The depositors would have been bailed-out, the debt written-off (what needs to happen!!), — synthesis

By whom, if not the state?

Had they let the banks fail, nothing would have happened other than the system would had gone through a much needed re-set (as happened in Iceland). — synthesis

Iceland seems a bizarre example to choose if you're claiming that letting the banks fail would be fine. That didn't just poke Iceland: that had a massive impact on other countries, especially the UK. 500,000 people worldwide lost the contents of their accounts in Iceland, precisely one of the disastrous effects I mentioned that you're claiming wouldn't happen. And that was in spite of government efforts to nationalise and underwrite the failing banks, precisely the state intervention you're claiming didn't happen. The Icelandic market fell by 90% and its currency plummeted. The country was brought to the brink of collapse, saved largely by massive cash injections from other countries' central banks and the IMF.

The notion that Iceland is a great example of the market sorting itself out without intervention is curious.

I’m not sure how that tells the opposite story. It tells the same story. — NOS4A2

So if a socialist country vents bodies, that's proof that socialism leads to emigration. And if it doesn't then stops being socialist and THEN vents bodies, that's proof that socialism leads to emigration.

Interesting. You have a black box in which whatever you put in, "socialism leads to emigration" comes out.

And yet what we see in the UK data is the opposite: birth rate is highest where the mother either has a middle-management position or does not need to work full time, and lowest where women are unemployed or employed full-time in dead-end jobs. - It was generally the middle classes who had the least children — Kenosha Kid

The enlargement of the middle class has been the real factor as when you talk about a demographic transition, the timescale is far longer than we usually use.

What I think we're seeing is that the middle- and lower-middle class couples are reducing the number of children to one, because they can only afford to school and house one child. — Kenosha Kid

Here I think both I and you have to be careful on just what the reasons are as it's a complex issue. If this would be the (only) case, then countries with free education and housing programs would have different statistics, but I'm not so sure they have. Lifestyle changes are important too. (Isn't there a heated debate in various anti-natalism threads, for example?)

Well let's say you run a business and you need to recruit, but your recruitment pool has contracted. This means that the probability of a potential employee choosing you over a competitor will shrink unless you offer more financial incentives to join your business. The same number of recruitments, but at more cost to the company, or else fewer recruitments. — Kenosha Kid

The market mechanism ought to handle these kind of difficulties. Or then you use migrant labor as the UK did, which had political consequences in the form of a Brexit vote.

The enlargement of the middle class has been the real factor as when you talk about a demographic transition, the timescale is far longer than we usually use. — ssu

But this is in a shrinking middle class. I take your point: you're more considering differences between rich countries and poor countries over a longer time period. However, the historical capacity for capitalism to self-destruct is not what it has been in the last 100 years, and a given country unable to replenish its own recruitment pool isn't much aided by poor countries with high reproduction rates. (I was thinking of introducing the relationship between low birthrate and xenophobia, e.g. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/let-s-talk-about-the-link-between-immigration-and-low-reproduction-rates-1.2926375 , since immigration is the obvious solution to that. Do you know of any data on such correlations? I just assume you have all data at all times.)

Here I think both I and you have to be careful on just what the reasons are as it's a complex issue. If this would be the (only) case, then countries with free education and housing programs would have different statistics, but I'm not so sure they have. — ssu

Yes, I'm only speaking of the UK where free higher education was replaced first by low-cost education at the end of the century, then by high-cost education ten years ago, over a period when house prices inflated 200%. I think the trends in other countries should be compared, but then by virtue of being other countries, different factors will weigh in.

I wonder if the first two bars on that graph are related. "I'm not ready. Ah shit, I'm old!"

The market mechanism ought to handle these kind of difficulties. Or then you use migrant labor as the UK did, which had political consequences in the form of a Brexit vote. — ssu

"The market mechanism" is a tad vague and hopeful. Do you mean that, if there's a competition for resources, there'll be winners and losers? True, but that's market contraction, precisely the sort of self-destruction I'm talking about. Immigration is the means the UK used, but yes Brexit showed that that's not a long-term solution either. Trump too, I guess.

The depositors would have been bailed-out, the debt written-off (what needs to happen!!),
— synthesis

By whom, if not the state? — Kenosha Kid

The way it used to be is there was no deposit insurance backed by the government. Imagine how careful you would selecting your bank if this was the case today. Backstopping banks create massive moral hazard.

[quote="Kenosha Kid;492544"Had they let the banks fail, nothing would have happened other than the system would had gone through a much needed re-set (as happened in Iceland).
— synthesis

Iceland seems a bizarre example to choose if you're claiming that letting the banks fail would be fine. That didn't just poke Iceland: that had a massive impact on other countries, especially the UK. 500,000 people worldwide lost the contents of their accounts in Iceland, precisely one of the disastrous effects I mentioned that you're claiming wouldn't happen. And that was in spite of government efforts to nationalize and underwrite the failing banks, precisely the state intervention you're claiming didn't happen. The Icelandic market fell by 90% and its currency plummeted. The country was brought to the brink of collapse, saved largely by massive cash injections from other countries' central banks and the IMF.

The notion that Iceland is a great example of the market sorting itself out without intervention is curious.[/quote]
As mentioned above, I bet the people in Reykjavík are a little more careful these days when doing their banking. This is a wonderful thing. I know that people in the U.S. could seem to care less who they bank with...not such a good thing.

It is the government interfering in the markets that makes capitalism inefficient. If nothing else, and despite the fact that is human beings at the controls, it is a very efficient system. That being said, there does need to be some regulation, but not too much.

The idea is that you want to simplify processes, that is, individualize them — synthesis

Nope, still missing a link I'm afraid. Simplify, yes. Indiviualise...? That's neither the same as simplify, nor does is relate in any way that I can see to 'simplify' Making each individual person solve the problem for themselves might simplify a problem or it might not, it really has no intrinsic bearing at all of the complexity of the problem solving task.

Joe Blow is in a much better position to ascertain the needs for himself and his family than is a politician attempting to make the same decisions for a million of his closest friends and neighbors. — synthesis

Maybe (though I wouldn't always agree), but we're talking about the needs of a future generation here, not Joe Blow and his wife. Why would he be any better judge of that than the (hopefully well-informed) politician?

if you have less people to sell shit to, you have less profit. — Kenosha Kid

The alternative is to make the remaining population so stupid that they'll keep buying the same shit over and over again with the increased wages they're getting form a better employment market...

...I wonder if we can muster any evidence of that happening...

As mentioned above, I bet the people in Reykjavík are a little more careful these days when doing their banking. This is a wonderful thing. I know that people in the U.S. could seem to care less who they bank with...not such a good thing. — synthesis

Well, giving people a choice between caution and recklessness is what I'm arguing for. There's no point people being careful if they don't have much choice. Either way, Iceland is an example of how bad things can get when the system is left to its own devices, not how robust the system is.

It is the government interfering in the markets that makes capitalism inefficient. If nothing else, and despite the fact that is human beings at the controls, it is a very efficient system. — synthesis

That ideology was presumably what your Iceland example was supposed to demonstrate. That didn't work.

The alternative is to make the remaining population so stupid that they'll keep buying the same shit over and over again with the increased wages they're getting form a better employment market...

...I wonder if we can muster any evidence of that happening... — Isaac

Same thought occurred, yeah, but as you say that's already happening. I would have thought if they could do it more, they would. How many iPhones can you release in a year before idiots stop queueing around the block the day before release day? :rofl:

The birthrate has a double peak: women in middle management positions and semi-routine occupations are by far the largest contributors to the birthrate. The former will typically be in good, reliable, twin-income households (in couples in which only one person works, it is more likely the worker is male here; likewise the vast majority of couples contributing to the birthrate are heterosexual). — Kenosha Kid

Do I recognise that... Live in a community where both male and female mostly are academics... Me and missus have two great children(now in university age), but boy did she go on about having a third in the beginning of the millenia. All the neighbour women managed to wring a third(and some fourth) out of their husbands but I remained steadfast. Having neighbour gettogethers, the neighbour ladies even tried to convince me, and there were evil schemes laid out...

How many iPhones can you release in a year before idiots stop queueing around the block the day before release day? — Kenosha Kid

I think Apple are on a mission to find out!

Seriously though, it's long been a pet theory of mine (I don't know about the economic viability of the approach, but I certainly know about about the psychological viability, and in that respect it would definitely work).

It seems to me there are these two factors -

1. the rate at which new, useful technology is invented (associated with the rate at which new needs arise).

And

2. the rate at which products need to be sold to generate sufficient economies of scale to make them profitable, bearing in mind the demand generated by the strength of (1).

That these two completely unrelated factors should just happen to coincide such the firms can continue to profit from new and useful technology seems unlikely in the extreme. Hence the need for something to plug the gap...

...So along comes advertising and built-in obsolescence...

...But who, in their right mind is going to fall for that...

...So along comes Twitter and all is well again...

But that's what I mean, if they're already doing it, there's no headway for the future. The short-termism of capitalism demands that, if further profit can be made, it be made now. I don't think backup plans are a thing.

I suppose an obvious possibility, likelihood even, is that if and when the market contracts, the corporate sector will lobby for reduction in tax, including income and capital gains for high earners and windfalls, increased taxpayer investment in the private sector, and a hacking away at regulations. This in fact seems inevitable now I'm saying it. Advertising could be more effective by being unregulated. Smoking might become healthy again \o/

Looking at Japan, the decline in birthrate appears to have a number of causes, chief among them that, perhaps for cultural reasons, it didn't weather the postwar flood of women into the workforce as well as it might have. Japan appears not to have had much in the way of a postwar baby boom, so has had a declining birthrate for a long time. The female recruitment pool was obviously helpful for employers in this respect, but their exploitation of that seems to be scuppering their own futures.

People are increasingly on low wages in temporary jobs, making orthodox family planning less attractive. The problematic short-termism is again evident: corporations exploiting an increased working pool react in a way that in the short term increases profit but in the long term destroys that pool and part of its consumer base. The latter might not be so terrible except that this downward trend in consumer numbers is global. The private sector seems reluctant to to implement parenting-friendly incentives which is no surprise if they're also unwilling to offer decent wages and job security.

It seems like this has hit Japan particularly hard for cultural reasons. Men have not adapted at all to modern living, and expect women to be full-time workers, full-time mothers, and full-time homemakers. Since this is unfeasible (and grossly unfair), family planning is likewise unfeasible.

https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/low-fertility-in-japan%E2%80%94no-end-in-sight

if they're already doing it, there's no headway for the future. The short-termism of capitalism demands that, if further profit can be made, it be made now. — Kenosha Kid

I suppose if I were to support the theory, I would say that the process is still underway. From a social-psychological perspective, these things would, in theory, take several generations to happen so if it were an attractive goal for industry, I don't think there's necessarily any reason to think they've reached the maximum extent of their potential reach in this respect.

What would be an interesting consequence of this hypothetical is that unless all the industry leaders got together at some big s.p.e.c.t.r.e-style conference to set this year's stupidity targets, then the process, as an organic one, would eventually undermine their own intentions. Completely stupid populations create unstable conditions which are bad for businesses.

Advertising could be more effective by being unregulated. Smoking might become healthy again — Kenosha Kid

Yes, I think that's a very real concern. Let's not forget the biggest genocide the world has ever known was commited by British American Tobacco. It never ceases to amaze me what people can be convinced to do by a bit of manufactured peer pressure.


Millgram (of obedience study fame) had a really interesting way of looking at issues like these (the system undermining its own existence). He posited that our economic society has become sufficiently complex that no individual can clearly see the bigger picture of what success in their particular job is actually for. The consequence being that each individual can quite vociferously pursue a take which actually undermines their own position simply because their task (and more importantly their reward structure) is couched in small-picture terms, yet the consequences of their success at it affects the big picture.

The idea is that you want to simplify processes, that is, individualize them
— synthesis

Nope, still missing a link I'm afraid. Simplify, yes. Indiviualise...? That's neither the same as simplify, nor does is relate in any way that I can see to 'simplify' Making each individual person solve the problem for themselves might simplify a problem or it might not, it really has no intrinsic bearing at all of the complexity of the problem solving task. — Isaac

More people, more complexity. Everybody has differing needs. Look at the approach of an HMO v an individual health care provider. The bigger the group, the more standardized the solutions. Not so great.

Joe Blow is in a much better position to ascertain the needs for himself and his family than is a politician attempting to make the same decisions for a million of his closest friends and neighbors.
— synthesis

Maybe (though I wouldn't always agree), but we're talking about the needs of a future generation here, not Joe Blow and his wife. Why would he be any better judge of that than the (hopefully well-informed) politician? — Isaac

Maybe? if everybody pretty much takes care of themselves, you don't have to worry about taking care of the needs of a future generation. Leave people alone. Do you really believe that you know what's better for everybody else?

As mentioned above, I bet the people in Reykjavík are a little more careful these days when doing their banking. This is a wonderful thing. I know that people in the U.S. could seem to care less who they bank with...not such a good thing.
— synthesis

Well, giving people a choice between caution and recklessness is what I'm arguing for. There's no point people being careful if they don't have much choice. Either way, Iceland is an example of how bad things can get when the system is left to its own devices, not how robust the system is. — Kenosha Kid

It's been a while since I read about the situation there but I do remember that a year or two after the financial crisis peaked, they had written off their bad debt and re-capitalized. Failure is not pretty, but it's an essential part of the system. Do you think everybody should succeed? It is exactly this kind of thinking that has caused much of the problems we have today in the banking system, i.e., trillions of dollars of debt that will never be paid back that is clogging up the system.

It is the government interfering in the markets that makes capitalism inefficient. If nothing else, and despite the fact that is human beings at the controls, it is a very efficient system.
— synthesis

That ideology was presumably what your Iceland example was supposed to demonstrate. That didn't work.

The alternative is to make the remaining population so stupid that they'll keep buying the same shit over and over again with the increased wages they're getting form a better employment market... — Kenosha Kid

Yes, it worked. Again, I would have to go back and refresh my memory about the particulars. There is massive interference, distortions, and corruption all throughout the economic system so it's a miracle that anything still works. To blame what's going on now [economic chaos] on capitalism is like blaming the weapons for war.

What would you do if you didn't have somebody/something to blame everything on? There are a lot of bad actors out there who will take advantage of any and everything possible. That's just the way people are. No system is going to root that out [and as it turns out, the people who chose themselves to be the saviors always end up being more corrupt than the original thieves].

You simply cannot legislate human nature. We are what we are. The best chance we seem to have is in allowing people the opportunity to do the best they can for themselves and their families. The groups who hold themselves out as those with all the answers are con-artists, at best.

I never said socialism leads to emigration. In fact emigration was mostly illegal and movement was restricted.

What I said was think more people try to escape from socialist states than move to them.

I guess I can’t expect good faith, though, can I?

What would be an interesting consequence of this hypothetical is that unless all the industry leaders got together at some big s.p.e.c.t.r.e-style conference to set this year's stupidity targets, then the process, as an organic one, would eventually undermine their own intentions. — Isaac

I laughed hard. Stupidity targets sounds so official.

Millgram (of obedience study fame) had a really interesting way of looking at issues like these (the system undermining its own existence). He posited that our economic society has become sufficiently complex that no individual can clearly see the bigger picture of what success in their particular job is actually for. The consequence being that each individual can quite vociferously pursue a take which actually undermines their own position simply because their task (and more importantly their reward structure) is couched in small-picture terms, yet the consequences of their success at it affects the big picture. — Isaac

Describes subprime mortgages exactly. Big risks, big rewards, no short-term consequences.

Do you think everybody should succeed? — synthesis

No, that's what I'm arguing for: the ability to let casino banks fail, while giving customers the option of security. My suspicion is that most would tell capitalism to go swivel and stick with lower risk, lower short term return, higher security, state-underwritten banks and building societies. People cast capitalism as freedom of choice, but it depends on a lack of good options, ignorance, and misinformation. Pluralism is real choice.

That's just the way people are. No system is going to root that out [and as it turns out, the people who chose themselves to be the saviors always end up being more corrupt than the original thieves]. — synthesis

That seems like a terrible argument for backing the worst actors with consistency.

The best chance we seem to have is in allowing people the opportunity to do the best they can for themselves and their families. — synthesis

Which necessitates allowing people to choose security over short-term profit. Removing their ability to choose by limiting their choices to the worst possible does not chime with the above sentiment.

What I said was think more people try to escape from socialist states than move to them. — NOS4A2

Are there numbers for people trying to leave? Canada is pretty socialist. Is there a mass exodus or are Canadians restrained?

The best chance we seem to have is in allowing people the opportunity to do the best they can for themselves and their families.
— synthesis

Which necessitates allowing people to choose security over short-term profit. Removing their ability to choose by limiting their choices to the worst possible does not chime with the above sentiment. — Kenosha Kid

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. You can choose a very safe life, e.g., be an accountant, never get married or have kids, don't go anywhere or do much of anything, and drive the speed limit when you do, so on and so forth.

Life rewards those willing to take risks. The key is making them prudent/calculated.

Yes, I'm only speaking of the UK where free higher education was replaced first by low-cost education at the end of the century, then by high-cost education ten years ago, over a period when house prices inflated 200%. I think the trends in other countries should be compared, but then by virtue of being other countries, different factors will weigh in. — Kenosha Kid

I don't know so well the UK educational system to comment that.

However I could point some things about the housing prices. They haven't just inflated, the simply fact is that UK has had also huge and long enduring immigration boom. Yes, there has been asset inflation especially in a major city like London, but there are also quite understandable reasons for the prices to rise also. One million Polish immigrant workers coming to the UK alongside other EU immigrant do have an effect and building new homes likely hasn't kept pace with the demand. The obvious effect that this has is obvious: prices go up.

Old stats, but they do tell one reason:




Of course first Brexit and the Pandemic have diminished immigration to the UK. Yet here's the catch. If you think that housing prices coming down will be a good thing, think again. If the real estate market plummets, that will have huge consequences for the economy and employment (as houses in the UK aren't built by robots in China). A housing market crash means economic depression.

The fact is that when housing prices are cheap, few are buying and people who don't need to sell won't sell. And nobody is building.

Are there numbers for people trying to leave? Canada is pretty socialist. Is there a mass exodus or are Canadians restrained?

Well, Canada is not a socialist country. It is a constitutional monarchy, liberal democracy with a market-orientated economy. It has no reference to socialism in its constitution or founding documents.

Perhaps we have different conceptions of “socialism”. I’m speaking of countries, past and present, that explicitly or actively seek to achieve socialism, like Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea. When you say “socialism” do you mean state intervention?

What do you think about the nationalisation of land and lending of land like what exists in Singapore? Or advocating for a smart tax system and economic redistribution system which allows the many to benefit from our increasingly efficient productivity capacity? The issue I think is as much about existing assets both in land and capital, not just production.

People say Socialism exists in Canada and the Scandinavian countries and it does but what actually exists is a mixed economy. Instead of saying "Capitalism is the problem and Socialism is the solution", which leads one to the conclusion that for example, Canada might be trying to abolish Capitalism and replace it with Socialism. It'd be better to talk about what industries or services are mixed and basically, where Capitalism is screwing the average citizen and it might be better for the government to provide an alternative.

Automation is one of the big problems we're going to face in the future, where economies are enriched by cheaper and more effective production but at the expense of needing fewer employees. Consumers benefit but not really because millions of quality jobs disappear and all the profit goes to the business owners. At some point, we just need to accept the economy doesn't need everyone and yet everyone needs to be able to live.

I agree with more regulation of the banks and even taking many of the responsibilities and privileges away from the private banks.

Owning a large, highly profitable business seems to be too rewarding, it's great if someone had a good idea and made money off it but the fact that it's billions needs to be addressed in some way. These are just general economic recommendations, in terms of birth rate, I don't know.

Singapore has a declining birth rate too, yet boasts a 90% homeownership rate and far easier access to homeownership compared to Western nations. Canada has a lower birth rate than the US and the UK at 1.5 births per woman in 2018, compared to the US at 1.73 and UK at 1.68 and Singapore is even lower at 1.1. I live in Australia which is at 1.7 and home prices here are incredibly high right now, there is a lower average GDP here than in Singapore yet a similar cost of living, also far fewer Australians own their homes (68% to 90% of Singapore).

Hungary and Romania have the highest rates of homeownership in Europe, at 91% and 95% but have birth rates of 1.55 and 1.76 respectively.

Culturally speaking, millennials need to use their 20s at university, building up their career, the average age of having a first child has increased in the majority of developed countries and by five years or more since the 1960s. If your first child is later then the expectation of it being likely to have fewer children is logical.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Mother's-mean-age-at-first-birth

Despite the differences between the US and a country like Sweden, the birth rate is about the same. Despite all the differences in social benefits, socialism, crime rates, economic differences and etc. Wealth inequality doesn't seem to explain it either, with both Sweden and the US having high Gini wealth coefficients along with countries like the Philippines and others that have very high birth rates. While I think economic security could dissuade individuals from starting families, across the board, it does not appear to be the cause or a solution for low birth rates because if it was, why would the US and Sweden have similar birth rates? Isn't what you'd like to see, basically the US and UK becoming more like Sweden?

Socialism is the political process of reallocating the proceeds. — synthesis

So is capitalism.

Distribution of ownership is all about how to allocate the proceeds. If the people broadly own the means of production (socialism) the proceeds of production are allocated to them broadly. If only a small fraction own everything (capitalism) then all the proceeds go to them and only further entrench their stranglehold on the market.

Capitalism is not a free market.

The bigger the group, the more standardized the solutions. Not so great. — synthesis

People didn't come up with unified governance for a laugh. They came up with it to resolve conflicting individual solutions, so you're simplistic conclusion that standardised solutions are less well-adapted to each individual is just trivially true, and irrelevant unless you tackle the problem of conflict between the solutions of particular individuals with regards to shared or disputed resources - which is all government is ever about anyway.

if everybody pretty much takes care of themselves, you don't have to worry about taking care of the needs of a future generation. — synthesis

Again, this simply doesn't follow. You've provided no evidence at all that this is the case. what is it about everybody currently living taking care of themselves which somehow magically takes care of the needs of generations yet to come?

Do you really believe that you know what's better for everybody else? — synthesis

Yes. Within my field of expertise, anyway. What makes you think individuals have some sort of clairvoyance telling them what's best for them in the future. I'm genuinely baffled as to how you might think, for example, that a theatre director knows what taxation regime best promotes sustainable growth, or an accountant knows what fuel ratio produces the least long-term change in the earth's atmospheric conditions. Why on earth would they?

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. — synthesis

You seem to be in an odd admixture of simultaneously arguing for and against choice. Total freedom is great, as long as it's exactly the amount of freedom people currently have now.

Perhaps we have different conceptions of “socialism”. I’m speaking of countries, past and present, that explicitly or actively seek to achieve socialism, like Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea. When you say “socialism” do you mean state intervention? — NOS4A2

So "socialist" means "officially socialist at some point in its history irrespective of what it is now" sort of thing? Well then the aforementioned eastern European countries aren't socialist either. There has, for instance, never been an officially socialist country called the Czech Republic. Czechoslovakia, yes.

What do you think about the nationalisation of land and lending of land like what exists in Singapore? — Judaka

My instinct was no but thinking about the UK, few corporations own their own buildings now: they were sold off in the 80s for a fast buck. Is, say, a city council a better landlord than private interests? I'd say probably, since they have a wider purview. Then again, funnily enough, my home town has just purchased its two main shopping malls... just as people have stopped using shopping malls, which just goes to show how stupid you have to be to work for the council. But this wouldn't be an issue if it administered all land already.

Or advocating for a smart tax system and economic redistribution system which allows the many to benefit from our increasingly efficient productivity capacity? — Judaka

Yes, this is what the OP is arguing for, that while capitalists should trust the market to make smart short-term decisions, they need to trust the state to make advised long-term ones. The evidence suggests to me that the market is not equipped to handle its own long-term challenges, and should not stand in the way of state decisions that will. Smart redistribution of wealth is part of that.

People say Socialism exists in Canada and the Scandinavian countries and it does but what actually exists is a mixed economy. Instead of saying "Capitalism is the problem and Socialism is the solution", which leads one to the conclusion that for example, Canada might be trying to abolish Capitalism and replace it with Socialism. It'd be better to talk about what industries or services are mixed and basically, where Capitalism is screwing the average citizen and it might be better for the government to provide an alternative. — Judaka

Exactly where I'm at.

Singapore has a declining birth rate too, yet boasts a 90% homeownership rate ... Hungary and Romania have the highest rates of homeownership in Europe, at 91% and 95% but have birth rates of 1.55 and 1.76 respectively. — Judaka

Sure, and as with Japan, cost of housing and education doesn't seem to be the chief factor. The UK pays pretty decent wages by contrast too. I don't mean that the precise manner in which short-termism manifests itself is generalisable, nor does is it necessarily the sole factor. As ssu pointed out, an inability to afford it is rivalled by a disinclination to compromise one's lifestyle when it comes to people not having children at all (although this is not the same as having fewer children), but then what's driving the adoption of these lifestyles?

Culturally speaking, millennials need to use their 20s at university, building up their career, the average age of having a first child has increased in the majority of developed countries and by five years or more since the 1960s. If your first child is later then the expectation of it being likely to have fewer children is logical. — Judaka

Agreed, but then the minimum educational qualification to get a job is also increasing as corporations move further and further away from in-house training.

While I think economic security could dissuade individuals from starting families, across the board, it does not appear to be the cause or a solution for low birth rates because if it was, why would the US and Sweden have similar birth rates? — Judaka

Also agreed. The issues in the UK and their potential solutions are just an example. In the comments, we've largely been focused on the 2008 economic crisis which is a different example with a completely different solution. The thing in common is an attitude: since the market cannot take care of its long-term interests, social policy, be it redistribution of wealth to key demographics or state underwriting of state-regulated banks, should fill that gap. This shouldn't be seen as an infringement on capitalism but a measure to keep it going without post hoc state intervention. More capitalism, just not in isolation.

One million Polish immigrant workers coming to the UK alongside other EU immigrant do have an effect and building new homes likely hasn't kept pace with the demand. — ssu

It certainly hasn't. However when this got too much, the UK got an exemption from immigration from new countries joining the E.U., such as Romania. Immigration has been used to prop up an aging population for some time, more an accident of the baby boom.

This doesn't necessarily lead to an increase in house prices, however, since for the most part these aren't people with a lot of capital. House prices had already tripled recently when I bought my first house, prior to Brexit-baiting influx of eastern Europeans. It undoubtedly increases rent prices some, which in turn drives up house prices, and that first housing bubble was driven entirely by housing developers and the buy-to-let scheme. My experience based on my Lithuanian friends was that this influx was mostly young people who house-shared.

What actually happened was that my parents' generation was the one fixated on home ownership. Their wealth, plus the higher salaries during the "golden age" (Blair and Brown), plus Labour's social mobility initiatives, plus deregulation of the banks all led to a massive snap-up of property. The number of housing developers shot up as people realised they could by one, two, three houses, wait a while, and sell them at huge profit as others raced to do the same. I was part of that bubble: it put me through my degree, PhD and allowed me to travel around the world.

Those who had the most capital invested the most in the housing market. The number of homes for sale plummeted and the number of landlords and the sizes of their portfolios shot up. Higher house prices pushed up rent; higher rents pushed up house prices. Home builders became more speculative and bullying: the number of unfinished developments is incredible. Any deal they made with local authorities they could just tear up, down tools until those authorities caved to new demands. They demanded protected green field sites from government, refusing to invest in brownfield. They demanded deregulation, and got a lot of it, hence the number of box houses on flood plains in desirable city locations.

Successive governments kept promising an investment in housing, but the private sector made it hard to progress. Instead, houses were converted into poor quality apartment buildings and now a one-bedroom flat in my hometown costs more than twice the end-terrace three-bedroom house I bought: shrinkflation and inflation in tandem. Developers switched from houses to poor quality apartment buildings to exploit this new market.

The die was cast long before the influx of Poles and Lithuanians: the housing market, which didn't really exist a few years prior as an investment market, was already on its typical capitalist pyramid scheme course. A study by the University of Nottingham actually suggests that immigration has a negative effect on house prices. Since it is capital that drives up house-prices, an influx of low-capital residents actually has the opposite effect. The places where housing is still cheap is where you'll find large immigrant communities.

Distribution of ownership is all about how to allocate the proceeds. If the people broadly own the means of production (socialism) the proceeds of production are allocated to them broadly. If only a small fraction own everything (capitalism) then all the proceeds go to them and only further entrench their stranglehold on the market.

Capitalism is not a free market. — Pfhorrest

I'm not great fan of any system, believe me, but relatively unfettered capitalism is better than any realistic alternative. If it were up to me, I would revoke all corporate charters, cut government by 90% [at least], and everybody would work for themselves.

Being that the above scenario isn't going to be happening any time soon, allow for the greatest amount of choice/freedom possible within the only economic system available.

Systems are designed by the few primarily for their benefit, always has been, always will be. The only variable is the degree of corruption present at any particular time.

The bigger the group, the more standardized the solutions. Not so great.
— synthesis

People didn't come up with unified governance for a laugh. They came up with it to resolve conflicting individual solutions, so you're simplistic conclusion that standardized solutions are less well-adapted to each individual is just trivially true, and irrelevant unless you tackle the problem of conflict between the solutions of particular individuals with regards to shared or disputed resources - which is all government is ever about anyway. — Isaac

Who is "they?" Government is rigged in the interests of those who happen to own the process. Only those politicians who have shown that they can be purchased are allowed to rise to positions of real power. That's why "they" hated Trump. He wasn't for sale. After all, what's a politician's purpose otherwise? S/he is simply the person chosen by the voters to accept the bribes so the elite can have their way.

"If everybody pretty much takes care of themselves, you don't have to worry about taking care of the needs of a future generation.
— synthesis

Again, this simply doesn't follow. You've provided no evidence at all that this is the case. what is it about everybody currently living taking care of themselves which somehow magically takes care of the needs of generations yet to come?

If you just be polite and clean up after ourselves, future generations will take care of themselves. Leaving them with our debt is the ultimate douche-bag move.
— "Isaac

"Do you really believe that you know what's better for everybody else?
— synthesis

Yes. Within my field of expertise, anyway. What makes you think individuals have some sort of clairvoyance telling them what's best for them in the future. I'm genuinely baffled as to how you might think, for example, that a theatre director knows what taxation regime best promotes sustainable growth, or an accountant knows what fuel ratio produces the least long-term change in the earth's atmospheric conditions. Why on earth would they? — "Isaac

People are not the idiots you think they are. They can actually figure things out and don't really need any more experts to screw things up. Look what a wonderful job all the experts did with the pandemic. This is a perfect example of how all things become politicized and manipulated.

Provide basic information and allow people to figure it out for themselves.

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.
— synthesis

You seem to be in an odd admixture of simultaneously arguing for and against choice. Total freedom is great, as long as it's exactly the amount of freedom people currently have now. — Kenosha Kid

Everybody is always arguing for and against something. There are no absolutes in thinking.

You want as much freedom as is possible. Don't you?

That's why "they" hated Trump. He wasn't for sale. — synthesis

No, they hated Trump because they couldn't trust him to sit the right way round on a toilet, let alone run a country.

They can actually figure things out and don't really need any more experts to screw things up. — synthesis

So you think ordinary people can figure out climate science, agricultural subsidies, interest rates... Let's see. As an ordinary person, without looking anything up or consulting an expert in any way, what do you think we should alter the fiscal
mandate to reduce cyclically adjusted public sector net borrowing to? What do you think we should do about talik methane emissions?

That's why "they" hated Trump. He wasn't for sale.
— synthesis

No, they hated Trump because they couldn't trust him to sit the right way round on a toilet, let alone run a country. — Isaac

People in power care about one thing and one thing only...can they do business with you! You really think they could care less about all the other nonsense. These are the scum of the earth...all of them!

"They can actually figure things out and don't really need any more experts to screw things up.
— synthesis

So you think ordinary people can figure out climate science, agricultural subsidies, interest rates... Let's see. As an ordinary person, without looking anything up or consulting an expert in any way, what do you think we should alter the fiscal
mandate to reduce cyclically adjusted public sector net borrowing to? What do you think we should do about talik methane emissions? — "Isaac

Isaac, I am a physician. I deal with serious health issues. Do you believe that I should tell my patients what to do or should I explain in language they can understand (and within proper context) everything that is going on and allow them to make their own choices? Which kind of doctor would you choose?

And yes, with the proper education and balanced guidance, regular people can figure out just about anything. You might be surprised at what people can do when given the opportunity.

So "socialist" means "officially socialist at some point in its history irrespective of what it is now" sort of thing? Well then the aforementioned eastern European countries aren't socialist either. There has, for instance, never been an officially socialist country called the Czech Republic. Czechoslovakia, yes.

The Czech Republic is not socialist either. They replaced the word “socialist” in the name Czechoslovak Socialist Republic with the word “federal” back in 1990, shortly before the country dissolved. Their economy has been liberalizing since the Velvet Revolution.

In Slovakia, the same is true. It has also transitioned from socialist economics to the free-market variety and privatization, and it has faired much better now than during its socialist past.

Marx couldn’t predict this transition from socialism to capitalism. Everything from air quality to life span to wealth is better in Easter Europe than when it was back under communist rule.