Demographic collapse. Capitalism Dies of Childlessness

[Chrysostomos]

However,
Population collapse is happening just the same in Socialist countries....the difference between socialists and capitalists?
The socialists/communists are lying about the collapse.
No one dares tell the truth that the party has not approved to be told. And news that the Party is failing the people? That's never going to get out. The socialist/communist nations are struggling to keep up their demographics and also have liberal immigration policies with financial incentives....they are just not as loud about it....but the population is much more prejudiced....and the immigrants more subdued than in Capitalist nations.

However, you bring up a great point about war.
During wartime, nobody has babies. People wait, men die, and people wait for peacetime to have children due to economic uncertainty.

When people have to change jobs regularly to simply not starve or be homeless, or are starving, feel they have insufficient resources or whatever....they are under the same exact economic uncertainty as a nation in war time. Zero difference whatsoever. Nobody engages in dating or romance.

It all has to do with surplus income.
When the population at large has surplus income and resources they will procreate willingly.

When only men went to work and women generally did not before WW2 and careers were fairly stable. Birth rates of 3-4 per woman were had. We need to return to that if we want to keep our cultures alive. And communism or socialism are the worst answers.
UNRESTRAINED Capitalism is also not the answer as it has evolved into today's problem as well.

We need to put the restrictions back.

No more Blair Mountain situations allowed.....which means many many of the Anti-trust regulations need to be restored. Business permits/ licenses need to be more restricted. Some corporations dissolved. Painful but necessary.

Where precisely are these "socialist countries" you decry as equally collapsing in silence today? Libya—the one true exemplar of a resource-driven, family-centric socialism under Gaddafi—lies in ruins, its Jamahiriya shattered by NATO's "humanitarian" thunderbolts in 2011.

The remnants—nations like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea—are not laboratories of pure socialism but embattled fortresses under siege from every quarter: sanctions that strangle trade, blockade supply lines, and inflate misery. Even so, consider North Korea, the hermit kingdom battered by isolation and famine: its total fertility rate (TFR)
1970-s ~3.5–4.0 / 1980-s~2.5–3.0 / 1990-s~2.0–2.5 / 2000-s 1.9–2.1 / 2010-s ~1.8–1.9 / hovers at approximately 1.8 children per woman as of 2023 (UN Population Division estimates), perilously low yet still edging above the United States' dismal 1.62 in 2023—a 3% plunge from 2022's 1.66, and a 21% nosedive since the 2007 peak of 2.12 (CDC National Vital Statistics). Pyongyang's woes are real, but they whisper a truth: even under duress, socialism's emphasis on communal support yields a demographic resilience that raw capitalism often lacks.

Now, cast your gaze to the Soviet Union, that colossus of industrial socialism, unmolested by external hammers until its engineered implosion in 1991. Far from concealing a collapse, the USSR's demographics were a triumph of deliberate policy amid the forge of modernity. Throughout the 1970s and nearly all the 1980s, its TFR held steadfast above the replacement level of 2.1—averaging a healthy 2.4–2.5 children per woman. Peaks included 2.46 in 1978–1979 and a remarkable 2.58 in 1986–1987, spurred by Gorbachev's maternal capital incentives. This was no fluke of faith or flood of foreigners; it was one of the few industrialized powers—sans religious fervor or mass immigration—sustaining above-replacement fertility in an era when the West faltered: the U.S. at 1.7, West Germany at 1.3–1.5, Italy scraping 1.3–1.6 (UN and Goskomstat data). The Party did not lie; it invested—in free crèches, paid leaves, and a cultural chorus extolling the worker-mother. Collapse? Hardly. It was a model, until the West's invisible hand dismantled it.

You are spot on: the proletariat—be they janitors or surgeons, teachers or coders—endures a perpetual siege against owners and investors, a cold war of attrition where the foot soldiers bleed resources while the generals feast. In this theater, the worker is not a citizen but a consumable: a cog to be spun until it snaps. The tragedy deepens because this "resource" is finite, self-replenishing only through the miracle of birth—and no one, neither state nor corporation, deigns to foot the bill. Parents cannot afford the extravagance of progeny; a single child devours wages like a black hole, from cradle to campus. Neither the faceless bureaucrat nor the boardroom titan will subsidize the next generation's dawn. The result? A demographic abyss, a civilizational suicide where empty nurseries echo the silence of unspoken surrenders.

We stand at a precipice: not between socialism and capitalism as absolutes, but between systems that nurture the family and those that devour it. Restraints on capital are a start, but without restoring the communal sinews—affordable homes, secured leaves, a surplus born of solidarity—we court the very extinction we decry.

 

[Chrysostomos]

By the way, South Korea is endlessly paraded as the shining triumph of capitalism over communism, the ultimate proof that the market always wins.

It depends entirely on what you measure.

If the scoreboard is Samsung’s profits, Hyundai’s factories, or the glittering GDP per capita, then yes, Seoul is the undisputed champion.

But if the scoreboard is the one that actually decides who inherits the peninsula in the long run, the total fertility rate, the picture reverses dramatically.

- South Korea (2023): 0.72 children per woman, the lowest ever recorded in human history.
In Seoul itself: 0.59.
There is an ultra-wealthy district called “the Beverly Hills of Seoul” (Gangnam’s most exclusive enclaves) where the sight of a stroller is so rare that people literally stop and stare.

- North Korea (UN Population Division, 2023): 1.80 children per woman, more than triple the South’s rate.
Even at its post-famine low in the late 1990s it never fell below 1.9; in the 1970s it was 3.5–4.0.

Keep the current trajectories unchanged for another forty or fifty years and the outcome is mathematically inevitable:
the North will not need a single tank to cross the DMZ.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and empty playgrounds in the South will be filled, one way or another, by the grandchildren of those who still believe children are a blessing rather than a balance-sheet liability.

 

[Chrysostomos]

This chart, taken from Scott Galloway’s TED talk “How the US Is Destroying Young People’s Future,” speaks louder than any manifesto.

- Pink line: real wages of ordinary workers since 1960 → essentially flat.
- Green line: after-tax corporate profits → up almost 8-fold in the same period.

Corporate profits have never been higher.
Yet the median young family has never been poorer in relative terms.

Judging an economic system solely by the soaring profits of the 1 % while ignoring the demographic collapse of the 99 % is not just shortsighted; it is suicidal.

The triumph of a handful of balance sheets against the extinction of an entire society is not victory; it is slow-motion civilizational death.

Wealth that is not translated into cradles is not wealth; it is a pyramid scheme that ends when the last generation refuses to reproduce.

The only meaningful measure of a society’s success is whether the next generation actually arrives—willingly, confidently, and in sufficient numbers to carry the torch forward.

Everything else is accounting trickery dressed up as progress.

Without children, there is no future.
And right now, the scoreboard says the 1 % are winning while the species is losing.

 

[Chrysostomos]

Is there any economic system that doesn’t run on constant growth that won’t be negatively affected by population decline? If economic prosperity generally leads to population decline, then does that mean that economic prosperity is bad?

In 2016, Oxfam’s report to the World Economic Forum revealed that, for the first time in history, the combined wealth of the richest 1 % surpassed that of the remaining 99 %. Forbes noted this milestone arrived a full year earlier than their own models had predicted. They called it, quite literally, “an economy for the 1 %.”

An economy in which 1 % bathe in unprecedented luxury while the other 99 % cannot afford to reproduce is not “prosperity.”

So yes—when “prosperity” is defined as the astronomical enrichment of a tiny elite at the direct expense of everyone else’s future, then that kind of prosperity is not just bad.

It is lethal.

 

[Chrysostomos]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1991900980116680798

 

[ScottA]

You keep writing stuff about me here.
Do you actually have anything to say on the topic itself, or are you just going to keep making it all about me?

It is your doing that we are now going on as we are. My first comment was on topic, but your reaction and rejection of the truth has caused the need for understanding some more elementary terms before going on. And don't forget you have said some things about me to, that needed to be cleared up. That is why I have told you that you are not even ready--or was that another thread where you did very much the same thing? (Rhetorical).

 

[ScottA]

Oh, still not done with your off-topic personal jabs?
Still not ready? Perhaps not.

Sure, just turn it all back on me--you just referred to the spiritual aspects of this topic as "mystical gibberish!" And now biblically, "correction" is called for.

 

[Chrysostomos]

In Europe immigration IS a big problem.

I worked legally in Poland, Czechia, Hungary, and Germany. Every single time I heard the same crap from locals: “You migrants are the problem, you’re taking our jobs, ruining our countries.”

Let me remind you exactly how a Ukrainian like me gets hired in the EU:

- The employer must first post the vacancy for 21–60 days on the official state job boards (PES in Poland, MOL in Czechia, NFSZ in Hungary, BA/Make-it-in-Germany in Germany) and prove no EU citizen applied or was suitable.
- I show up with translated/notarized diplomas, often nostrified.
- I pass a 3–6 month probation period working like three locals combined.
- After that, the employer and I jointly apply for the actual work permit/residence card (Type A in Poland, Employee/Blue Card in Czechia, residence permit under the Skilled Immigration Act in Germany, etc.).
- The state personally approves that I am “necessary” and issues the visa for 1–4 years.
- From day one I pay full taxes and social contributions — usually at a higher effective rate than most locals because I don’t get your child allowances or family deductions.

So the boss who hired me, your own labor office, and your government all signed off: “We need this foreigner.”

And after all that you still scream at me that I “stole your job”?

Why don’t you scream at your boss who made the decision?
Because you’re terrified of him. One wrong word and you’re out on the street tomorrow — no union appeal, no mandatory justification, nothing.

So you swallow the fear, bow your head to the real tyrant, and dump all your rage on the migrant.

Cowards.

Then you wonder why we don’t “integrate,” don’t love your culture, and some of us burn your flags.

If migrants ruin Europ so much — pack your bags and leave.
Your own birth rates (1.24 Italy, 1.35 Germany) already decided there’s no future for natives here anyway.
We’re just filling the space you refused to fill with your own children.

You native Europeans are no longer welcome here in Europe.
Pack up and leave while you still can.
Europe is no longer yours.

 

[Chrysostomos]

It is your doing that we are now going on as we are. My first comment was on topic, but your reaction and rejection of the truth has caused the need for understanding some more elementary terms before going on. And don't forget you have said some things about me to, that needed to be cleared up. That is why I have told you that you are not even ready--or was that another thread where you did very much the same thing? (Rhetorical).

You didn't say a single word on the actual topic.
Everything you wrote is pure off-topic noise and personal attacks.

 

[Chrysostomos]

Sure, just turn it all back on me--you just referred to the spiritual aspects of this topic as "mystical gibberish!" And now biblically, "correction" is called for.

Stop twisting my words.
I never called “the spiritual aspects of this topic” mystical gibberish.

What I called mystical gibberish is the nonsense you personally keep posting, stuff that has zero connection to the actual subject, zero connection to the Bible, zero connection to real Christianity, and zero connection to the real world.

It’s just your private fantasy dressed up in religious language.
That’s not “spiritual.”
That’s just made-up garbage.
Don’t pin your inventions on me.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

I worked legally in Poland, Czechia, Hungary, and Germany. Ever

No one with a brain says migrants are the problem at all in fact ! It's the idiot Socialist system of having no regards for the Nations people that is the issue !
Like the EU who is un elected Dictating over Nations Governments ! that creates the hostility ? because such is outright stupid in the way they go about it all !
It's the Dictating over the Nations people that gets up the nose of people, is why you may see hostile reactions saying such. that being the real issue behind such. Ones own idiot Socialist stupid idiot fool Government !

You know when my grand dad came to Australia he had no regard for Australians at all, he looked down on such people as backward. but he came because Australia was desperate for him to come ! for he had the skills and ability to do huge jobs with 100 people working for him.
So he worked all over the world for the most wealthy people, Arabs, Jews etc USA and Canada and the West with people that demanded perfection and the ability to do the real big Jobs.
Back in them days one could say what ever they liked about anything regardless, it was free to do so, and if anyone took offence, so what ! It was ones own opinion that counted as freedom ! Most people I know did not like him in fact. because he was correct in what he said.

One always has people in any Nation that have a % of dipsticks regardless, who will say stupid remarks to new people in the Land.

I have lived here for 30 years and the locals still demand that I am not one of them ! Haha! and I was born say 7 miles away. they see me as an outsider ! my wife does say as well.

So I worked with mainly all types of Wogs in my working life and heard all of their storys about bastard Aussies treatment of them. and you know what if a Aussie was to go work in Asia say or anywhere do not worry, for they will get dealt the same sort of nonsense poping up regardless.

My brother has been in Asia a lot and he says they are totaly racist against all other Aisians full on !

But our Socialist Government are demanding the Australians are the most racist Nation on earth etc etc ! but that is total BS in fact !
But the Socialist number one issue before all else is to stamp out racism ! but that is not the issue truly at all but for Dictating that no one is alowed to have an opinion ! That's the real Socialist Government intention. such as They only want what they say to be god !
That's what Socialism is all about ! making all people Slaves to their idiot brain dead gods ! making stupid mindless dipstick people like the Nazis and Communist are !

I like you Chry because you have your own opinons, just like every Wog I talked with at work of some depth !
I am fine with such peoples opinions, I do not take offence, like many stupid Aussies I have seen who can not handle an outsider who has other opinions to them ?
Such idiots will get in a great huff and walk off and never talk to that Wog again !
Then they turn to me and say, why do you talk too them Wogs !
I say you may learn something from such as them Wogs, you do not have to like everything one says ! but it's best to be man enough to get along with them best you can.
Their is no virtue in hiding away like a dingbat ! yes he may be a p--ck but so is any Builder to work for that's whole intent is to do everyone wrong, but my Wog mates do me no wrong ! They are not out to try and rip me off ! Them Wogs are good workers ! you do the right thing by them, they will by you. you may have arguments but that's fine. even with Islamic people I have got on with fine working with them, for they are better than some low life Aussies for sure who would steal the eye out of a needle.

 

[JohnDB]

Where precisely are these "socialist countries" you decry as equally collapsing in silence today? Libya—the one true exemplar of a resource-driven, family-centric socialism under Gaddafi—lies in ruins, its Jamahiriya shattered by NATO's "humanitarian" thunderbolts in 2011.

The remnants—nations like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea—are not laboratories of pure socialism but embattled fortresses under siege from every quarter: sanctions that strangle trade, blockade supply lines, and inflate misery. Even so, consider North Korea, the hermit kingdom battered by isolation and famine: its total fertility rate (TFR)
1970-s ~3.5–4.0 / 1980-s~2.5–3.0 / 1990-s~2.0–2.5 / 2000-s 1.9–2.1 / 2010-s ~1.8–1.9 / hovers at approximately 1.8 children per woman as of 2023 (UN Population Division estimates), perilously low yet still edging above the United States' dismal 1.62 in 2023—a 3% plunge from 2022's 1.66, and a 21% nosedive since the 2007 peak of 2.12 (CDC National Vital Statistics). Pyongyang's woes are real, but they whisper a truth: even under duress, socialism's emphasis on communal support yields a demographic resilience that raw capitalism often lacks.

Now, cast your gaze to the Soviet Union, that colossus of industrial socialism, unmolested by external hammers until its engineered implosion in 1991. Far from concealing a collapse, the USSR's demographics were a triumph of deliberate policy amid the forge of modernity. Throughout the 1970s and nearly all the 1980s, its TFR held steadfast above the replacement level of 2.1—averaging a healthy 2.4–2.5 children per woman. Peaks included 2.46 in 1978–1979 and a remarkable 2.58 in 1986–1987, spurred by Gorbachev's maternal capital incentives. This was no fluke of faith or flood of foreigners; it was one of the few industrialized powers—sans religious fervor or mass immigration—sustaining above-replacement fertility in an era when the West faltered: the U.S. at 1.7, West Germany at 1.3–1.5, Italy scraping 1.3–1.6 (UN and Goskomstat data). The Party did not lie; it invested—in free crèches, paid leaves, and a cultural chorus extolling the worker-mother. Collapse? Hardly. It was a model, until the West's invisible hand dismantled it.

You are spot on: the proletariat—be they janitors or surgeons, teachers or coders—endures a perpetual siege against owners and investors, a cold war of attrition where the foot soldiers bleed resources while the generals feast. In this theater, the worker is not a citizen but a consumable: a cog to be spun until it snaps. The tragedy deepens because this "resource" is finite, self-replenishing only through the miracle of birth—and no one, neither state nor corporation, deigns to foot the bill. Parents cannot afford the extravagance of progeny; a single child devours wages like a black hole, from cradle to campus. Neither the faceless bureaucrat nor the boardroom titan will subsidize the next generation's dawn. The result? A demographic abyss, a civilizational suicide where empty nurseries echo the silence of unspoken surrenders.

We stand at a precipice: not between socialism and capitalism as absolutes, but between systems that nurture the family and those that devour it. Restraints on capital are a start, but without restoring the communal sinews—affordable homes, secured leaves, a surplus born of solidarity—we court the very extinction we decry.

You are forgetting that during Gorbachev's incentives, there were a LOT of men dieing in Afghanistan and Africa and Georgia. They were losing more men than they were replacing. Between internal fighting and war outside their borders...the men were dropping like flies.

Same as China was doing as they became experts in mining they spent thousands of lives frivolously in no safety equipment or safety standards. Not to mention the brutal workload enforced or you got no pay. Then there's the whole education system in which anything beyond what they deem as a basic education is only granted on a merit based system where only the best and brightest are given the education and the higher you go the more competitive the system becomes. Parenting children requires tutoring for hours every day after the school day so that your children can compete. (Not exactly new information)
Hong Kong was in UK hands but returned. Taiwan was the Christian, capitalist exiles. Today China is facing financial collapse as well as population collapse. Taiwan is facing population collapse if it were not for the immigrants from China. And the main reason China wants Taiwan back is because of the cash in Taiwanese banks. It's already confiscated all the cash in Hong Kong banks. (Huge bond crisis built on overvalued and over built real estate)

Russia's problems ALWAYS stem from their attacking of other countries.
Russia attacked Afghanistan for their uranium deposits and gemstones. (Which caused embargoes and sanctions)
Now Russia is attacking Ukraine for their groceries and their rocket tech factories. (Also Moldova, Slovakia and Chzek republic...they want Poland but I dont think they will ever get them....might get Latvia.....dunno)

But the biggest thing is that today ALL these nations have the same problem....a shrinking population. All are getting older without sufficient children to uphold the older generations.

China got cut off from buying tech factories due to their flooding the market with microchips in the mid '80's after getting ONE chip fab then.
So they got cut off and they have never been allowed to buy anymore. (We know that their population numbers are fake...just like Russia's are)

Thailand, like Ukraine, was once a sex tourism location. But even though there's lots of sex their live birth rates are still in the toilet.

 

[Chrysostomos]

You are forgetting that during Gorbachev's incentives, there were a LOT of men dieing in Afghanistan and Africa and Georgia. They were losing more men than they were replacing. Between internal fighting and war outside their borders...the men were dropping like flies.

Same as China was doing as they became experts in mining they spent thousands of lives frivolously in no safety equipment or safety standards. Not to mention the brutal workload enforced or you got no pay. Then there's the whole education system in which anything beyond what they deem as a basic education is only granted on a merit based system where only the best and brightest are given the education and the higher you go the more competitive the system becomes. Parenting children requires tutoring for hours every day after the school day so that your children can compete. (Not exactly new information)
Hong Kong was in UK hands but returned. Taiwan was the Christian, capitalist exiles. Today China is facing financial collapse as well as population collapse. Taiwan is facing population collapse if it were not for the immigrants from China. And the main reason China wants Taiwan back is because of the cash in Taiwanese banks. It's already confiscated all the cash in Hong Kong banks. (Huge bond crisis built on overvalued and over built real estate)

Russia's problems ALWAYS stem from their attacking of other countries.
Russia attacked Afghanistan for their uranium deposits and gemstones. (Which caused embargoes and sanctions)
Now Russia is attacking Ukraine for their groceries and their rocket tech factories. (Also Moldova, Slovakia and Chzek republic...they want Poland but I dont think they will ever get them....might get Latvia.....dunno)

But the biggest thing is that today ALL these nations have the same problem....a shrinking population. All are getting older without sufficient children to uphold the older generations.

China got cut off from buying tech factories due to their flooding the market with microchips in the mid '80's after getting ONE chip fab then.
So they got cut off and they have never been allowed to buy anymore. (We know that their population numbers are fake...just like Russia's are)

Thailand, like Ukraine, was once a sex tourism location. But even though there's lots of sex their live birth rates are still in the toilet.

1. First, I don’t need to discuss how bad the USSR was politically. I have a separate thread for that: “Why is the World Silent About the Largest Genocide of Christians in History?”
Second, what exactly do all the political events you listed have to do with demographics?
I mentioned the USSR only in the context of demographics.
You immediately jumped to “the USSR invaded Afghanistan.”
Well, the United States invaded Afghanistan right after the USSR did.
So what does that tell us in the context of this thread about demographics?
This thread is strictly about demographics, not Cold-War body counts.

2. What exactly do Gorbachev’s Afghan losses (or any other war you listed) have to do with the fact that the USSR in the 1970s–1980s maintained a TFR of 2.4–2.5 in a fully industrialized society?
The US fought the exact same war in Afghanistan (2001–2021).

Here, have the full list of US military operations since 1775: Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia

What does that tell us about demographics?

3. You wrote: “today ALL these nations have the same problem… shrinking population.”
Wrong.
Afghanistan, the country both the USSR and the US invaded, never had that problem.
- 2001 (year the US invasion started): TFR ≈ 7.3
- 2023 (two years after US withdrawal): TFR ≈ 4.4–4.7 (UN/World Bank)
Twenty years of American bombs, drones, and night raids and It’s still double replacement.

4. The pattern is crystal clear:
- Industrialized, urbanized, consumer-capitalist societies → fertility collapses to 0.7–1.6 regardless of ideology (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Italy, Spain like clockwork).
- Pre-industrial, rural, often war-torn societies → fertility stays high (Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Niger).
- The only industrialized exceptions that ever pushed TFR back above 2.1 for any sustained period used massive, deliberate, anti-usury, pro-family state intervention (Gaddafi’s Libya, 1930s Germany, 1970s–80s USSR).

The fertility cliff is triggered by one thing and one thing only: the moment a society fully embraces the full package of industrial capitalism—housing as an investment, women in the workforce until 35+, education as a 20-year debt sentence, and children treated as a luxury consumption good.

So spare us the geopolitical whataboutism.
The numbers don’t care who invaded whom.
They only care whether a 28-year-old couple can afford to have the third child without going bankrupt.
Right now, under the current economic religion, the answer is almost universally “no.”

 

[GodsGrace]

1. First, I don’t need to discuss how bad the USSR was politically. I have a separate thread for that: “Why is the World Silent About the Largest Genocide of Christians in History?”
Second, what exactly do all the political events you listed have to do with demographics?
I mentioned the USSR only in the context of demographics.
You immediately jumped to “the USSR invaded Afghanistan.”
Well, the United States invaded Afghanistan right after the USSR did.
So what does that tell us in the context of this thread about demographics?
This thread is strictly about demographics, not Cold-War body counts.

2. What exactly do Gorbachev’s Afghan losses (or any other war you listed) have to do with the fact that the USSR in the 1970s–1980s maintained a TFR of 2.4–2.5 in a fully industrialized society?
The US fought the exact same war in Afghanistan (2001–2021).

Here, have the full list of US military operations since 1775: Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia

What does that tell us about demographics?

3. You wrote: “today ALL these nations have the same problem… shrinking population.”
Wrong.
Afghanistan, the country both the USSR and the US invaded, never had that problem.
- 2001 (year the US invasion started): TFR ≈ 7.3
- 2023 (two years after US withdrawal): TFR ≈ 4.4–4.7 (UN/World Bank)
Twenty years of American bombs, drones, and night raids and It’s still double replacement.

4. The pattern is crystal clear:
- Industrialized, urbanized, consumer-capitalist societies → fertility collapses to 0.7–1.6 regardless of ideology (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Italy, Spain like clockwork).
- Pre-industrial, rural, often war-torn societies → fertility stays high (Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Niger).
- The only industrialized exceptions that ever pushed TFR back above 2.1 for any sustained period used massive, deliberate, anti-usury, pro-family state intervention (Gaddafi’s Libya, 1930s Germany, 1970s–80s USSR).

The fertility cliff is triggered by one thing and one thing only: the moment a society fully embraces the full package of industrial capitalism—housing as an investment, women in the workforce until 35+, education as a 20-year debt sentence, and children treated as a luxury consumption good.

So spare us the geopolitical whataboutism.
The numbers don’t care who invaded whom.
They only care whether a 28-year-old couple can afford to have the third child without going bankrupt.
Right now, under the current economic religion, the answer is almost universally “no.”

Did you just state that Italy is a capitalist country??


At least it DID privatise the telephone and the utilities.
Oh,,,and it IS trying to privatise the healthcare system but it's still under a socialist system.
There's a ceiling on wages due to unions...
why they have so much power in a country with low employment is a mystery to me.
They're very good at organizing ONE DAY STRIKES which only worsen the economy and, when transportation is the aim, puts Italians at great disadvantage - aside from the fact that many cannot get to work - again, effecting the economy.

 

[Chrysostomos]

No one with a brain says migrants are the problem at all in fact ! It's the idiot Socialist system of having no regards for the Nations people that is the issue !
Like the EU who is un elected Dictating over Nations Governments ! that creates the hostility ? because such is outright stupid in the way they go about it all !
It's the Dictating over the Nations people that gets up the nose of people, is why you may see hostile reactions saying such. that being the real issue behind such. Ones own idiot Socialist stupid idiot fool Government !

You know when my grand dad came to Australia he had no regard for Australians at all, he looked down on such people as backward. but he came because Australia was desperate for him to come ! for he had the skills and ability to do huge jobs with 100 people working for him.
So he worked all over the world for the most wealthy people, Arabs, Jews etc USA and Canada and the West with people that demanded perfection and the ability to do the real big Jobs.
Back in them days one could say what ever they liked about anything regardless, it was free to do so, and if anyone took offence, so what ! It was ones own opinion that counted as freedom ! Most people I know did not like him in fact. because he was correct in what he said.

One always has people in any Nation that have a % of dipsticks regardless, who will say stupid remarks to new people in the Land.

I have lived here for 30 years and the locals still demand that I am not one of them ! Haha! and I was born say 7 miles away. they see me as an outsider ! my wife does say as well.

So I worked with mainly all types of Wogs in my working life and heard all of their storys about bastard Aussies treatment of them. and you know what if a Aussie was to go work in Asia say or anywhere do not worry, for they will get dealt the same sort of nonsense poping up regardless.

My brother has been in Asia a lot and he says they are totaly racist against all other Aisians full on !

But our Socialist Government are demanding the Australians are the most racist Nation on earth etc etc ! but that is total BS in fact !
But the Socialist number one issue before all else is to stamp out racism ! but that is not the issue truly at all but for Dictating that no one is alowed to have an opinion ! That's the real Socialist Government intention. such as They only want what they say to be god !
That's what Socialism is all about ! making all people Slaves to their idiot brain dead gods ! making stupid mindless dipstick people like the Nazis and Communist are !

I like you Chry because you have your own opinons, just like every Wog I talked with at work of some depth !
I am fine with such peoples opinions, I do not take offence, like many stupid Aussies I have seen who can not handle an outsider who has other opinions to them ?
Such idiots will get in a great huff and walk off and never talk to that Wog again !
Then they turn to me and say, why do you talk too them Wogs !
I say you may learn something from such as them Wogs, you do not have to like everything one says ! but it's best to be man enough to get along with them best you can.
Their is no virtue in hiding away like a dingbat ! yes he may be a p--ck but so is any Builder to work for that's whole intent is to do everyone wrong, but my Wog mates do me no wrong ! They are not out to try and rip me off ! Them Wogs are good workers ! you do the right thing by them, they will by you. you may have arguments but that's fine. even with Islamic people I have got on with fine working with them, for they are better than some low life Aussies for sure who would steal the eye out of a needle.

You’re absolutely right on one thing: blaming the migrants themselves for the demographic hole is stupid.
I’ve said it a hundred times in this thread: migrants are the symptom, not the disease.
“We’re just filling the space you refused to fill with your own children.”
So on that we agree 100 %.

Yet in the very next breath you describe exactly the same dynamic that happens in Europe: locals treat newcomers like dirt, call them “wogs,” act as if they’re the problem, while the real decision-makers—government migration policy and the bosses who actively recruit foreigners—get zero heat.

The anger is always aimed downward at the guy with the accent, never upward at the capitalist who signed the contract or the politician who opened the gate.
Same circus, different continent.

Now, on “socialism vs private property.”

Go watch the 15-minute Scott Galloway TED talk “How the US Is Destroying Young People’s Future.”

The chart is brutal: for Gen Z and Millennials, the probability of ever owning a home is lower than it was for their parents at the same age—in the supposedly most capitalist country on Earth.

So spare me the fairy tale that capitalism = sacred private property for everyone.
Yes, the legal right exists on paper.
But if only the top 1–5 % can ever exercise that right, and the other 95–99 % are priced out for life, then “private property” becomes exactly what it was in the late USSR: a theoretical right that 99 % of the population will never enjoy.

A right you cannot use is not a right.
It’s a marketing slogan.

 

[Chrysostomos]

Did you just state that Italy is a capitalist country??


At least it DID privatise the telephone and the utilities.
Oh,,,and it IS trying to privatise the healthcare system but it's still under a socialist system.
There's a ceiling on wages due to unions...
why they have so much power in a country with low employment is a mystery to me.
They're very good at organizing ONE DAY STRIKES which only worsen the economy and, when transportation is the aim, puts Italians at great disadvantage - aside from the fact that many cannot get to work - again, effecting the economy.

Yes, Italy is a textbook capitalist country.

- Private ownership of the means of production? Check.
Eni, Enel, Fiat/Stellantis, Luxottica, Ferrero, Armani, Prada, Generali, Intesa Sanpaolo — all privately owned, not state-owned.
- Stock market in Milan (Borsa Italiana) capitalized at >40 % of GDP? Check.
- Real-estate market completely privatized and financialized? Check.
- Labor market governed by private contracts, temporary agencies, and “co.co.co” gigs? Check.
- Inheritance of capital and extreme wealth concentration (top 1 % own ~25 % of total wealth, top 10 % own ~60 %)? Check.

The fact that telecoms and electricity were partially privatized in the 1990s, that healthcare is still largely public (as in almost every developed capitalist country except the US), or that unions can call one-day strikes doesn’t make Italy “socialist.”

Italy’s fertility rate of 1.24 isn’t collapsing because of “lingering socialism.”
It’s collapsing because housing costs 12–15 gross annual salaries in Milan or Rome, because young people are on precarious contracts until 35+, and because children are treated as a private luxury good instead of a social priority.

That’s peak capitalism, not socialism.
If you want actual socialism, look at the old USSR (2.4–2.5 in the 1980s) — had far more pro-natal policies than Italy has ever dreamed of under any government since 1945.

So yes, Italy is capitalist.
Very much so.
And that’s precisely why its cradle is empty.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, Italy is a textbook capitalist country.

- Private ownership of the means of production? Check.
Eni, Enel, Fiat/Stellantis, Luxottica, Ferrero, Armani, Prada, Generali, Intesa Sanpaolo — all privately owned, not state-owned.
- Stock market in Milan (Borsa Italiana) capitalized at >40 % of GDP? Check.
- Real-estate market completely privatized and financialized? Check.
- Labor market governed by private contracts, temporary agencies, and “co.co.co” gigs? Check.
- Inheritance of capital and extreme wealth concentration (top 1 % own ~25 % of total wealth, top 10 % own ~60 %)? Check.

The fact that telecoms and electricity were partially privatized in the 1990s, that healthcare is still largely public (as in almost every developed capitalist country except the US), or that unions can call one-day strikes doesn’t make Italy “socialist.”

Italy’s fertility rate of 1.24 isn’t collapsing because of “lingering socialism.”
It’s collapsing because housing costs 12–15 gross annual salaries in Milan or Rome, because young people are on precarious contracts until 35+, and because children are treated as a private luxury good instead of a social priority.

That’s peak capitalism, not socialism.
If you want actual socialism, look at the old USSR (2.4–2.5 in the 1980s) — had far more pro-natal policies than Italy has ever dreamed of under any government since 1945.

So yes, Italy is capitalist.
Very much so.
And that’s precisely why its cradle is empty.

I have two other of your replies to address.
Will have to wait till later.

Sometimes textbook doesn't help the populace.
The government has their hand in EVERYTHING people do...
it's very difficult to open a business or keep it open due to this fact.

Capitalism focuses on the individual.
Socialism focuses on the community.
The individual is sacrificed for the good of the community...
but, alas, the community is made up of individuals.


Socialism is not only an economic system...
it is also a social system.

If you like socialism...that's fine with me.

I don't believe it has functined well ANYWHERE it has been tried...
of course, the lovers of socialism will say that it has never been PROPERLY tried...
interesting....
capitalism seems to be working just fine.

I will not be continuing this discussion ad nauseum since I don't even to that with Theology/Apologetics which is my real reason to be here.

However, I will be replying to your other two posts to me later on in the day.

 

[Chrysostomos]

I have two other of your replies to address.
Will have to wait till later.

Sometimes textbook doesn't help the populace.
The government has their hand in EVERYTHING people do...
it's very difficult to open a business or keep it open due to this fact.

Capitalism focuses on the individual.
Socialism focuses on the community.
The individual is sacrificed for the good of the community...
but, alas, the community is made up of individuals.


Socialism is not only an economic system...
it is also a social system.

If you like socialism...that's fine with me.

I don't believe it has functined well ANYWHERE it has been tried...
of course, the lovers of socialism will say that it has never been PROPERLY tried...
interesting....
capitalism seems to be working just fine.

I will not be continuing this discussion ad nauseum since I don't even to that with Theology/Apologetics which is my real reason to be here.

However, I will be replying to your other two posts to me later on in the day.

“Capitalism focuses on the individual” is the most successful marketing lie of the 21st century.

Capitalism focuses on individual consumption, but only after it has destroyed the actual conditions for an individual life: family, housing, a future.

Today “individuality” means sitting alone in a rented studio scrolling TikTok because you can’t afford kids.
That’s the full extent of your precious “individual.”

Capitalism focuses on the individual the same way a shark focuses on a surfer: with great interest and an open mouth.
Everything else is marketing.

Capitalism is when eight men own as much as the bottom half of humanity.
It’s when the average 30-year-old Italian still lives with his parents because rent eats 60 % of his salary and buying a home is science fiction.
Pew Research Center (2020–2023): 52 % of Americans aged 18–29 live with their parents, the highest level since the Great Depression.

Your “individual success” is the choice between a 40-year mortgage and zero children.
That’s your “individual.”

Your “individual” is Jeff Bezos making in one day more than all his warehouse slaves will earn in a lifetime.
Your “individual” is BlackRock owning your house, your rent, and your pension at the same time.

Socialism is when society finally says: enough.
Housing is not a commodity, children are not a luxury, labor is not slavery.

And yes, socialism “has never been properly tried.”
Exactly the same way capitalism “was never properly tried” in 1929, 2008, or 2024 when you ran to bail out the banks with taxpayer money.

The difference: when capitalism collapses, you socialise the losses.
When socialism tries to rise, you strangle it with sanctions, coups, and bombs.

So spare me the “textbook” sermon.
The real textbook of 2025 is South Korea: 0.72 children per woman overall, 0.59 in Seoul.
That’s your capitalism in its purest form.
Beautiful, isn’t it?

 

[Chrysostomos]

I will not be continuing this discussion ad nauseum since I don't even to that with Theology/Apologetics which is my real reason to be here.

By the way, this exact sentence of yours — “I won’t continue this ad nauseam, I don’t even do that with theology/apologetics” — is precisely why Christianity is collapsing, especially among Gen Z.

Your theology and apologetics have become completely detached from real life, real problems, and real challenges of the 21st century.

The Bible is the most radically socialist book ever written:
- Jubilee debt cancellation every 50 years,
- land returned to original families,
- prohibition of usury,
- “if you have two coats, give one to the man who has none,”
- “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom,”
- the first church in Acts holding everything in common so that “there was not a needy person among them.”

Yet when I read Christian forums or listen to most pastors today, I’m stunned at how you managed to turn the Bible into meaningless chatter about nothing. You use biblical words and biblical tone, but the content is pure white noise — zero substance, zero connection to the actual cries of this generation: unaffordable housing, debt slavery, loneliness, childlessness, burnout.

That is exactly why the overwhelming majority of Gen Z is not here.

 

[GodsGrace]

Before you accuse me of having my head in the sand, please do me the courtesy of actually reading what I wrote.

Go back to posts #59 and #60 (and frankly the entire thread).
From the very first page I have been saying the exact same thing you are now shouting:

Yes, migrants are replacing the native European population.
Yes, the streets of Rome, Paris, London, and Berlin no longer look, sound, or feel European in many districts.
Yes, the cultural fabric is being overwritten, sometimes deliberately, sometimes violently.

I have never denied a single one of those facts.
What I have said—repeatedly—is that migrants are not the cause; they are the consequence.
They are the symptom, not the disease.

Migrants are the CAUSE for the upheavel in life in, at least, the countries I'm familiar with.

Are you saying that migrants come from CAPITALIST countries from which they are trying desperately to escape
and so end up in Europe?

You would be making a conflicting statement.
Please clarify.

The disease is the catastrophic fertility collapse of native Europeans (1.3–1.6 children per woman for decades), a collapse produced by the very capitalist system you insist on defending.
When a population stops reproducing, nature and economics abhor a vacuum. Someone will fill the empty apartments, the empty classrooms, the empty pensions.
That “someone” turns out to be whoever is still having children—and right now that is overwhelmingly people from outside Europe.

You can rage at the symptom all you like, but until you address the root pathology—why native Europeans stopped having families in the first place—nothing changes.
The replacement continues, legally or illegally, because the demographic hole keeps growing.

So no, I am not “happy where I am” and pretending the problem doesn’t exist.

I simply refuse to misdiagnose the illness.

But what IS the disease?
Fertility is not collapsing due to a capitlist agenda...
Fertility is collapsing due to a cultural agenda which has changed drastically in the past two decades/or generations.

Get angry at migrants if it makes you feel better, but they did not create the 1.3 fertility rate.
Capitalism did.
And until that is acknowledged, every other conversation is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Again,,,fertility rates are down in all areas of the globe...or at least most areas of the globe.

It is not due to capitalism,,,
it's due to the fact that the young have no desire to marry and establish a family.
This is a cultural/societal change and has nothing to do with economics.

People always got married...even the poor.
Today we have a higher standard of living than at any time, as is true for 20 to 30 years ago...
and yes, in this time period LESS persons wish to get married and those that do have very little desire to have less than one child.

I attribute this to societal/cultural changes
NOT economic changes.