Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (195584)	1/27/2023 10:20:44 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217560

TJ stop to be so antagonistic - fact is the birth rate per women is down substantially and for reason explained in the video and also due to a inexplicable worldwide lower sperm count in men. theguardian.com france24.com

To: TobagoJack who wrote (195584)	1/27/2023 10:41:45 AM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 217560

When your the top cat, it has challenges :-)

To: TobagoJack who wrote (195584)	1/27/2023 2:36:38 PM
From: Pogeu Mahone	Respond to of 217560

NO MORE Cash Withdrawals For BINANCE! No surprise!!!!

To: TobagoJack who wrote (195584)	1/8/2024 8:38:45 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Recommended By carranza2 Respond to of 217560

It's strange that people seem to have only recently figured out that Made in China people were going to rapidly decrease due to one child policy and also trends in the way people behave given modern technology such as conception prevention and attitudes to having children. It was also obvious decades ago that given the preference for boys instead of girls, the vast surplus of men would result. I recall you disputing that a couple of decades ago when I expressed it. But I'm with you that having half or quarter the population of China is not going to be any particular problem. My argument for decades is that quality control matters and that eugenics is a good thing. Of course not eugenics by Big Brother who is a moron as usual, but by women who traditionally choose among the men on offer to get the good genetics in their off-spring. 100 supersonic smart people beat 1,000,000 below average IQ. In the old days, large numbers were needed for the largely randomized winnowing of DNA to get the right stuff. Now, with genetic engineering and complete genome information, the right stuff can be copy/pasted for each woman for each child as she wishes. People are not fungible. Simplistically importing a megaton of Moslems to Germany to maintain numbers won't keep the teutonic standards high. On the contrary, Germany will come to look like the places from whence they came = not much good at all, which is why they left. Same for Londonistan which is pretty much the Islamic capital of the world now. USA importing megatons of marauders from south of the border will not turn USA into a shining city on a hill. Japan has had a declining population for a while and that's going to accelerate. Japan is wonderful. I've had many jobs that I'd much prefer robots do. They now do many of those jobs. If the Auckland population would decrease by a million it would suit me just fine. For fifty years politicians and others have intentionally imported people, purportedly to improve the economy. If having lots of people was good, then Pakistan, India, Nigeria and Cambodia would be wonderful. Singapore, Iceland, Switzerland, Luxembourg would be bad. China with 300 million people should be able to do anything they like. I don't see a problem either with people getting old - I personally far prefer it to the alternative, and long may it continue, or reducing total people by 80%. As in my family and wife's, some women are breeders, some not, and that has applied going back to beginning of family records in the early 19th century. It's not that all women will have 2.03 children, some will have 5 or 10 [who are good at breeding and like to do so], and others none. Mqurice

To: TobagoJack who wrote (195584)	1/10/2024 2:44:00 PM
From: carranza2	1 Recommendation Recommended By Maurice Winn Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217560

My take is that China population settling at 700M (50% decrease), but essentially of one-unified-people, might be a plus for where the world appears to be heading, But 700 million aging and aged old fars with no social safety net and no longer productive not so good. It is in this light that I don't get the penchant for all the social credit scores, intense surveillance, oppression, etc., The aging Chinese population will not have the energy to be any trouble, not that it matters to your masters. And how about the rural/non-coastal old frts. Ignored as usual? Talk about a serious internal political problem in the making. One-unified? Really? All Chinese hilariously happy old fa*ts marching in unison? Don't forget that CCP has a long and rich history of major policy screw ups. One child, COVID lockdown, brutal suppression at Tiananmen Square, Red Guards, Cultural Revolution, Gang of Four, Australian sanctions, wolf warrior diplomacy, you name it. Past is prologue. And the common thread in all these major policy screw ups is Big Brother, who is brutal and autocratic. You should not be surprised if the screw turns against you, as it has in the past. All that's necessary is for latest version of Comrade-in-Charge to get a crazy ideologically-derived hair up his arse, as has happened so many times in the past. No one is immune, no matter how rich. Just ask Jack Ma and countless others. Authoritarian regimes have common attributes. First, they never admit mistakes. Second, as you readily admit, prosperity makes tyranny more bearable. However, the real basis for the CCP's power (which flows out of a barrel of a gun) is fear, not prosperity. And fear is simply not a sound basis for a nation to thrive. When fear disappears and prosperity falters, the regime either fails or becomes even more autocratic, with predictable results. A taste of that was the popular uprising against zero COVID lockdowns. And that is the reason why democracy, though chaotic and often imperfect, is a far superior model to the one China has adopted. China's recent history is repeating itself. As you well know, the CCP recognized Mao's immense mistakes. Post-Mao, it attempted to prevent power from being concentrated in a top Core Comrade. And things worked out fairly well under this model, in which power was shared. Xi turned this model upside down, and is going down the well-trodden failed Maoist path. Wash, rinse, repeat.