Sunday, 26 February 2012

Eurozone doomed to colonisation?

There is one single overwhelming and compelling reason why the UK should stand apart from the Eurozone, and it's apparent in the following graphic:-
In fact, the plummeting percentage of population of working age in the Eurozone is worse than shows above. Germany, with Japan, faces a reduction of more than 20% in the working age population by 2030; Switzerland, the Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Poland, South Korea and Russia are set to fall by more than 10%. The old Anglophone core of the UK, Ireland, Australia and NZ are expected to see modest growth of about 2% in the working population, the US 10%.

Buttonwood notes in the Economist "These figures are quite remarkable - not since the Black Death can there have been such a fall in workers - and the implications must surely be very profound." Japan, with an ultra-racist attitude to miscegenation, is doomed to oblivion, it's people extinct. Germany must start marrying and breeding with its Turkish Gastarbeiter with Teutonic alacrity if she's to pull out of the dive, and the rest of the Eurozone and Russia should prepare to admit hundreds of millions of first-generation Africans to stay afloat.

It may be by 2030 that the UK, by then comfortable with a young population having an attractive cafe au lait complexion, integrated and absorbed, again stands aloft from a troubled and divided Europe, secure in our Britishness, albeit slightly chilli-flavoured.   

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Do we need growth in the population?

In 1901 there were (I think) 31 million people in these islands.

What is so desirable about 60 million?

If immigration was drastically reduced, our population could go into controlled decline and eventually find a new equalibrium.

Not much wrong with that?

Oldrightie said...

Anon is spot on. The God of everlasting growth in economic activity and demand becomes unsustainable. That is what we are experiencing.

Anonymous said...

Unless we pull out of the EU and immediatelyset our own very strict border controls and entry tariffs, unless we stand firm and halt kowtowing to the religion of equality and diversity and multiculti. In the not too distant future: we will be praying in Arabic and bowing East five times a day, thats what rapid and mass demographic change will do for us.

Raedwald said...

Ah, a reduced population is fine ....as long as all those currently over 60 are good enough to die by 70.

A reduced working age population must mean a much reduced senior population. For as long as life expectancy is growing, the need for more persons of working age will continue.

Chris Morriss said...

But life expectancy cannot continue to increase indefinately. The UK, and much of the developed world already has more than enough people of working age, if they were only gainfully employed. The unofficial but widely accepted figure for the UK population is 65 million, though the large supermarket chains currently use figures of over 75 million for their logistics operations (figure from Tesco, 2010), though I don't know how much of this is to allow for food wastage.
The simple fact is that a lower population would increase the quality of life for everyone alive in the country. I do wonder why totalitarian measures such as state-sponsored enticements to keep producing more and more children are so regularly praised by those who call themselves libertarians.

Anonymous said...

You make the economy fit the people, not the people fit the economy - any idiot can do that.

In the post-industrial age we no longer need a large population in the UK. Assuming we do go back to being a half and half manufacturing economy, the role of technology means rapid prototyping, coupled with advanced manufacturing techniques and robotics will exclude more and more humans from the manufacturing process.

As for this:

'It may be by 2030 that the UK, by then comfortable with a young population having an attractive cafe au lait complexion, integrated and absorbed, again stands aloft from a troubled and divided Europe, secure in our Britishness, albeit slightly chilli-flavoured.'

Rædwald was king of the East Angles, in other words he was Englisc. You're a disgrace to your own kin if you think we should interbreed for economic reasons.

Steve

Anonymous said...

"Ah, a reduced population is fine ....as long as all those currently over 60 are good enough to die by 70."

They should be working until they are 70 or 75, to pay for the pensions of those who are too old to work.

You can increase the working population (as a percentage of the total) by increasing the reirement age, and by encouraging young people to start work rather than hang around in colleges for years on end.

The government should also work to make it as easy as possible to be self-employed.

anon 2 said...

We didn't dig his boat up for this! I think the clue lies in ironic reference to an "attractive cafe au lait complexion."
I don't imagine Raedwald really believes this- especially when we may no longer say whether we prefer black or white.

Who put the numbers out? They are so pro-foreign and anti-British- - Why should any of us believe them?

anon 2 said...

PS: And .. by means of their marxist mouthpiece: Why did they put these numbers out?

Say what are the estimates of British population circa the medieval Black Death? 5 mil or so?

And during Radewald's own first incarnation... 2-3 mil, give or take...?

But the devils behind the present invasion have always been busy trying to relieve us of our land, ever since our first few hundred set foot here. That was just after God, by his grace, set it free from the mass - and the other Pontic emigrants.

DeeDee99 said...

A continually growing population is not sustainable. We need to shrink back to about 50 million and stabilise at that.

As for a significant number of the population having a cafe au lait complexion - I doubt if we will be able to tell. As a result of the mad idea to import millions of 3rd world Muslims, a sizeable number, possibly the majority of females, will be required to cover themselves from head to toe in a black bin liner.

Pat said...

The average age at death has increased enormously in prosperous countries. Very much of the population increase has been due to this. That of course means a drop in the birth rate, since old people don't make babies. But it does give us the opportunity to extend the working age, since most (no, not all) 60 year olds are today capable of work, whereas a century ago most sixty year olds were dead.
If our population growth is due to immigration- that means we are both doing something right (or they wouldn't want to come here) and doing something else wrong (or native Britons would be getting the jobs)
My shorthand answer? A voucher scheme for education, so that children get the education their parents (and later themselves) think is good for them, rather than that which the teachers and bureaucrats dictate. That's it- let people decide for themselves what's good for them, they'll not always get it right, but they'll do better than officialdom.

Fausty said...

If only the government would leave us all alone to get on with prospering, unhindered by rules, regulations, guidelines, nudges, tax disincentives, etc.

Everything government does creates moral hazard and our society is now so full of hazardous, counter-productive, illogical government-spawned 'initiatives' that it's virtually toxic.

Left to themselves, people become self-policing, as realities bite, Nanny having been sacked. This is the breeding ground for moral, virtuous behaviour.

Statutes are the problem. Too many damned laws for special interest groups - including the civil service and politicians themselves.

http://bit.ly/woOyTW

Anonymous said...

What if you make abortion illegal. Very illegal.
And tone down feminism a lot as well.

Woodsy42 said...

I always assumed this was why such deliberate uncontrolled immigration has been policy by all political parties for the past decade(s). We need all those immigrants to have lots of kids who can work and pay our pensions.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Solving the problem through immigration only works if you assume all the immigrants are as productive and law-abiding as the indigenous population.

Current experience suggests this assumption is over-optimistic, to put it mildly.

In any case, what are we to do when those immigrants are themselves hanging around for thirty years in nursing homes, needing fed, watered, and cared for in every possible way? Up the population again, to 250 million, with another huge wave of immigrants?

We need a different answer methinks.

Anonymous said...

If masses of africans was a good thing then Africa would be a good safe prosperous place.
Importing peope so they can breed coffee colours is eugenics rather than sane economics.
And most 70 year olds could easily do the work that 16+ year olds do now.

William Gruff said...

Some excellent suggestions in the comments, particularly regarding technology and raising the retirement age (I'm 56 and I expect, health permitting, to be working until I'm about 75.) Perpetual population growth is simply not feasible and at some stage every nation on the planet will have to embrace some sort of policy aimed at restriction and reduction, and not simply in connection with breeding. At some stage all of us will have to accept that when we can no longer provide for ourselves we are effectively living on borrowed time. We can no longer look forward to a long and comfortable old age living at the expense of others, clogging hospital beds as we wait impatiently for prohibitively expensive life prolonging or life enhancing operations and consume more resources than ever we produced in our working lives.

The increasing proportion of old people in the populations of the western nations isn't just a product of technology; it's also the result of an insupportably generous welfare system that has given most people an entitlement to life at the expense of others. Those systems are now collapsing and when they've gone I'm confident that average life expectancy will decrease.

As for café au lait complexions: Given the numbers of dark skinned people here, and those likely to arrive in the near future, and the unlikelihood of their being removed, that is something we should all have become used to at least twenty years ago, and I not, by any means, an advocate of mass immigration or multiculturalism. What worries is not the tone of their skin but the possibility that, being embittered by the peculiarly warped history fed to them by the race lobby and having no clear cultural identity or allegiance, they will have no interest in rebuilding England out of the ruin that awaits us.

Greg Tingey said...

The WHOLE PLANET is already overpopulated.

If we are VERY LUCKY, it will come down to between 2 and 5 billion over the whole planet, in the next 150 years, and without a major crash / war / plague.

Continued sustainability, REAL sustainability is all ....

Greg Tingey said...

Further comment(s)
Readwald @ 14.51, 28/02
FALSE ASSUMPTION
NOT EVEN WRONG.
WHy should old people (I'm 66) be forced out?
You assume that a priori, with no evidence whatsoever - it's going to be a long process - at least two more generations....

Anonymous @ 00.21
That is the exact opposite of what you want to do - unless you are either an RC or muslim misogynist bastard?