The Secret

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,614
Italy, Lago Maggiore
From January 2017 only 4 posts ... a shy Historumite or a "sleeping profile".
 
Jan 2017
14
Fairfax, VA
It's been pointed out to you that success does not necessarily lead to overpopulation. Can you explain to us why success necessarily leads to a Malthusian over population?

Yet, China is most interested in acquiring (or increasing its hold) on some of the most overpopulated areas of the planet: Hong Kong and Taiwan. If China was looking to expand to reduce it's overpopulation, it should be expanding in exactly the opposite direction! The example you give is a demonstration of exactly the opposite of the statement you gave: power hungry states always want to maximise their population.

Yes, success does not always lead to overpopulation, but it did in the past.
I don’t want to argue about this very thing, but was simply looking for someone who might have read this idea in one of the old books.
 
Mar 2018
984
UK
Yes, success does not always lead to overpopulation, but it did in the past.
I don’t want to argue about this very thing, but was simply looking for someone who might have read this idea in one of the old books.
Tough luck, it's a forum, arguing about things is its very raison d'etres. Besides, one ought to care more about whether a thing is correct than where that thing comes from.

And no, success didn't lead to over population in the past. How was the Roman empire overpopulated? If anything as it become more and more successful its population density fell remarkably and its final demise was caused by stark under population.
 
Jan 2017
14
Fairfax, VA
Tough luck, it's a forum, arguing about things is its very raison d'etres. Besides, one ought to care more about whether a thing is correct than where that thing comes from.

And no, success didn't lead to over population in the past. How was the Roman empire overpopulated? If anything as it become more and more successful its population density fell remarkably and its final demise was caused by stark under population.

Ok I will entertain your interest in this particular area. I do agree that “one ought to care more about whether a thing is correct than where that thing comes from.”
Success and overpopulation go hand in hand..
Here are some Germanic tribes which historically you can trace:
Alemanni, Swabia, Vandals, Suevi, Silingi, Alani, Franks, Gaul, Lygii, Aria. In the Lygian nation Helveconi, Manimi, Elyci, Naharvali. The Arii were one of the most successful tribes, Aryans come from them.
Here’s more: Frisians, Batavians, Burgundians, Bastarnae, the Gepidae, and the Lombards.
Some or most can trace their success to overpopulation.
Ancient Romans were very successful and expanded immensely before the decline of Roman Empire which began in the first century BC.
Vandals for example, spread all the way from northern Germany to northern Africa.
Franks are now French.
Lombards conquered entire Italy and settled in north by completely exterminating the local population of that area. (Edward Gibbon)

China, in my opinion, is expanding by their own way, that you may or may not appreciate. But the fact is that it is expanding. I personally think that it is doing in the wrong way, because “the group feeling” as Ibn Kaldun puts it, is missing.

Let’s now look at the Moslem world. They are expanding while African nations either slaughter each other or have massive epidemics (overpopulation plays it’s part). The Middle East is a ticking bomb. Moslems are expanding even though they are not as successful as the west (that is another topic all together)*** On the top of that “the group feeling” is very strong among the Muslims there and in the US. I predict that Russia, if it continues on the same track will expand. Russia has a great group feeling.

In conclusion, a tight, successful community will expand, after the expansion there is one viable alternative — conquest of other nations.

*** this is one of the reasons for the west not to expand as Ibn Kaldun puts it:
Governmental and educational laws destroy fortitude
It has thus become clear that governmental and educational laws destroy fortitude, because their restraining influence is something that comes from outside. The religious laws, on the other hand, do not destroy fortitude, because their restraining influence is something inherent. Therefore, governmental and educational laws influence sedentary people, in that they weaken their souls and diminish their stamina, because they have to surrender (their authority) both as children and as adults.
 
Jan 2017
14
Fairfax, VA
This is the general idea, that I remember from what I have read long time ago. I also remember that the idea was a transcendent one, which went beyond ancient time and onto the modern.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,981
San Antonio, Tx
Ummm... Because capitalism has always failed?...



RIght, and we all know the super-rich NEVER *spend* money, of course! Never buy stuff, never hire all kinds of helpers, never start businesses, never invest or play stocks, CERTAINLY never give to charity! And of course the rest of us who are *not* super-rich never get paid for anything, can't sell anything, etc... o_O:zany::think:

Sorry, I'm just baffled.

Matthew
Yeah, baffled here too...
 

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,693
San Diego
I don't have the time or inclination to read a whole rant, and these two sentences are enough to convince me that the post is a rant and contains no meaningful information.



Now you are just embarrassing yourself. Read that sentence again. Now if you want to argue that GDP per capita is not the most important thing to the welfare of the middle class, then say so. But don't say things which are false by definition.
Clearly- you lack the intellect to be embarrassed by your inability to comprehend an argument.

Its Not a measure of TRUE per capita growth- its the measure that the OWNERSHIP class invented to conceal the actual distribution of wealth.
And relying on their numbers means you are either complict in wage theft or one of the rubes being robbed and not understanding how.


True per capita growth would measure the MEAN growth of income PER worker. Not the total GDP divided by the entire population.
Let me offer an explanation that perhaps you can follow:


To wit: Take an entity with a population of 1 million with a GDP of $10 million.
Your falling for the ownership class's misrepresentation of per capita measure suggests each of its citizens have $10.

But that is false.
In fact, 1% of that populations holds more than half the total wealth.
That means that 10,000 people have $500 each, and the other 990,000 have $5 bucks.
One very small group at the top of the pyramid scheme has ONE HUNDRED TIMES MORE than the MEAN.


Now Say its GDP went up by 10% Mostly thru pressure applied to the working class who only have 5 bucks to their name.
So now the group produces $11 million.
IF EVERY one of those extra million dollars goes to the 1% on top... That's an extra 100 bucks each so now they have $600 each. And the working class that actually CREATE that additional wealth thru their labor and purchasing still only have $5.

The Per capita growth in the ownership class's income is 20%.
The per capita growth in the working class is ZERO percent.

SEE IT? - the measure of GDP growth can be used to CONCEAL that the vast majority of people are not getting ANY of the growth at all.

But that is not what is happening due to conservative policies- its much worse.
Because what is happening is wage stagnation and the increase in costs of unavoidable expenses such as housing, transport, electricity and water.

So in truth, even though the GDP went up by 1 million... the 10,000 people on top actually not only took $100 bucks each- they took $199 bucks each, because of their larger share of ownership and the effective decrease in wages.
That means the other 990,000 people actually saw their incomes DECREASE to $4- a 20% LOSS.

The growth in GDP not only conceals the distribution of wealth... it ALSO conceals the LOSS of wealth thru things like, say- the Working class paying taxes and the rich and corporations largely do not. Buffet pays only 15% tax on the billions he makes. His secretary pays 32% on the trifle she makes.

Buffet owns a significant portion of the nation's GDP yet pays less than half as much tax- that means that his WORKERS shoulder a larger share of the cost of a government that is Rewarding Buffet out of proportion to his workers.

When the RICH get to KEEP their money... and the poor end up paying twice as much in taxes, and pay for the property taxes on the property that the rich own but the poor rent, that is redistribution of wealth simply by making the Poor and working class PAY for everything from which the rich get the benefit.

That is redistribution of wealth from the worker to the owner who pays for the laws that shift the burden of paying governance onto the working class.


So... now do you understand that a measure of growth in GDP divided by raw population has NO relevance to actual standards of living in any society?
Its a LIE used by the ownership aristocracy to placate imbeciles who think it measures something they have a share in.


So, please, don't pretend to know something about economics if all you spout is the propaganda the rich have been selling for generations.
Income inequality is getting worse at a greater rate than the growth in GDP.
That money the rich are accruing is not ALL coming from GDP growth. ( growth the vast majority of the population are getting no share of )
Every dollar in the wealth of the super rich that is above the growth in GDP is being extracted from the earnings of the working class.

Corporations are now creating their OWN banking systems and paying their workers thru a company issued Debit Card- except- every transaction the worker initiates thru the card they are charged a "fee" that goes to their employer.
They can't even take out cash without their employer taking a kickback.

this is wage theft.

Its happening all over the western world because folks like you got conned into believing in an invisible hand, without realizing an invisible hand is perfect for picking your pocket.
 

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,693
San Diego
PS- GDP is already a measure of gross product. Claiming 3% growth in GDP is already an average across the entire population.

Adding "per capita" is latin meaning BY HEAD.
If My head and Your head saw ZERO growth- then claiming a per capita growth of 3% is a lie.
If 90% of the heads saw No growth, then its a HUGE lie.

The fact that the propaganda rags of the ownership class all misdefine a term as meaning what GDP alone means is simple misinformation.
Y'know- like their calling social security an "entitlement" when, in fact it is a Product you PAID FOR IN FULL.
They want you to think of it as something you are being GRANTED, rather than something you Earned and Funded- so you won't kick up a fuss when they try to cut back on it or pocket it themselves.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,302
PS- GDP is already a measure of gross product. Claiming 3% growth in GDP is already an average across the entire population.

Adding "per capita" is latin meaning BY HEAD.
If My head and Your head saw ZERO growth- then claiming a per capita growth of 3% is a lie.
If 90% of the heads saw No growth, then its a HUGE lie.
Where you have got a point is that GDP growth is expressed without factoring in population growth, which is misleading in my view....

So if GDP grew by 3% but population also grew by 3%, GDP per capita will not change..... On the other hand if population growth was zero, then GDP per capita would have increased by 3% ... For GDP per capita to improve, GDP growth must be higher than population growth....

Even if GDP grew faster than population, there could be potentially situations where the growth benefit the top x% only, meaning that the bottom 100-x% would see no improvement....
 
Mar 2018
984
UK
Some or most can trace their success to overpopulation.
Wait, originally you were claiming that success leads to over population, and over population is a problem. Now you've just said that over population leads to success. That is the exact opposite of the original thesis!

Also, I'd argue that those tribes you listed mostly expanded not as a consequence of prior success, but as a consequence of their failure against the Huns and other nomadic groups from further east.

China, in my opinion, is expanding by their own way, that you may or may not appreciate. But the fact is that it is expanding. I personally think that it is doing in the wrong way, because “the group feeling” as Ibn Kaldun puts it, is missing.
Originally you were talking about expansion purely in a territorial way, as a cure for over population. Have you redefined expansion to be any growth of a state, be it territorial or otherwise? Because if so then I entirely agree that success and growth is the same thing, purely by definition at this point.


Let’s now look at the Moslem world. They are expanding while African nations either slaughter each other or have massive epidemics (overpopulation plays it’s part). The Middle East is a ticking bomb. Moslems are expanding even though they are not as successful as the west (that is another topic all together)*** On the top of that “the group feeling” is very strong among the Muslims there and in the US. I predict that Russia, if it continues on the same track will expand. Russia has a great group feeling.
Not sure why you're bringing in group feeling now, what you mean by it, or how it is relevant to the original theory you put forward.

In conclusion, a tight, successful community will expand, after the expansion there is one viable alternative — conquest of other nations.
The conlusion simply doesn't follow from what you said before. You can't use a prediction about the future as evidence that your conclusion is correct. The way I see it you're playing fast and loose with definitions of your terms so it's hard to see what it is that you are actually saying. Would I be correct to paraphrase it as "A nation or other demos that is growing demographically/economically/technologically/etc... will carry on doing so for as long as it can, resorting to invading neighbours if necessary"?