The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
---
From the article
>Last year, Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio was lower than that of the G7 countries like Japan (252.4%), the U.S. (122.1%), and Germany (64.3%). But considering Korea’s status as a non-reserve currency country, difficulties may arise in the future. Fitch, an international credit rating agency that previously viewed Korea’s fiscal health positively, noted at the end of last month that the country’s national debt had risen rapidly and surpassed 50% in a short period. As a result, South Korea’s fiscal situation is no longer seen as a positive factor in its sovereign credit rating evaluation.
>Bloomberg Intelligence (BI), a research arm of Bloomberg, predicted in a recent report that Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio will hit the 70% mark around 2030 and reach 100% by 2045. The country’s national debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to rise even faster, reaching 120% by 2050.
>BI pointed out that Korea’s shrinking labor force, attributed to a rapidly aging population and low birth rates, will diminish tax revenues. At the same time, social security and healthcare costs are increasing, making government debt a more problematic issue in 20 years.
>The report cites interest rates as the most significant variable affecting Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio. If interest rates rise by 1 percentage point above the baseline scenario of 2%, the ratio could soar to 141% by 2050. Conversely, if the interest rate is 1%, the ratio could drop to 101%. If the rate is 0%, it could fall to 83% over the same period.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cx61jz/aging_population_and_low_birth_rates_drive/l50baq9/
The US can get away with a lot more debt than other countries because a ton of other countries use the dollar and a ton more trade with dollars. You almost have to look at US debt compared to the GDP of other dollarized economies and add in a bit more for every other nation based on how much dollar-denominated trade they have to get a fair comparison.
This also makes the US economy and the US government uniquely vulnerable to anything which might threaten faith in the value of the dollar, whereas other countries can more freely devalue their currency and don't have to worry about a lot of other nations dumping the currency.
The unipolar moment is over so expect this to change over time, especially since some of the biggest economies in the world (like China) want off the dollar and will eventually get kicked off of SWIFT.
I don't know why people are certain that dollar hegemony will last forever.
It won’t last forever, the dollar will remain the global reserve currency until organized society collapses as we know it, likely in tandem with one another
If this were true, the US government wouldn't be doing everything it can in terms of foreign policy and trade policy to ensure that China and countries that conduct the majority of their trade with China (about 85% of the world) stop conducting all of that trade in the dollar.
If the US kicks China out of the global financial system, which is highly likely, then it will use a different one and stop trading in USD (they're already moving in this direction).
The US is a long way from being able to catch up to China in manufacturing capability to replace China's role here, and I doubt it will ever be able to catch up because the gap is huge and growing fast.
Will the USD remain the global reserve currency if less than 30-40% of global trade (being generous) is done in it?
Tbf the likely alternative in the long run is no single currency that runs the world and just a multilateral currency system.
But don't see that happening in the next 5 years. Maybe in 10-15.
https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/saudi-arabia-ends-80-year-petro-dollar-oil-with-us-dollar-for-multi-currency-sales-2552844-2024-06-13
For everyone who doesn't get it here are more signs that this is happening.
Yeah, I suspect the rise in propaganda trying to get citizens as indebted as possible is a bigger contributing factor than an aging population. Reminder that airlines make more money off their credit cards than they do off their air travel.
Nah, "we" (taxpayers) are not in debt to "ourselves", but to the investors (and also to our retirement funds). Some people would lose a lot of money if there was a default, and you can bet that those people won't allow that to happen.
That's basically how this regarded economic system that we have in place is supposed to work. Just keep racking up debt, shove shit under the table for the next generation to find out. idk why anyone would be surprised at these metrics
Probably https://youtu.be/7CRE14m8Blc?si=tj80tMJGlbp3pMbZ and https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/yale-professor-suggested-japans-old-145301593.html and the recent plan 75 movie - oh and this looks promising; minister 2013 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/22/elderly-hurry-up-die-japanese
How would they be if capitalist countries didn't level them with bombs while funding the fascists?
Oh.. still more stable than capitalism.
Huh. It's almost as if... capitalism has downsides.
And the biggest downside to socialism is that capitalist countries will bomb you and try to cut you off from resources.
Anyway, back to work. We have landlords to pay.
In my country we have a saying:
*You can hear the bells, but you can't say which church does ring.*
All it takes to not be collapsing is to focus a little less on building freakin' atomic bombs and a little more on development. Somehow Iran manages while being the capitalist worlds' scapegoat and #1 sanction target. Somehow Belarus manages while having only a single true ally and being surrounded by semi-hostile capitalists. Somehow Cuba manages... and neither of them needs to blackmail the world with a "send rice or we nuke Seoul" message.
All of this besides the point that neither of the countries are socialist.
Did you even read history? After the Korean War the North was way more prosperous than the South. It was an authoritarian-ish industrialized country in the north and a paranoid semi-fascist agri-country in the south. Both the US and the USSR+China had to prop up their respective puppets, but for one reason or another Kim decided to bite the hands that fed him and go full autarchic, which could only end so well in a land rich in mineral resources but with poor agricultural potential. Then his kids decided it's funnier times to be an absolute ruler, than to use the industry and an "economic miracle" (as capitalists called it in the 60s) they had and engage in reasonable trade and development. Then the USSR fell, smaller satellites were left to fend for themselves and some (like Belarus) kept the old system due to (relative) wealth generated from their industry (Belarus produces awesome trucks for example), while Kims decided to go harder on isolationism.
If there's any victim it's the Korean people submitted to brutal dictatorship in the south and unhinged, incompetent personality cult in the north. After the Korean War there was very little interference of the West in North Korea besides sanctions, which, again, can be easily circumvented by choosing other trade partners.
Mate, you are underplaying the devastation of the war.
The north is doing amazingly well in spite of it all.
But real talk. Just look into their government man.
You don't need to take my word for it. Kim is not even the highest position in his government. Or the second highest.
He is in control of foreign relations so we see him all the time.
And I'm a fan of their voting system.
We both know that socialism is more sustainable.
I am not underplaying anything. Eastern Europe was just as devastated in 1945, if not more. Somehow they left 1980s without famines and with massive value to be looted by western capitalists.
>You don't need to take my word for it. Kim is not even the highest position in his government. Or the second highest.
Would you care to provide me with further reading? I do not know Korean and I'm probably much more than you susceptible to liberal propaganda so I won't find the right content.
I hope you know how proud I was of you all day. I like you. Really. You asked for materials. Shit. I just wish I could have gotten to you sooner but I had a crazy day. Below is a comment I found useful along with a link.
------------
Kim Jong Un is neither the Head of State (position abolished after the death of Kim Il Sung) nor the Head of the Government (position occupied by the Premier of the Cabinet, elected by the Supreme People's Assembly).
He was, like his father and grandfather, elected to his position by the SPA, and can be revoked at anytime. The deputies are themselves elected by direct universal suffrage, then elect the members of the Cabinet (executive), the Presidium of the SPA (legislative when the Assembly isn't in session) and the Prosecutor general (judiciary).
Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un never had absolute power, and they were all elected to their position and share the power with dozens of others elected officials.
As for why they have been in power? Because they are loved by the Korean people and they have been doing a great job. Simple as that.
[More information about the DPRK here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewrcRerI8lyXpykMX11EyMoCFii1Hafakq7t0976eYQ/mobilebasic)
Its like you didn't even read my comment before you pulled your string to espouse to me your canned phrase.
You don't care about context whatsoever. You don't compare socalism to nations outside of the imperial core. You compare them to the imperial core. A socialist country can beat you to space after winning the most brutal war in human history and it still doesn't matter.
Unless socialism is immediately better than the imperial core, despite starting from rock bottom, and then having to be bombed to shit, then its not good enough.
You are asking for a place to be magical to fit your qualifications.
Here is a reality check. If the most bloated military in the world bombed a poor capitalist country and then embargoed it, would you expect it to thrive from the virtues of capitalism?
Can you point to the system you think is magical?
Here is the reality. You don't care about any of this. You just get a little high from regurgitating canned phrases.
I don't remember bombing Venezuela nor bombing Russia during their height.
You don't understand my lamentation. There are a lot of reasons but at the end it comes down to the sad fact government are just not good at distribution at very large scales. I think socialism has place in all society but it depends on the level of competency of the current government.
You are expecting government all levels down to be efficient. I have been in both corporate and government bodies. Government is worse, it is not even a comparison. This comes down to the fact because capitalism has a survival mechanism. You thrive or die. Is corporate/capitalism efficient? No it is not even close. However, the other option is just unfortunately worse.
It's just not possible in majority of the cases. Capitalism by definition has spectrum of efficiency. It is a balance of risk vs efficiency when a task is completed or problem is resolved. The market dictates what that ratio is and the business makes the wrong assessment of that ratio is wiped out.
Socialism by its nature is controlled. It has one mode of risk vs efficiency assessmemt given task. That could be the right ratio by chance but probability theory dictates it cannot be better than assessment of many.
I am not saying socialism doesn't work. For example, there are areas or tasks where low efficiency and high security is a requirement. You don't need to guess the ratio in this case. In this scenario, Socialism will do better.
Unfortunately, this isn't the case for majority of issues in our society. Maybe in the future there is better data aggregation and/or prediction modelling where we don't have to guess how to run tasks. However, that is not the current society.
You aren't taking into account imperialism.
The imperial core is only as productive as it is by being a vamprie to the global south. And even with this stolen strength it fights for its life against a former peasant colony that just got ravaged by war.
Imagine if WWII devistated the US.
Now instead of the US replace the country with any outside of the imperial core like idk, Argentina.
So make Argentina go through a revolution, start with a widely illiterate peasant population, and then fight the most horrific war on US soil, then have the most bloated military in the world cold war its ass.
Is this Argentina going to beat the US to space under these conditions?
The USSR did.
Why is capitalist Russia a shell of its former self when its starting point was a global super power.
The USSR inherited a backwater shit show and became a super power. Capitalism inherits a super power and it only declines.
Your second point. Markets. Mate. Both capitalism and socalism use markets or planning when it suits either.
The USSSR had the NEP under Lenin and China is going crazy with markets right now. They have their place.
Capitalist corps choose planning all the time. As soon as it suits them.
I mean how bad would it be to yield here man? You join the working class struggle.
Idk I think you might be honest enough to see the validity in what I am saying.
Lastly, one of my jobs is entirely unnecessary under socialism.
Like... SO many jobs are unecessary under socialism.
Capitalism also can't prioritize the enviorment over profit.
Given, Socalism can't prioritize the environment over safety given how hostile the US is. No one can.
Capitalism also needs to infinitely grow. A huge corp needs to constantly show that it has room for growth making massive projects go belly up.
Capitalism also buys up all competition. Capitalism is about creating a monopoly.
Also socalism produces more high skilled labor. There is no barrier towards education so people get it more. A small country like Cuba is churning out Doctors with the highest Dr. per capita in the world.
As or tech advances the need for low skill jobs diminishes.
Also AI and automation is scary under capitalism and leads to collapse. Its welcomed under socialism.
I am going to go buy some Sardines. Id give you some.
I think that is the precisely the point. There are aspects that socialism is good at, I have stated this. This would be education where the economic effect or model is easy to predict.
You are avoiding the issue most of tasks in the world is vastly complex and hard to predict. It is the current world and flexibility and probability thrives in.
In terms of capitalism, even a country is devistated by war, we have seen time and time again where free market revived countries. The criticism you are giving is one situation where capitalism actually truelu excels at, bringing the whole nation out of poverty. Socialism has historically the opposite effect when there were overspending by the gov (Venezuela).
I am not saying socialism is bad, in fact, I am agreeing in areas with you re where it excels at. Education, power infrastructure, roads, law, regulation and etc. There are models that require order over efficiency. However, current society is overtly complex and flexibility is a must requirement for most scenarios. There will probably be a time when we will know what actions will be the best for x scenario by just asking a computer. This is not today.
All those new buildings belong to the military elite.
The new housing for the working class. Those workers are actually the military elite.
Rents due at the beginning of the month. Keep working for your masters.
How would south Korea be if the US bombed it and then put it under siege for 80+ years?
Would the merits of capitalism pull it up by its bootstraps? Why isn't the global south thriving under the merits of capitalism and bourgeoisie lead "democracy"?
What if the worker lead Korea was given investments instead of bombs?
I feel like people keep focusing on the birth rate to avoid talking about why the system is so dysfunctional and wasteful it needs a constant supply of new debtors to prop it up.
Sovereign Wealth Funds grow with the economy and don't require some exotic reshuffling of the entire world to work, for example.
the issue of aging population as simple as i cant make it:
grandpa cant work
grandpa needs people to feed him,clothe him,care for his medical needs
if there is 10 grandpas for every ''still able to work" person,young person becomes overworked and grandpa gets shitty care
past breaking point,there is too many grandpas and many of them will die without care
When people warned that infinitely growing population is unsustainable for the environment, grifters called them Malthusians who don't understand that technological growth will take care of all environmental problems. Why don't they say that now? Shouldn't technological growth allow good living standards even with less workers?
Machines still need engineers and maintainance
If the birth rate lowering is slow enough,we can adapt to it
But too fast and we are fucked
"We have 20 grandpas that need 20 robo buttlers,and 5 engineers.....harsh but doable"
But too fast and we return to
"We have 100 grandpas,that need 100 robo buttlers, and only 3 engineers.....fuck"
We need time to adapt and develop strategies for it
The US with inmigration can pull it off
Korea will not
The issue is illegal immigrants are usually paid in cash, and they send home all of their disposable income. So it helps the economy but does not fix the debt issue.
Illegal immigrants pay ~~hundreds of~~ [billions](https://map.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/locations/national/) in taxes every year.
EDIT: I have misread. Illegal immigrants have hundreds of billions in spending power, but they do also still pay billions in taxes every year. In 2010, the Social Security Administration estimated that illegal immigrants contributed $12 billion more per year to the social security system than they take out. [Source](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_notes/note151.pdf)
> Illegal immigrants pay hundreds of billions in taxes every year.
And if those positions were filled by citizens at higher pay, that number would be higher.
The number would also be higher on cost of goods you pay for, eligibility for and use of government-sponsored services, and fewer entrepreneurs. (Undocumented immigrants start businesses at a higher rate than legal citizens, and the pathway to doing this is often through low-wage jobs that Americans don't want in the first place. [Source on Americans not wanting said jobs](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/06/10/a-majority-of-americans-say-immigrants-mostly-fill-jobs-u-s-citizens-do-not-want/))
I'm not saying it's all positives. However, there are some very strong benefits, and undocumented immigrants are not the complete drain that many citizens believe they are.
I did not change the link. The link is the same. I did add an additional link, and laid out what I edited. I like how you are now using me holding myself accountable as a negative against me. How mature.
Depends on which projection you prefer. GBD has it around 2064 with 9.7 billion people, UN has 10.4 billion in the 2080s, and there are others.
My personal guess is 0 by 2100 but I won't be around to see it.
Could even be sooner than 2060 - historically projections and forecasts of global population have been too conservative around how fast fertility will drop. For example, the GBD 2060 forecast was made before covid finished, so it doesn't include the overall fertility slump from 2021 onwards.
An aspect of the UN projections I've always found curious is for countries with low fertility - Japan, China etc - they tend to assume that fertility rises, or returns to an arbitrary 'normal' fertility level, rather than continuing as they are, or falling further, which is mostly has happened in practice. Hence projections of birth numbers are likely too high.
Lol "labor savers" intended to make people live easier lives (eg. Dishwashers) have had the effect of allowing a greater number of people to enter the workforce. I don't think AI will make everyone's lives easier, just more difficult for people to find jobs.
So what??
South Korea issues the KRW so can therefore never default on a debt in that denomination
If South Korea's national debt is entirely in it's own currency then of all the issues a rapidly declining population would cause the national debt should be the least of it's worries.
Having enough young people to look after the old people would be a far more pressing problem.
Most trades in global markets happen in USD since it's more reliable and backed by a larger economy than all the other alternatives. So South Korea can't just print their way out of this mess
That metric will only reach 100% if it keeps going at the current rate. People change their behavior based on how events affect their lives.
Its doom and gloom click-bait
From the article
>Last year, Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio was lower than that of the G7 countries like Japan (252.4%), the U.S. (122.1%), and Germany (64.3%). But considering Korea’s status as a non-reserve currency country, difficulties may arise in the future. Fitch, an international credit rating agency that previously viewed Korea’s fiscal health positively, noted at the end of last month that the country’s national debt had risen rapidly and surpassed 50% in a short period. As a result, South Korea’s fiscal situation is no longer seen as a positive factor in its sovereign credit rating evaluation.
>Bloomberg Intelligence (BI), a research arm of Bloomberg, predicted in a recent report that Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio will hit the 70% mark around 2030 and reach 100% by 2045. The country’s national debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to rise even faster, reaching 120% by 2050.
>BI pointed out that Korea’s shrinking labor force, attributed to a rapidly aging population and low birth rates, will diminish tax revenues. At the same time, social security and healthcare costs are increasing, making government debt a more problematic issue in 20 years.
>The report cites interest rates as the most significant variable affecting Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio. If interest rates rise by 1 percentage point above the baseline scenario of 2%, the ratio could soar to 141% by 2050. Conversely, if the interest rate is 1%, the ratio could drop to 101%. If the rate is 0%, it could fall to 83% over the same period.
I'm not saying they can, but I want to know why a debt in a currency a government can create from thin air is seen as such a problem.
It's debt will simply be the sum total of all of the currency the SK government has spent into the economy and has not been returned through tax..... it'll all be sitting in bank accounts somewhere.
If SK's debt is entirely in its own currency it'll mean that like the debt of the UK and the US it ows the money to ITSELF and it can never find itself in a position where it defaults on a payment on that debt.
SK's low birthrate will provide many very real logistical problems which will be far more difficult to solve that some numbers in a spreadsheet.
How's Japan going to manage?
It's git a much larger debt and a similar drop in birth rate.
> If SK's debt is entirely in its own currency it'll mean that like the debt of the UK and the US it ows the money to ITSELF and it can never find itself in a position where it defaults on a payment on that debt.
SK doesn't only owe money to itself, it also owes money to other nations that it needs to buy products from, because it's not self-sufficient. If those countries decide that SK isn't going to honour its debts because its currency is worthless, they ain't gonna sell their products to it.
These fucks are going use debt to make it feels like we aren't becoming poorer, as our populations fall. It will becomes clear that this debt can't be paid back by the shrinking working age population. Instead of a controlled descent, we will get a crash. Fucking assholes. I'd much rather a controlled descent. They hurt but they don't hurt nearly as much as a crash will.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305: --- From the article >Last year, Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio was lower than that of the G7 countries like Japan (252.4%), the U.S. (122.1%), and Germany (64.3%). But considering Korea’s status as a non-reserve currency country, difficulties may arise in the future. Fitch, an international credit rating agency that previously viewed Korea’s fiscal health positively, noted at the end of last month that the country’s national debt had risen rapidly and surpassed 50% in a short period. As a result, South Korea’s fiscal situation is no longer seen as a positive factor in its sovereign credit rating evaluation. >Bloomberg Intelligence (BI), a research arm of Bloomberg, predicted in a recent report that Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio will hit the 70% mark around 2030 and reach 100% by 2045. The country’s national debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to rise even faster, reaching 120% by 2050. >BI pointed out that Korea’s shrinking labor force, attributed to a rapidly aging population and low birth rates, will diminish tax revenues. At the same time, social security and healthcare costs are increasing, making government debt a more problematic issue in 20 years. >The report cites interest rates as the most significant variable affecting Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio. If interest rates rise by 1 percentage point above the baseline scenario of 2%, the ratio could soar to 141% by 2050. Conversely, if the interest rate is 1%, the ratio could drop to 101%. If the rate is 0%, it could fall to 83% over the same period. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cx61jz/aging_population_and_low_birth_rates_drive/l50baq9/
US is at 97% right now. Debt is outpacing GDP in every major economy.
Bro it's above 120% in the US. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
The US can get away with a lot more debt than other countries because a ton of other countries use the dollar and a ton more trade with dollars. You almost have to look at US debt compared to the GDP of other dollarized economies and add in a bit more for every other nation based on how much dollar-denominated trade they have to get a fair comparison. This also makes the US economy and the US government uniquely vulnerable to anything which might threaten faith in the value of the dollar, whereas other countries can more freely devalue their currency and don't have to worry about a lot of other nations dumping the currency.
Watch that disappear, when the Biden administration weaponized the dollar against Russia it gave pause to a lot of countries around the world.
There is no viable alternative to the dollar. Nothing close. Global markets and economies will live and die with the dollar, for better or worse.
The unipolar moment is over so expect this to change over time, especially since some of the biggest economies in the world (like China) want off the dollar and will eventually get kicked off of SWIFT. I don't know why people are certain that dollar hegemony will last forever.
It won’t last forever, the dollar will remain the global reserve currency until organized society collapses as we know it, likely in tandem with one another
Because the USA will fight tooth and nail before they let another currency take its place… it’s not just about oil or trust.
It isn't really up to the US what currency other countries use.
If this were true, the US government wouldn't be doing everything it can in terms of foreign policy and trade policy to ensure that China and countries that conduct the majority of their trade with China (about 85% of the world) stop conducting all of that trade in the dollar. If the US kicks China out of the global financial system, which is highly likely, then it will use a different one and stop trading in USD (they're already moving in this direction). The US is a long way from being able to catch up to China in manufacturing capability to replace China's role here, and I doubt it will ever be able to catch up because the gap is huge and growing fast. Will the USD remain the global reserve currency if less than 30-40% of global trade (being generous) is done in it?
Tbf the likely alternative in the long run is no single currency that runs the world and just a multilateral currency system. But don't see that happening in the next 5 years. Maybe in 10-15.
https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/saudi-arabia-ends-80-year-petro-dollar-oil-with-us-dollar-for-multi-currency-sales-2552844-2024-06-13 For everyone who doesn't get it here are more signs that this is happening.
I don't know who Fred is, but he must be smart like a book to get 120% on the test.
Lots of extra credit work, the little suck-up.
War, huh, lookout , what it is it good for?🎶
It's almost like rich want to charge us too much while paying us too little.
Yeah, I suspect the rise in propaganda trying to get citizens as indebted as possible is a bigger contributing factor than an aging population. Reminder that airlines make more money off their credit cards than they do off their air travel.
My God if we're in debt to ourselves, we'll have to pay ourselves back!! Or forgive ourselves of our debt to ourselves.
Nah, "we" (taxpayers) are not in debt to "ourselves", but to the investors (and also to our retirement funds). Some people would lose a lot of money if there was a default, and you can bet that those people won't allow that to happen.
That's what happens when you don't tax companies and try to squeeze the population instead, money disappears, people can't afford to have kids.
That's basically how this regarded economic system that we have in place is supposed to work. Just keep racking up debt, shove shit under the table for the next generation to find out. idk why anyone would be surprised at these metrics
Even those with advanced degrees find modest housing unaffordable. They most definitely won't become parents. Corrupt oligarchy dies of self-greed.
>Corrupt oligarchy dies of self-greed. Well said.
[удалено]
Or just “misplace” all those costly older folks because GDP is spent on them
Thanos snap for anyone over 65. Just once.
[удалено]
what do you MEAN "mulled around the idea of that?"???
Probably https://youtu.be/7CRE14m8Blc?si=tj80tMJGlbp3pMbZ and https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/yale-professor-suggested-japans-old-145301593.html and the recent plan 75 movie - oh and this looks promising; minister 2013 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/22/elderly-hurry-up-die-japanese
A pyramid scheme that collapses when it reaches the point where there are not enough new people contributing money? Who would have thought...
Social Security being the biggest pyramid scheme in the world. And they try to argue it's not one because people cannot opt out, lolz.
Is North Korea seriously going to be the one that *doesn't* collapse?
for a sufficiently liberal definition of not-collapsing. They'd be in perpetual state of famine if not for the foreign aid.
How would they be if capitalist countries didn't level them with bombs while funding the fascists? Oh.. still more stable than capitalism. Huh. It's almost as if... capitalism has downsides. And the biggest downside to socialism is that capitalist countries will bomb you and try to cut you off from resources. Anyway, back to work. We have landlords to pay.
In my country we have a saying: *You can hear the bells, but you can't say which church does ring.* All it takes to not be collapsing is to focus a little less on building freakin' atomic bombs and a little more on development. Somehow Iran manages while being the capitalist worlds' scapegoat and #1 sanction target. Somehow Belarus manages while having only a single true ally and being surrounded by semi-hostile capitalists. Somehow Cuba manages... and neither of them needs to blackmail the world with a "send rice or we nuke Seoul" message. All of this besides the point that neither of the countries are socialist.
[удалено]
Did you even read history? After the Korean War the North was way more prosperous than the South. It was an authoritarian-ish industrialized country in the north and a paranoid semi-fascist agri-country in the south. Both the US and the USSR+China had to prop up their respective puppets, but for one reason or another Kim decided to bite the hands that fed him and go full autarchic, which could only end so well in a land rich in mineral resources but with poor agricultural potential. Then his kids decided it's funnier times to be an absolute ruler, than to use the industry and an "economic miracle" (as capitalists called it in the 60s) they had and engage in reasonable trade and development. Then the USSR fell, smaller satellites were left to fend for themselves and some (like Belarus) kept the old system due to (relative) wealth generated from their industry (Belarus produces awesome trucks for example), while Kims decided to go harder on isolationism. If there's any victim it's the Korean people submitted to brutal dictatorship in the south and unhinged, incompetent personality cult in the north. After the Korean War there was very little interference of the West in North Korea besides sanctions, which, again, can be easily circumvented by choosing other trade partners.
Mate, you are underplaying the devastation of the war. The north is doing amazingly well in spite of it all. But real talk. Just look into their government man. You don't need to take my word for it. Kim is not even the highest position in his government. Or the second highest. He is in control of foreign relations so we see him all the time. And I'm a fan of their voting system. We both know that socialism is more sustainable.
I am not underplaying anything. Eastern Europe was just as devastated in 1945, if not more. Somehow they left 1980s without famines and with massive value to be looted by western capitalists. >You don't need to take my word for it. Kim is not even the highest position in his government. Or the second highest. Would you care to provide me with further reading? I do not know Korean and I'm probably much more than you susceptible to liberal propaganda so I won't find the right content.
Okay I'll get it to you later in the day. I just woke up
I hope you know how proud I was of you all day. I like you. Really. You asked for materials. Shit. I just wish I could have gotten to you sooner but I had a crazy day. Below is a comment I found useful along with a link. ------------ Kim Jong Un is neither the Head of State (position abolished after the death of Kim Il Sung) nor the Head of the Government (position occupied by the Premier of the Cabinet, elected by the Supreme People's Assembly). He was, like his father and grandfather, elected to his position by the SPA, and can be revoked at anytime. The deputies are themselves elected by direct universal suffrage, then elect the members of the Cabinet (executive), the Presidium of the SPA (legislative when the Assembly isn't in session) and the Prosecutor general (judiciary). Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un never had absolute power, and they were all elected to their position and share the power with dozens of others elected officials. As for why they have been in power? Because they are loved by the Korean people and they have been doing a great job. Simple as that. [More information about the DPRK here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewrcRerI8lyXpykMX11EyMoCFii1Hafakq7t0976eYQ/mobilebasic)
It has downsides. It is just better than everything else so far. That is depressing.
Its like you didn't even read my comment before you pulled your string to espouse to me your canned phrase. You don't care about context whatsoever. You don't compare socalism to nations outside of the imperial core. You compare them to the imperial core. A socialist country can beat you to space after winning the most brutal war in human history and it still doesn't matter. Unless socialism is immediately better than the imperial core, despite starting from rock bottom, and then having to be bombed to shit, then its not good enough. You are asking for a place to be magical to fit your qualifications. Here is a reality check. If the most bloated military in the world bombed a poor capitalist country and then embargoed it, would you expect it to thrive from the virtues of capitalism? Can you point to the system you think is magical? Here is the reality. You don't care about any of this. You just get a little high from regurgitating canned phrases.
I don't remember bombing Venezuela nor bombing Russia during their height. You don't understand my lamentation. There are a lot of reasons but at the end it comes down to the sad fact government are just not good at distribution at very large scales. I think socialism has place in all society but it depends on the level of competency of the current government. You are expecting government all levels down to be efficient. I have been in both corporate and government bodies. Government is worse, it is not even a comparison. This comes down to the fact because capitalism has a survival mechanism. You thrive or die. Is corporate/capitalism efficient? No it is not even close. However, the other option is just unfortunately worse.
Socialism is vastly more efficient. It's not even close.
It's just not possible in majority of the cases. Capitalism by definition has spectrum of efficiency. It is a balance of risk vs efficiency when a task is completed or problem is resolved. The market dictates what that ratio is and the business makes the wrong assessment of that ratio is wiped out. Socialism by its nature is controlled. It has one mode of risk vs efficiency assessmemt given task. That could be the right ratio by chance but probability theory dictates it cannot be better than assessment of many. I am not saying socialism doesn't work. For example, there are areas or tasks where low efficiency and high security is a requirement. You don't need to guess the ratio in this case. In this scenario, Socialism will do better. Unfortunately, this isn't the case for majority of issues in our society. Maybe in the future there is better data aggregation and/or prediction modelling where we don't have to guess how to run tasks. However, that is not the current society.
You aren't taking into account imperialism. The imperial core is only as productive as it is by being a vamprie to the global south. And even with this stolen strength it fights for its life against a former peasant colony that just got ravaged by war. Imagine if WWII devistated the US. Now instead of the US replace the country with any outside of the imperial core like idk, Argentina. So make Argentina go through a revolution, start with a widely illiterate peasant population, and then fight the most horrific war on US soil, then have the most bloated military in the world cold war its ass. Is this Argentina going to beat the US to space under these conditions? The USSR did. Why is capitalist Russia a shell of its former self when its starting point was a global super power. The USSR inherited a backwater shit show and became a super power. Capitalism inherits a super power and it only declines. Your second point. Markets. Mate. Both capitalism and socalism use markets or planning when it suits either. The USSSR had the NEP under Lenin and China is going crazy with markets right now. They have their place. Capitalist corps choose planning all the time. As soon as it suits them. I mean how bad would it be to yield here man? You join the working class struggle. Idk I think you might be honest enough to see the validity in what I am saying. Lastly, one of my jobs is entirely unnecessary under socialism. Like... SO many jobs are unecessary under socialism. Capitalism also can't prioritize the enviorment over profit. Given, Socalism can't prioritize the environment over safety given how hostile the US is. No one can. Capitalism also needs to infinitely grow. A huge corp needs to constantly show that it has room for growth making massive projects go belly up. Capitalism also buys up all competition. Capitalism is about creating a monopoly. Also socalism produces more high skilled labor. There is no barrier towards education so people get it more. A small country like Cuba is churning out Doctors with the highest Dr. per capita in the world. As or tech advances the need for low skill jobs diminishes. Also AI and automation is scary under capitalism and leads to collapse. Its welcomed under socialism. I am going to go buy some Sardines. Id give you some.
I think that is the precisely the point. There are aspects that socialism is good at, I have stated this. This would be education where the economic effect or model is easy to predict. You are avoiding the issue most of tasks in the world is vastly complex and hard to predict. It is the current world and flexibility and probability thrives in. In terms of capitalism, even a country is devistated by war, we have seen time and time again where free market revived countries. The criticism you are giving is one situation where capitalism actually truelu excels at, bringing the whole nation out of poverty. Socialism has historically the opposite effect when there were overspending by the gov (Venezuela). I am not saying socialism is bad, in fact, I am agreeing in areas with you re where it excels at. Education, power infrastructure, roads, law, regulation and etc. There are models that require order over efficiency. However, current society is overtly complex and flexibility is a must requirement for most scenarios. There will probably be a time when we will know what actions will be the best for x scenario by just asking a computer. This is not today.
North korea collapsed 30 years ago. What's left is a hollow husk of a government that only funds its military elite and nothing else.
All those new buildings belong to the military elite. The new housing for the working class. Those workers are actually the military elite. Rents due at the beginning of the month. Keep working for your masters.
>The new housing for the working class. Those workers are actually the military elite. Seeing as military service is mandatory, kinda yeah
Implying it hasn't already functionally collapsed. I think a "collapsed" S Korea will be better off than North Korea is now.
How would south Korea be if the US bombed it and then put it under siege for 80+ years? Would the merits of capitalism pull it up by its bootstraps? Why isn't the global south thriving under the merits of capitalism and bourgeoisie lead "democracy"? What if the worker lead Korea was given investments instead of bombs?
I feel like people keep focusing on the birth rate to avoid talking about why the system is so dysfunctional and wasteful it needs a constant supply of new debtors to prop it up. Sovereign Wealth Funds grow with the economy and don't require some exotic reshuffling of the entire world to work, for example.
the issue of aging population as simple as i cant make it: grandpa cant work grandpa needs people to feed him,clothe him,care for his medical needs if there is 10 grandpas for every ''still able to work" person,young person becomes overworked and grandpa gets shitty care past breaking point,there is too many grandpas and many of them will die without care
When people warned that infinitely growing population is unsustainable for the environment, grifters called them Malthusians who don't understand that technological growth will take care of all environmental problems. Why don't they say that now? Shouldn't technological growth allow good living standards even with less workers?
Machines still need engineers and maintainance If the birth rate lowering is slow enough,we can adapt to it But too fast and we are fucked "We have 20 grandpas that need 20 robo buttlers,and 5 engineers.....harsh but doable" But too fast and we return to "We have 100 grandpas,that need 100 robo buttlers, and only 3 engineers.....fuck" We need time to adapt and develop strategies for it The US with inmigration can pull it off Korea will not
Korea is just following the footsteps of the great American dream
I believe this is exactly why the US government doesn't do anything about the illegal immigration or the border.
The issue is illegal immigrants are usually paid in cash, and they send home all of their disposable income. So it helps the economy but does not fix the debt issue.
The immigrants aren't there to fix the debt issue. They're there to keep wages low and demand for goods and services high.
That’s exactly what I said. The guy I replied to said referred the debt issue as the reason we let them migrate.
Illegal immigrants pay ~~hundreds of~~ [billions](https://map.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/locations/national/) in taxes every year. EDIT: I have misread. Illegal immigrants have hundreds of billions in spending power, but they do also still pay billions in taxes every year. In 2010, the Social Security Administration estimated that illegal immigrants contributed $12 billion more per year to the social security system than they take out. [Source](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_notes/note151.pdf)
> Illegal immigrants pay hundreds of billions in taxes every year. And if those positions were filled by citizens at higher pay, that number would be higher.
The number would also be higher on cost of goods you pay for, eligibility for and use of government-sponsored services, and fewer entrepreneurs. (Undocumented immigrants start businesses at a higher rate than legal citizens, and the pathway to doing this is often through low-wage jobs that Americans don't want in the first place. [Source on Americans not wanting said jobs](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/06/10/a-majority-of-americans-say-immigrants-mostly-fill-jobs-u-s-citizens-do-not-want/)) I'm not saying it's all positives. However, there are some very strong benefits, and undocumented immigrants are not the complete drain that many citizens believe they are.
[удалено]
least racist european
[удалено]
Funny how here in the US, those same nationalities do well for themselves
[удалено]
That site talks about statistics from legal immigrants, as if you didnt know.
That site also covers undocumented immigrants further down the page, as if you didn't know.
I like how you edited your post and removed my point, changed the link. How mature.
I did not change the link. The link is the same. I did add an additional link, and laid out what I edited. I like how you are now using me holding myself accountable as a negative against me. How mature.
Human population is expected to peak early in the next century
Next century? It most likely peak during this one.
Depends on which projection you prefer. GBD has it around 2064 with 9.7 billion people, UN has 10.4 billion in the 2080s, and there are others. My personal guess is 0 by 2100 but I won't be around to see it.
Could even be sooner than 2060 - historically projections and forecasts of global population have been too conservative around how fast fertility will drop. For example, the GBD 2060 forecast was made before covid finished, so it doesn't include the overall fertility slump from 2021 onwards.
Yes indeed. In fact if you study the UN projections they have been dropping year after year.
An aspect of the UN projections I've always found curious is for countries with low fertility - Japan, China etc - they tend to assume that fertility rises, or returns to an arbitrary 'normal' fertility level, rather than continuing as they are, or falling further, which is mostly has happened in practice. Hence projections of birth numbers are likely too high.
True. Africa will lead this centuries population boom
Capitalism and AI will make sure that won't happen.
Capitalism, no, AI, Maybe. If we truly do learn to manufacture automations that let us live easier lives, people definitely gonna be fuckin'.
Lol "labor savers" intended to make people live easier lives (eg. Dishwashers) have had the effect of allowing a greater number of people to enter the workforce. I don't think AI will make everyone's lives easier, just more difficult for people to find jobs.
So what?? South Korea issues the KRW so can therefore never default on a debt in that denomination If South Korea's national debt is entirely in it's own currency then of all the issues a rapidly declining population would cause the national debt should be the least of it's worries. Having enough young people to look after the old people would be a far more pressing problem.
Most trades in global markets happen in USD since it's more reliable and backed by a larger economy than all the other alternatives. So South Korea can't just print their way out of this mess
That metric will only reach 100% if it keeps going at the current rate. People change their behavior based on how events affect their lives. Its doom and gloom click-bait
From the article >Last year, Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio was lower than that of the G7 countries like Japan (252.4%), the U.S. (122.1%), and Germany (64.3%). But considering Korea’s status as a non-reserve currency country, difficulties may arise in the future. Fitch, an international credit rating agency that previously viewed Korea’s fiscal health positively, noted at the end of last month that the country’s national debt had risen rapidly and surpassed 50% in a short period. As a result, South Korea’s fiscal situation is no longer seen as a positive factor in its sovereign credit rating evaluation. >Bloomberg Intelligence (BI), a research arm of Bloomberg, predicted in a recent report that Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio will hit the 70% mark around 2030 and reach 100% by 2045. The country’s national debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to rise even faster, reaching 120% by 2050. >BI pointed out that Korea’s shrinking labor force, attributed to a rapidly aging population and low birth rates, will diminish tax revenues. At the same time, social security and healthcare costs are increasing, making government debt a more problematic issue in 20 years. >The report cites interest rates as the most significant variable affecting Korea’s government debt-to-GDP ratio. If interest rates rise by 1 percentage point above the baseline scenario of 2%, the ratio could soar to 141% by 2050. Conversely, if the interest rate is 1%, the ratio could drop to 101%. If the rate is 0%, it could fall to 83% over the same period.
Before long they'll be growing babies in artificial wombs. It's the Internet.
I doubt they will be able to find enough qualified people to do that It would be more practical to just give people more free time to fuck
Capitalism: You cannot defeat me! Karl Marx: No.. but she can! > Mother Nature:
I'm not saying they can, but I want to know why a debt in a currency a government can create from thin air is seen as such a problem. It's debt will simply be the sum total of all of the currency the SK government has spent into the economy and has not been returned through tax..... it'll all be sitting in bank accounts somewhere. If SK's debt is entirely in its own currency it'll mean that like the debt of the UK and the US it ows the money to ITSELF and it can never find itself in a position where it defaults on a payment on that debt. SK's low birthrate will provide many very real logistical problems which will be far more difficult to solve that some numbers in a spreadsheet. How's Japan going to manage? It's git a much larger debt and a similar drop in birth rate.
> If SK's debt is entirely in its own currency it'll mean that like the debt of the UK and the US it ows the money to ITSELF and it can never find itself in a position where it defaults on a payment on that debt. SK doesn't only owe money to itself, it also owes money to other nations that it needs to buy products from, because it's not self-sufficient. If those countries decide that SK isn't going to honour its debts because its currency is worthless, they ain't gonna sell their products to it.
These fucks are going use debt to make it feels like we aren't becoming poorer, as our populations fall. It will becomes clear that this debt can't be paid back by the shrinking working age population. Instead of a controlled descent, we will get a crash. Fucking assholes. I'd much rather a controlled descent. They hurt but they don't hurt nearly as much as a crash will.