Germany's Refugee Crises

[Mr. Deez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Armed_Forces

Portuguese Armed Forces:
"Active personnel 32,992 (88% males, 12% females) (2016)"

It is funny you bring this up. I was just commenting the other day that Portugal only has 33,000 soldiers so what is even the point of them being in NATO? What do they even contribute? They could not defend Lisbon with 33,000 much less provide allied support.

Now I know that some are actually deployed, doing a lousy job of guarding a base for us. #themoreyouknow

There are reasons. First, though they don't have a big military (in part because they're pretty poor for a Western European country), they're a pretty loyal ally. When we need them, they show up with what they do have.

Second, consider where they're located. Their mainland is at the western entrance to the Mediterranean. That's a big deal. In addition, though they've given up most of their overseas possessions, they've kept the Azores and Madeira, both of which have strategic importance.

Lajes Field is in the middle of the Atlantic, and it's basically a gas station for aircraft. With in-flight refueling, it's no where near as critical as it used to be. However, during times of war when it isn't practical to rely solely on in-flight refueling, it gets very busy and very important. If Portugal wasn't in NATO, we wouldn't have access to it, and worse yet, China likely would. Link.

 

[Htown77]

^ see, that's great and all, but if we are going to be western europe's mercenary army, they need to pay us. We should be operating at a profit. I do not want to disband NATO, but I think these countries should pay more for their U.S. mercenary armies.

 

[Mr. Deez]

^ see, that's great and all, but if we are going to be western europe's mercenary army, they need to pay us. We should be operating at a profit. I do not want to disband NATO, but I think these countries should pay more for their U.S. mercenary armies.

I'm all for encouraging Europe to spend more on defense, and fortunately, they are moving in that direction. However, if we're going to push that more, it should be done privately, not in the public arena where doing so mostly undermines the alliance and benefits enemies. However, two other things bear consideration.

First, it's important to realize that, despite Trump's gibberish, NATO isn't a one-way street that only helps Europe and is just a drain on the US. Remember that it has only been invoked once, and it was by the United States after 9/11. European troops have fought and died for the US. In addition, European NATO nations let us deploy troops in their countries (even to fight wars that are not about defending Europe), which put us in much closer proximity to global hot spots. That's a benefit we get that other NATO countries don't get from us. (We'd probably let them do it in the US, but they don't have a need to.)

Second, while the European NATO countries have scaled back their militaries since the end of the Cold War, they aren't alone. While the US still spends plenty on national defense (well over the 2 percent of GDP figure), its commitment to NATO and European security is a very small fraction of what it used to be. We used to have a large defensive force of hundreds of thousands of troops all over Europe. We aren't anywhere near that big now, so I think it's hard to get overly upset about their commitment to NATO when we've cut our commitment right along with them.

 

[Joe Fan]

if only

 

[Htown77]

Deez,

I am not with Trump (who is generally non-sensical on foreign policy. He wants to increase military spending and withdraw? It is not logical to do both.), I am more with Ron Paul. I am not interested in being the world police, especially with how much debt we have. That said, we have existing commitments in some places (Taiwan and South Korea) that we have to see through until a peaceful resolution is achieved.

My biggest issue is defending Europe with ground troops from the Russian "threat". We recently deployed a multitude of black hawk helicopters in Europe to defend it from the Russians. It seems like it would be much cheaper to do that from North Dakota.

I am for ceasing the expansion of NATO which antagonizes Russia. Russia does not want NATO on its borders. We did not want Russia on our borders during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Russia wants to control non-NATO members within its sphere of influence, so be it. It is their money to waste on people which will ultimately overthrow them again anyway.

People think Putin is Hitler. He is not a great guy, but I do not think he is Hitler or even Saddam. He is a reaction to our bombing of Belgrade. Even if he was Hitler, Russia does not have it's act together. Even if they did, there is a huge nuclear deterrent standing in their way. Honestly, I welcome Russia spending their money and lives trying to stop terrorism in the middle east, even if it is for their own benefit. I am not interested in the affairs of the Ukraine as long as Russia stays out of current NATO countries.

At this point, the biggest European question should be what to do with Turkey. On that one, I have no idea how to proceed or what the solution is. A strong, democratic, friendly Turkey is the best scenario, but the Turks seems to be rejecting these things.

This was a rant covering a lot of topics, but on the overall, I am not interested in being the world police or dividing up the entire world into military sectors. Let someone else be the British Empire. History tells us the Roman and British Empires collapsed. Take some of that money and invest it in our space program instead.

I have a Cincinnatus mindset.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez,

I am not with Trump (who is generally non-sensical on foreign policy. He wants to increase military spending and withdraw? It is not logical to do both.), I am more with Ron Paul. I am not interested in being the world police, especially with how much debt we have. That said, we have existing commitments in some places (Taiwan and South Korea) that we have to see through until a peaceful resolution is achieved.

My biggest issue is defending Europe with ground troops from the Russian "threat". We recently deployed a multitude of black hawk helicopters in Europe to defend it from the Russians. It seems like it would be much cheaper to do that from North Dakota.

I am for ceasing the expansion of NATO which antagonizes Russia. Russia does not want NATO on its borders. We did not want Russia on our borders during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Russia wants to control non-NATO members within its sphere of influence, so be it. It is their money to waste on people which will ultimately overthrow them again anyway.

People think Putin is Hitler. He is not a great guy, but I do not think he is Hitler or even Saddam. He is a reaction to our bombing of Belgrade. Even if he was Hitler, Russia does not have it's act together. Even if they did, there is a huge nuclear deterrent standing in their way. Honestly, I welcome Russia spending their money and lives trying to stop terrorism in the middle east, even if it is for their own benefit. I am not interested in the affairs of the Ukraine as long as Russia stays out of current NATO countries.

At this point, the biggest European question should be what to do with Turkey. On that one, I have no idea how to proceed or what the solution is. A strong, democratic, friendly Turkey is the best scenario, but the Turks seems to be rejecting these things.

This was a rant covering a lot of topics, but on the overall, I am not interested in being the world police or dividing up the entire world into military sectors. Let someone else be the British Empire. History tells us the Roman and British Empires collapsed. Take some of that money and invest it in our space program instead.

I have a Cincinnatus mindset.

First, being the world's police force (as in going after bad guys just because they're bad) isn't what most people advocate. They advocate a balance that includes protecting US interests overseas and honoring the security commitments it has made. The presence of the US military protects our economic interests and foreign trade. Does that benefit some more than others? Of course, but it benefits everybody a lot.

Second, it's true that we have ground forces in Europe, but as the threat has diminished, so has the force - something the Ron Paul clan just ignore. They talk about our force in Europe as if it's still a Cold War-level force. It's not. During the Cold War, we typically had between about 200,000 and 300,000 (and had as many as 450,000) troops in Europe, and keep in mind that this wasn't supposed to be enough to actually stop a Soviet invasion. (To put it into perspective, the Soviet Union invaded Eastern Europe with about 6 million troops.) It was enough to slow it down long enough to deploy a much larger force. We have about 67,000 military personnel (ground troops, naval personnel, etc.) today.

Third, saying that our troops are there to "defend Europe" diminishes their mission. Yes, they'd defend Europe if attacked, but you sorta make it sound like they've been sitting around jerking their dicks since 1945 waiting for a Russian invasion. That's not the case. Troops stationed in Europe get deployed to hot spots all over the world (such as Iraq and Afghanistan), and that was true even during the Cold War. For example, the pilots and aircraft that bombed Libya during the Reagan Administration came from RAF Lakenheath in the UK.

As for Putin, I'm not necessarily a big advocate of further expanding NATO, but we should keep the commitments we've already made. I don't necessarily think Putin is a Hitler, but I understand why the comparison gets made. He is very nationalistic and does bring up the alleged mistreatment of ethnic Russians in neighboring countries as a reason to intervene in those countries. Hitler did the same thing and was obviously a staunch nationalist. Does the comparison go further than that? Probably not, but I wouldn't abandon Europe to find out. I wouldn't go back to Cold War troop levels by any means, but I'd probably increase our presence modestly.

Either way, I do favor collaboration with Putin in some areas, such as Turkey and of course, Syria. Like I've mentioned in other threads, if we could work with Stalin, we should be able to work with Putin, so long as we do so carefully.

 

[mchammer]

First, being the world's police force (as in going after bad guys just because they're bad) isn't what most people advocate. They advocate a balance that includes protecting US interests overseas and honoring the security commitments it has made. The presence of the US military protects our economic interests and foreign trade. Does that benefit some more than others? Of course, but it benefits everybody a lot.

Second, it's true that we have ground forces in Europe, but as the threat has diminished, so has the force - something the Ron Paul clan just ignore. They talk about our force in Europe as if it's still a Cold War-level force. It's not. During the Cold War, we typically had between about 200,000 and 300,000 (and had as many as 450,000) troops in Europe, and keep in mind that this wasn't supposed to be enough to actually stop a Soviet invasion. (To put it into perspective, the Soviet Union invaded Eastern Europe with about 6 million troops.) It was enough to slow it down long enough to deploy a much larger force. We have about 67,000 military personnel (ground troops, naval personnel, etc.) today.

Third, saying that our troops are there to "defend Europe" diminishes their mission. Yes, they'd defend Europe if attacked, but you sorta make it sound like they've been sitting around jerking their dicks since 1945 waiting for a Russian invasion. That's not the case. Troops stationed in Europe get deployed to hot spots all over the world (such as Iraq and Afghanistan), and that was true even during the Cold War. For example, the pilots and aircraft that bombed Libya during the Reagan Administration came from RAF Lakenheath in the UK.

As for Putin, I'm not necessarily a big advocate of further expanding NATO, but we should keep the commitments we've already made. I don't necessarily think Putin is a Hitler, but I understand why the comparison gets made. He is very nationalistic and does bring up the alleged mistreatment of ethnic Russians in neighboring countries as a reason to intervene in those countries. Hitler did the same thing and was obviously a staunch nationalist. Does the comparison go further than that? Probably not, but I wouldn't abandon Europe to find out. I wouldn't go back to Cold War troop levels by any means, but I'd probably increase our presence modestly.

Either way, I do favor collaboration with Putin in some areas, such as Turkey and of course, Syria. Like I've mentioned in other threads, if we could work with Stalin, we should be able to work with Putin, so long as we do so carefully.

Deez, sounds like your a Trump supporter wrt Russia.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez, sounds like your a Trump supporter wrt Russia.

Actually, this is the issue that most repels me from Trump.

 

[mchammer]

Actually, this is the issue that most repels me from Trump.

Why? I see Hillary as a warmonger.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Why? I see Hillary as a warmonger.

Why? Because I don't like undermining 70 year old security alliances that have mostly kept the peace, and I don't like throwing away the gains that our granddads spilled their blood to help secure during WWII. If we're going to make a serious departure from the current framework, it should be done after a hell of a lot measured and intelligent deliberation. It shouldn't happen on the whims of a incoherent blabbermouth who obviously hasn't thought these issues through beyond the most superficial level.

 

[Horn6721]

I do not see why asking other countries who are part of NATO to at least pay the agreed upon amount is the same as saying we will withdraw from NATO.
I further do not see why asking those nations who benefit from our presence and who could pay more to pay more is saying we will withdraw from NATO.

And yes Trump should keep his mouth shut most of the time .

 

[Musburger1]

My problem with NATO is two-fold. First, the ABM deployment is seen by Russia as an element to supplement a first strike against Russia. Putin explains the rationale here.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45193.htm

Putin has announced that once the ABM system is deployed in Romania and Poland those countries will have become targets.

Secondly, NATOs mission has expanded from defending Europe into one of intervention. How has this worked out this far?
Iraq - resulted in an expansion of Iranian influence, destroyed an economy, and gave birth to ISIS.
Libya - destroyed an economy; turned the country into a training ground for jihadis and a launch pad for terrorism into Africa; began a flow of refugees into Europe.
Ukraine - NATO and the US supported a coup and continue to support a far right-wing regime; Crimea turned to Russia; Ukraine is now a failed state and neo-Nazi elements are spreading into Europe.
Syria - Another destroyed economy; refugee stream into Europe, and blowback from this adventure likely means the strategic loss of Turkey as a NATO partner.

 

[Htown77]

Ifwe're going to make a serious departurefrom the current framework, it should be done after a hell of a lot measured and intelligent deliberation.

I am not for scrapping NATO. We disagree on level of engagement (I am for much less). However, I do not agree with the willy nilly approach Trump has suggested. I am for a gradual and measured disengagement as it makes sense over time. I do not support pulling out of east asia, for example, until North Korea is resolved and some sort of peace is established between China and Taiwan. The problem with Trump on disengagement is that his specifics are generally non-sensical.

 

[Musburger1]

Speaking of the Asian side of geopolitics, that may be potentially more explosive than the European side. It seems we are going to install an ABM system in South Korea which will piss off neighbors other than the N Koreans.
http://m.journal-neo.org/2016/07/14/thaad-the-deal-has-been-struck/

 

[Htown77]

Musburger, you make good points.

Are we using NATO as a defense pact or for different members to randomly exert their influence on random countries in an incoherent manner?

The trouble with NATO at the moment is the members all have different, conflicting, self-serving agendas for Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa and are trying use NATO to further these agendas (US in Iraq, France and Britain in Libya, the eastern NATO members who have a bone to pick with Russia in the Ukraine, Turkey in Syria). NATO may need to stick to self-defense.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I do not see why asking other countries who are part of NATO to at least pay the agreed upon amount is the same as saying we will withdraw from NATO.
I further do not see why asking those nations who benefit from our presence and who could pay more to pay more is saying we will withdraw from NATO.

And yes Trump should keep his mouth shut most of the time .

There's nothing wrong with hitting them up to boost their defense budgets. However, it should be attempted privately for the same reason that you don't scold your wife in front of your kid if you disagree with how she disciplines your kid. It undermines both of you. Likewise, if you announce publicly that if a NATO country doesn't pay up, you're not going to defend it, it undermines the alliance and emboldens those who might attack that country. It could be Putin, but it could be someone else as well.

It's also worth noting that the 2 percent of GDP figure is not a condition of Article 5 of the Treaty. Accordingly, if one of the countries not spending 2 percent was attacked and we blew them off, we'd technically be in breach of the Treaty. And of course, the entire security order of Europe would collapse.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Musburger, you make good points.

Are we using NATO as a defense pact or for different members to randomly exert their influence on random countries in an incoherent manner?

The trouble with NATO at the moment is the members all have different, conflicting, self-serving agendas for Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa and are trying use NATO to further these agendas (US in Iraq, France and Britain in Libya, the eastern NATO members who have a bone to pick with Russia in the Ukraine, Turkey in Syria). NATO may need to stick to self-defense.

It's worth noting that not every conflict the NATO members have dabbled in have been NATO operations, and when they were, sometimes the NATO element was narrower than the operation itself. However, the point is well-taken. I'm generally a defender of NATO, but I certainly wouldn't argue that they haven't screwed up quite a bit.

 

[Htown77]

It's worth noting that not every conflict the NATO members have dabbled in have been NATO operations, and when they were, sometimes the NATO element was narrower than the operation itself. However, the point is well-taken. I'm generally a defender of NATO, but I certainly wouldn't argue that they haven't screwed up quite a bit.

Like I said earlier, I am not for totally disbanding NATO. There should always be a mutual defense pact between North America and Europe that keeps the peace, keeps unfriendly russian regimes at bay and prevents European wars. I think what NATO needs to do is redefine its focus. It is still focussed on crushing Russia. Now, with Putin, we may realistically have to stay Russia focussed. However, the goal should ultimately be to make Russia an ally long term, not antagonize, surround and crush Russia.

NATO also needs to try and find a unified position on dealing with the middle east and terrorism. Right now, terrorism from the middle east should be the priority. I hope NATO can still work with Turkey on this issue tomorrow.

The problem is, I do not see any candidate from any country trying to redefine NATO's role and adopt different approaches towards Russia or the Middle East. Candidates either want to get rid of NATO, keep the status quo, or use it for their individual nation's purposes.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Like I said earlier, I am not for totally disbanding NATO. There should always be a mutual defense pact between North America and Europe that keeps the peace, keeps unfriendly russian regimes at bay and prevents European wars. I think what NATO needs to do is redefine its focus. It is still focussed on crushing Russia. Now, with Putin, we may realistically have to stay Russia focussed. However, the goal should ultimately be to make Russia an ally long term, not antagonize, surround and crush Russia.

I'm not sure I'd say NATO is "still" focused on Russia. I think the initial push for most of the Eastern European to join had more to do with a general plan for European integration. After all these countries were also in the process of joining the European Union (or its predecessor entities). Furthermore, while NATO was expanding in the late '90s and early 2000s, Europe was also greatly expanding economic ties with Russia, particularly in the energy sector. The point is that I don't think contempt or fear of Russia was necessarily the overriding factor. I think the Baltic States were an exception. They pretty much never stopped being suspicious and hostile to Russia.

Do I think they rushed the expansion and did it a bit flippantly? Yes. Do I think Russia actually fears that NATO will attack them unprovoked? No.

NATO also needs to try and find a unified position on dealing with the middle east and terrorism. Right now, terrorism from the middle east should be the priority. I hope NATO can still work with Turkey on this issue tomorrow.

You could not be more right. I really don't see why they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I understand and agree with NATO beefing up its defenses as Russia builds up its military. Also, though I love living in Germany, I don't see why we don't permanently station more troops in places like Poland and the Czech Republican and fewer in places like Germany. Not only would it bolster NATO's credibility when it says it will defend its eastern members, it would save a hell of a lot of money in housing costs - thousands per person and tens of thousands for higher ups every year.

But while that's going on, they should be able to form a serious strategy to fight terrorism, and that strategy should involve Russia as a key partner. What I think prevents such a strategy is a difference in attitude. Eastern Europe is nationalistic and has no white guilt. They don't understand why France, Germany, et al. let Muslims in in the first place and don't understand why they don't expel them now as the first step in fighting terrorism.

The problem is, I do not see any candidate from any country trying to redefine NATO's role and adopt different approaches towards Russia or the Middle East. Candidates either want to get rid of NATO, keep the status quo, or use it for their individual nation's purposes.

Pretty much true, and it's weird here. The mainstream political parties are generally favorable to any kind of European integration and keeping the status quo, and that includes NATO. The hard right parties tend to be NATO-skeptic because of their nationalism, and the hard left parties tend to be in favor of totally pulling out, because they hate America. Interestingly, I think the hard right parties might actually become more pro-NATO under a Trump Administration, but of course, everybody else would lose their minds.

 

[Statalyzer]

These people have no idea of what is really happening in Europe. In some cases, they think I have been "brainwashed" by Fox, and have fact checked me!
If I'm being honest, I would not know about half of what is happening in Europe without this board sharing information.

That's pretty accurate.

In addition, European NATO nations let us deploy troops in their countries (even to fight wars that are not about defending Europe), which put us in much closer proximity to global hot spots. That's a benefit we get that other NATO countries don't get from us

It's something we want, but I'm not sure it actually benefits us. (Although if it doesn't, that's our fault, not NATO's).

People think Putin is Hitler. He is not a great guy, but I do not think he is Hitler or even Saddam. He is a reaction to our bombing of Belgrade. Even if he was Hitler, Russia does not have it's act together. Even if they did, there is a huge nuclear deterrent standing in their way. Honestly, I welcome Russia spending their money and lives trying to stop terrorism in the middle east, even if it is for their own benefit. I am not interested in the affairs of the Ukraine as long as Russia stays out of current NATO countries

He may not ever turn into 1939 Hitler, but he's been 1933-1938 Hitler in several ways.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't know anything about this website, but the videos on it look legit. German SJWs get raped by refugees and then lie about it to police to be politically correct and to keep the rapes from undermining their political agenda. One who eventually came clean with the cops now feels guilty about doing so. This is what cultural suicide and white guilt run wild looks like. Link.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's something we want, but I'm not sure it actually benefits us. (Although if it doesn't, that's our fault, not NATO's).

It's something they want too. Sometimes you'll see criticism of our military bases and their actions and even some protests when it's politically expedient. However, you can see how they really feel about the bases when one closes. The overwhelming majority of the time, they're not happy about it. It costs them a lot of jobs and economic activity, and yes, they even miss the people. For the most part, American military and civilian personnel are good ambassadors and get along well with the local population.

The bases benefit us, because of their proximity to global hot spots. If you're a pilot who's going to bomb a target in ISIS-controlled area, would you rather fly from Incirlik, Turkey (literally minutes away from the Syrian border), or would you rather fly from the US mainland (probably 12 hours away)?

 

[theiioftx]

Never been to Germany, but most people I know who have lived there love it. However, most also see it in major trouble. Can NATO one day save Germany from Merkel's policies?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Never been to Germany, but most people I know who have lived there love it. However, most also see it in major trouble. Can NATO one day save Germany from Merkel's policies?

No. Only Germany can save Germany, and before they will, they have to start valuing their country and their people again. For that to happen, they have to realize that there is a healthy balance between murdering and conquering everybody you deem "untermensch" (subhuman) and committing cultural suicide.

One other thing that's worth noting, a significant motivation for Merkel's decision to open the floodgates for "migrants" is that the native German population isn't growing, which will stifle long term growth and tax revenue. As wrong as her decision was, this particular concern is well-founded. The bottom line is that well-educated, prosperous people (particularly white people) aren't having children at anywhere near the rate that they used to. They don't want to bear the costs and disruptions to their lifestyle. (In other words, they're selfish.) If we didn't have significant immigration from Latin American and Asia, we'd have the same problem.

 

[iatrogenic]

The good news is that they can still target Islamists.

Old joke:

A poll came out saying that 60% of Germans think about sex on their drive home from work. The other 40% think about invading France.

 

[Musburger1]

One other thing that's worth noting, a significant motivation for Merkel's decision to open the floodgates for "migrants" is that the native German population isn't growing, which will stifle long term growth and tax revenue. As wrong as her decision was, this particular concern is well-founded. The bottom line is that well-educated, prosperous people (particularly white people) aren't having children at anywhere near the rate that they used to. They don't want to bear the costs and disruptions to their lifestyle. (In other words, they're selfish.) If we didn't have significant immigration from Latin American and Asia, we'd have the same problem.

You've touched on a structural weakness in our economic/monetary system. We live in a finite world with finite resources but are currently trapped within a system requiring perpetual growth in order to avoid collapse. Don't have an answer, but another operating system will have to come along.

 

[iatrogenic]

One other thing that's worth noting, a significant motivation for Merkel's decision to open the floodgates for "migrants" is that the native German population isn't growing, which will stifle long term growth and tax revenue. As wrong as her decision was, this particular concern is well-founded. The bottom line is that well-educated, prosperous people (particularly white people) aren't having children at anywhere near the rate that they used to. They don't want to bear the costs and disruptions to their lifestyle. (In other words, they're selfish.) If we didn't have significant immigration from Latin American and Asia, we'd have the same problem.

This is a problem in many countries, and drives many decisions. France is falling victim, via their immigration policies, to their need to maintain a tax base to pay for an aging population.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You've touched on a structural weakness in our economic/monetary system. We live in a finite world with finite resources but are currently trapped within a system requiring perpetual growth in order to avoid collapse. Don't have an answer, but another operating system will have to come along.

I'll ask you this question. Is it a weakness in our economic system, or is it a weakness in our values? Shouldn't we "be fruitful and multiply?" That doesn't mean we should be irresponsible and have 20 kids, but I think we should be replacing those who are dying off and then some.

And trust me, I understand. Deez, Jr. is expensive, and he certainly impacts my leisure time and activities. There's a beautiful, traditional German beer garden and restaurant down in my village (old school building, ivy on the walls, located in the front courtyard of a big monastery with church bells, etc.), and I'd love to be able to go down there at 9:00 p.m. and enjoy a schnitzel with peppercorn cream sauce and some wonderful German beer while watching the sun go down. I can't do that, because somebody has to go to bed, and Mrs. Deez and I obviously can't leave him alone. But would I trade Deez, Jr. to be able to do that? Not a chance, but many, many people are essentially willing to make that trade. I think that's kinda sick.

And I'm not aware of any economic system that wouldn't have this problem if its people stop reproducing. Ultimately, every economy needs humans to work, buy the goods and services, etc.

 

[Musburger1]

The exponential explosion in the human population began with the industrial revolution. Fossil fuels provided the energy required to fuel technological breakthroughs in agriculture and industry needed to suppoert larger populations and higher living standards. Credit, like fossil fuels, has also been a driver of growth.

Fossil fuels are still plentiful, but cheap extraction is not plentiful. This will hurt growth. Credit has just about reached limits also as evidenced by the zero and negative interest rates required to keep the credit spigots open.

Unless a new, efficient fuel source can be brought on-line and an answer to the debt overhang is found, the growth paradigm comes to an end. And no, I don't know of a system that can make it work because growth requires both cheap energy and credit.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This is a problem in many countries, and drives many decisions. France is falling victim, via their immigration policies, to their need to maintain a tax base to pay for an aging population.

And I'll admit that I don't know the answer. Many European governments have systems that are very pro-child bearing. Germany has the "kindergeld" program that pays out a cash benefit for having kids, and it's significant money, but people still aren't doing it. I don't think a lack of money is driving it. I think an unwillingness to stop living entirely for oneself is driving it.