns.

In what universe is Trump a self made businessman? He inherited many millions of dollars from his father and that is together with all the top management jobs and contacts he got through his dad.....

Yeah, but people believe that he is, and with Trump, what he can get people to believe matters much more than what actually happened.

[Neonivek]

Hmmm Trump? And I don't follow American politics enough but in France, Mr "I'd do anything to win" is Manuel "El blanco" Valls.

It'd be actually one of the main selling point of Trump, ala "self made businessman". Also, it's curious to say that of someone who is not running, and pretty much attest to what Neonivek said (it's not considered its "main" criticism). Ambition is seen badly only based on a priori of the person it concerns.

In what universe is Trump a self made businessman? He inherited many millions of dollars from his father and that is together with all the top management jobs and contacts he got through his dad.....

Yeah, but people believe that he is, and with Trump, what he can get people to believe matters much more than what actually happened.

That is kind of the biggest thing about Trump... He is able to project things to such an extent that people believe it.

It is why he can keep getting people to do business with him in spite having a LOOOONG line of bad business practices... Such as being hired by Trump... Then he bankrupts you so you can no longer sue him.

It is why he can project himself as moral in spite being completely morally bankrupt in a business sense only stopping short of actually murdering people (which I am not ENTIRELY sure he hasn't done... That is how bad it is).

I wouldn't trust Donald Trump to be able to successfully run a department store. Yet people seem to get this idea that he is some sort of business savant in spite, I dunno, being in horrible horrible debt and having all his businesses go under.

[Sheb]

Ultimately, we're either going to go Japan's way, or in fifty years' time we'll be telling our kids what is was like when one family lived in a whole house all to themselves, and our kids will scoff and laugh at us as if we're crazy as they squeeze themselves into the residence's sleeping room, careful not to wake any of the other families currently resting there.

Nah, we either learn to accept immigrants, or in 50 years time we will remind our sons and daughters of what it was to see the sun, as they go to school under the ashes of the nearby Brown People Burning Factory. (What do you mean it's not "let's say stupid crazy shit day"?)

[Reelya]

I think rich countries over-populating is about 30 years out of date as something to worry about.

First, population growth is has halved over roughly 50 years. Also, Mexico's birth rate used to be a lot higher than USA, but now they've more ore less equalized due to increasing development in Mexico. to give you an idea: mexico's birth rate was almost 7 children per women up until the 1970s, it fell to 2.22 now, which is just over what they call the replacement rate, 2.1 (accounts for accidents and the like). So the Mexican population has basically stabilized a lot since the 1970s/80s. USA is slightly below replacement level in terms of family size.

So clearly some top-up is needed, but Mexico is no longer a viable source: you'd start to run out of Mexicans. In the future it's more likely you'd see more Chinese and Indians, not Mexicans.

[Helgoland]

Ultimately, we're either going to go Japan's way, or in fifty years' time we'll be telling our kids what is was like when one family lived in a whole house all to themselves, and our kids will scoff and laugh at us as if we're crazy as they squeeze themselves into the residence's sleeping room, careful not to wake any of the other families currently resting there.

Nah, we either learn to accept immigrants, or in 50 years time we will remind our sons and daughters of what it was to see the sun, as they go to school under the ashes of the nearby Brown People Burning Factory. (What do you mean it's not "let's say stupid crazy shit day"?)

Sheb, don't be silly. If historical precedent teaches us anything, it's that these facilities will be located in North Africa, not on our own soil.

[Reelya]

Covenant: it's factually untrue that population has been increasing at faster and faster rates. Current growth of USA is the lowest it's ever been percentage-wise.

Oops I should clarify that - growth dipped lower in the Great Depression than now, and 1918 saw negaitive growth due to the 1918 influenza epidemic. So, it's now the lowest, barring historical catastrophes.

http://www.multpl.com/us-population-growth-rate/table/by-year

Many years, growth was almost 2%. That's an extra 1 person for every 50 people who were in America the year before. Also, the death rate was higher back then too. If people live 60 years, then for every 100 people who are alive 100/60% die each year: 1.66% death rate. So new people rate back then would be 3.66%, almost 1 new person per 25 existing people. Currently growth is 0.77% and life expectancy is about 80 years, so % new people = 100/80 + 0.77 = 2.0% which is nearly halved from the rate that existed a few decades ago.

[BFEL]

Four years from now, Republicans will almost certainly NOT nominate someone like Trump. The leadership will do all in their power to prevent it from coming to pass. But when a "traditional" republican takes the stage, how will Trump supporters respond?

Dude, the leadership did everything in its power to stop Trump's nomination THIS time. So we already know the response if it happens again. The leadership will be buried under the sea of people voting for the crazy new dude.
WE JUST SAW THIS HAPPEN DUMMY.

But yeah.
Anyway, the new thing mom is on about is apparently the NEW! FBI investigation into Hillary has found a child sex trafficking ring that she's involved in.
So since the obvious answer here is "NUH-UH!" on the off chance this IS a thing, do you think they would actually put her in jail for THAT if she wins?

[Reelya]

People are having kids less than replacement rate but the growth is sustained because we're extending the life expectancy. Life expectancy would need to level out before we see a decline in raw people. But life-expectancy based growth isn't the same type of explosive growth than can happen because of big families, clearly.

[Frumple]

Four years from now, Republicans will almost certainly NOT nominate someone like Trump. The leadership will do all in their power to prevent it from coming to pass. But when a "traditional" republican takes the stage, how will Trump supporters respond?

Dude, the leadership did everything in its power to stop Trump's nomination THIS time. So we already know the response if it happens again. The leadership will be buried under the sea of people voting for the crazy new dude.
WE JUST SAW THIS HAPPEN DUMMY.

They... didn't. At all. They barely touched the blighter during the primaries, have consistently barely opposed him afterwards, and both the gop establishment and media in general has been softballing the hell out of the bastard this whole time. And as we've seen since the real fight started, the oppo research that didn't drop the ball has largely speaking buggered the guy down a gopher hole. GOP's got a lot of room left to fight something like a second trump, assume they can get off their ass and actually do it.

[Sheb]

Nah, we either learn to accept immigrants, or in 50 years time we will remind our sons and daughters of what it was to see the sun, as they go to school under the ashes of the nearby Brown People Burning Factory. (What do you mean it's not "let's say stupid crazy shit day"?)

I'm saying that the living conditions of the existing working class will be driven further and further down by a demand - and supply - of ever-increasing cheap labour, provided by increasing immigration.

Please explain to me how that is 'stupid crazy shit'. If you could refrain from including inflammatory nonsense like 'the nearby Brown People Burning Factory', I'd appreciate it, but y'know, you do you.

If you want to discuss the impact of migration of the wages and living condition of various segments of society, that's fine. But you don't deserve a serious answer when you say bullshit about people being forced to squeeze many family per room like its Soylen Green.

[Sheb]

Bullshit?

2032 ... the year less than half of us will own our home: Report warns home ownership will become 'preserve of old' within a generation

How many families in our grandparents' generation had both parents working a fulltime job? How many of them were renting in their 40's? How many of them had debt collectors banging on their doors?

Perhaps 50 years isn't quite long enough. Perhaps it'll only become the norm to house-share with say, one other family. Or perhaps instead merely the quality of housing will decline, and what would have paid for a family home before will pay for a dingy squat or a spot in a block of flats.

Forgive me if I don't take much comfort in that.

Probably quite a lot were renting in their 40's, home ownership was lower then than now. In the US context, it's particularily ridiculous when you see the trend in house size:

[Starver]

Bullshit?

2032 ... the year less than half of us will own our home: Report warns home ownership will become 'preserve of old' within a generation

That's not down to living space, that's down to financial (in)ability to purchase a home, vs rent one from someone who owns the home for you. Because of the waste and inefficiency (and profiteering, given the positive demand) of continually paying for someone to have paid for your home to be available (like an open-ended mortgage) the stumbling block is getting the bulk money together (possibly whilst paying expensive rent!) to be deigned enough to start a mortgage and get on the road to house ownership (if that's what one wants, there are thoe who like the flexibility at the price of the associated risks).

And house prices are arguably too high. (I speak as an owner, outright, post-mortgage. This house isn't an investment, but my house, I don't care if it's £100k or £400k, except insofar as the tax band, and if every house was actually half of its value, I bet the tax bands would just adjust accordingly, so that's not even an argument either way..)  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37844832

Ninjaed. Multiple times.  Stoppit!

[Sheb]

Yeah, plus the repeated bit about rising population? I mean, WTF was that about? Why bring that up if you're only interested in income inequality?