Contraceptives - bad for the economy! (Sarcasm)
leno...@yahoo.com
hope. Shall we write to our newspapers and make it clear we mean
business?
Yes, I've heard the argument that we can't afford to have any
country's birth rate drop below a certain level - but obviously, no
family can afford to have more children than it can afford! Not to
mention that little issue of people maybe NOT WANTING children in the
first place? Don't we have enough children languishing in foster care
already? Shouldn't we be working on how to keep the country going
without a young "slave" population - maybe through greater personal
frugality?
First paragraphs:
Barack Obama’s $825 billion plan to boost the recession-bound U.S.
economy has some elements that, well, aren’t the sort of
stimulus that House Minority Leader John Boehner says he can believe
in.
“I’m concerned about the size of the package, and I’m concerned about
some of the spending that’s in there,” Boehner complained Friday after
a meeting at White House.
“How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?
How does that stimulate the economy?”
(click to read the rest)
Lenona.
Rod Speed
> 18 mainly negative comments so far - and plenty more elsewhere, I hope.
> Shall we write to our newspapers and make it clear we mean business?
> Yes, I've heard the argument that we can't afford to have any country's
> birth rate drop below a certain level - but obviously, no family can afford
> to have more children than it can afford! Not to mention that little issue
> of people maybe NOT WANTING children in the first place? Don't we
> have enough children languishing in foster care already?
Nope, if we did, we wouldnt see so many buying kids from 3rd world countrys.
> Shouldn't we be working on how to keep the country going without a
> young "slave" population - maybe through greater personal frugality?
Doesnt work, you end up with no one paying taxes and all the geriatrics starving.
> First paragraphs:
> Barack Obama’s $825 billion plan to boost the recession-bound U.S.
> economy has some elements that, well, aren’t the sort of stimulus that
> House Minority Leader John Boehner says he can believe in.
> “I’m concerned about the size of the package, and I’m concerned about
> some of the spending that’s in there,” Boehner complained Friday after
> a meeting at White House.
> “How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?
> How does that stimulate the economy?”
Someone has to make them, stupid.
> (click to read the rest)
I clicked there and nothing happened. I wanna refund.
Don Klipstein
>18 mainly negative comments so far - and plenty more elsewhere, I
>hope. Shall we write to our newspapers and make it clear we mean
>business?
>
>Yes, I've heard the argument that we can't afford to have any
>country's birth rate drop below a certain level -
It appears to me that stock prices tend to be assuming profit trends
that assume some population growth rate.
"Recent Fashion" (as of late 1990's or around 2000) appeared to me then
that stock prices and stock price growth was supportable with P/E ratio of
20-plus, despite historical average since the 1920's coser to 15.
Meanwhile, it appears to me that annual growth of USA population is
close to 1%. That appears to me to be part of annual growth rate of USA's
GDP and of "earnings" by publicly-traded corporations on USA stock
exchanges, especially NYSE.
And with the past takeover trend, I expect the "S&P 500" to continue to
represent about 63-66% of "market value" of USA's public-traded
corporations.
Going on 5% reciprocal of P/E with 1% annual population growth, I would
like to assume that changing population growth to zero by 1% downward
causes annual; total return to be the same if P/E increases to 6.67%.
Since historical "annual average total return" in "broad market" USA
stock investing even by rules of modern "index funds" if applied from the
1929 high to the 1999-2000 high or from the 1932 low to the 1982 low
averages at least 6% past inflation,
I expect sudden achievement of "zero population growth" to set back
stock investments by a mere roughly 5 years compared to inflation, about
3.3 years non-inflation-adjusted.
Decreasing world population growth to close to zero is definitely good
to do. Sadly, those finding need to bear and raise more children tend to
be more religiously conservative and maybe "trying to outpopulate their
enemies"... (My words and commentary, and I "do not and will not pass the
buck" in terms of responsibility or irrisponsibility for saying what I
said!)
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
josej...@ssnet.net
The bubble has burst the entire usa is going to be restructured now and all the
but richest 1% are going to suffer for it.
Rod Speed
> leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 18 mainly negative comments so far - and plenty more elsewhere, I hope.
>> Shall we write to our newspapers and make it clear we mean business?
>> Yes, I've heard the argument that we can't afford to have any
>> country's birth rate drop below a certain level -
> It appears to me that stock prices tend to be assuming
> profit trends that assume some population growth rate.
Nope, have a look at the Nikkei sometime.
> "Recent Fashion" (as of late 1990's or around 2000) appeared to me
> then that stock prices and stock price growth was supportable with P/E
> ratio of 20-plus, despite historical average since the 1920's coser to 15.
It had swong that high before tho.
> Meanwhile, it appears to me that annual growth of USA population is close to 1%.
The CIA claims 0.883
> That appears to me to be part of annual growth rate
> of USA's GDP and of "earnings" by publicly-traded
> corporations on USA stock exchanges, especially NYSE.
GDP doesnt include earnings.
> And with the past takeover trend, I expect the "S&P 500"
> to continue to represent about 63-66% of "market value"
> of USA's public-traded corporations.
> Going on 5% reciprocal of P/E with 1% annual population growth, I would
> like to assume that changing population growth to zero by 1% downward
> causes annual; total return to be the same if P/E increases to 6.67%.
Mindlessly silly, there is no correlation. Have a look at the
Nikkei to see what a negative population growth produces.
> Since historical "annual average total return" in "broad market" USA
> stock investing even by rules of modern "index funds" if applied from
> the 1929 high to the 1999-2000 high or from the 1932 low to the 1982
> low averages at least 6% past inflation, I expect sudden achievement of
> "zero population growth" to set back stock investments by a mere roughly
> 5 years compared to inflation, about 3.3 years non-inflation-adjusted.
Have fun explaining what Japan has seen.
> Decreasing world population growth to close to zero is definitely
> good to do. Sadly, those finding need to bear and raise more
> children tend to be more religiously conservative and maybe
> "trying to outpopulate their enemies"...
Doesnt explain why the west had high population growth numbers at one time.
The Real Bev
> leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> ... Don't we
>> have enough children languishing in foster care already?
>
> Nope, if we did, we wouldnt see so many buying kids from 3rd world countrys.
Yes, but those are NEW children and the adopting parents can feel good because
they're giving a NEW life to this NEW little child from far away. The locals
are just partially-broken ghetto kids and probably have diseases, deformities
and lice.
>> Shouldn't we be working on how to keep the country going without a
>> young "slave" population - maybe through greater personal frugality?
Apparently they don't make very good slaves...
> Doesnt work, you end up with no one paying taxes and all the geriatrics starving.
>
>> http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/01/23/contraceptives-not-the-kind-of-stimulus-boehner-can-believe-in/
>
>> First paragraphs:
>
>> Barack Obama’s $825 billion plan to boost the recession-bound U.S.
>> economy has some elements that, well, aren’t the sort of stimulus that
>> House Minority Leader John Boehner says he can believe in.
>
>> “I’m concerned about the size of the package, and I’m concerned about
>> some of the spending that’s in there,” Boehner complained Friday after
>> a meeting at White House.
>
>> “How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?
>> How does that stimulate the economy?”
>
> Someone has to make them, stupid.
It's mind-boggling that there's an official anti-contraceptive ideology not
related to the Catholic church. Surely preventing the birth of unwanted
children is a GOOD thing, no matter whose children they are. I regard it as an
investment, not an expense.
--
Cheers, Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"The almost universal access to higher education here in the US has
ruined a lot of potentially good manual laborers." -- Bob Hunt
Marsha
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> leno...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> ... Don't we
>>> have enough children languishing in foster care already?
>>
>> Nope, if we did, we wouldnt see so many buying kids from 3rd world
>> countrys.
>
> Yes, but those are NEW children and the adopting parents can feel good
> because they're giving a NEW life to this NEW little child from far
> away. The locals are just partially-broken ghetto kids and probably
> have diseases, deformities and lice.
>
And, NEW children are all the rage with celebrities.
Marsha/Ohio
Rod Speed
>>> Don't we have enough children languishing in foster care already?
>> Nope, if we did, we wouldnt see so many buying kids from 3rd world countrys.
> Yes, but those are NEW children and the adopting parents can feel good because they're giving a NEW life to this NEW
> little child from far away. The locals are just partially-broken ghetto kids and probably have diseases, deformities
> and lice.
It happens with the kids from 3rd world countrys too. That 7 up doco series had
one on russians and one of them ended up in the US with the same problems.
>>> Shouldn't we be working on how to keep the country going without a
>>> young "slave" population - maybe through greater personal frugality?
> Apparently they don't make very good slaves...
>> Doesnt work, you end up with no one paying taxes and all the geriatrics starving.
>>> First paragraphs:
>>> Barack Obama’s $825 billion plan to boost the recession-bound U.S.
>>> economy has some elements that, well, aren’t the sort of stimulus
>>> that House Minority Leader John Boehner says he can believe in.
>>> “I’m concerned about the size of the package, and I’m concerned
>>> about some of the spending that’s in there,” Boehner complained
>>> Friday after a meeting at White House.
>>> “How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on
>>> contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?”
>> Someone has to make them, stupid.
> It's mind-boggling that there's an official anti-contraceptive ideology not related to the Catholic church.
Nothing that the god botherers get up to ever boggles my mind.
After all, it was them that burnt each other at the stake very enthusiastically.
In fact it got so bad at one time in germany that the buildings on the downwind side of
the town square ended up with considerable deposits of human fat on them, quite literally.
> Surely preventing the birth of unwanted children is a GOOD thing, no matter whose children they are.
Clearly the silly old farts in Rome feel otherwise.
Its not too surprising that some other god botherers agree with them.
In fact plenty of moslems feel the same way.
> I regard it as an investment, not an expense.
Sure, but you arent a brainless god botherer, just a gorgon with a horned helmet.