GameBanshee Forums

Economy and demography are absolutely not my specialist areas, but I have understood it is very difficult to make demographic predictions. What will happen in Europe will probably be much depending on the decision regarding work immigration. However, I found the final paragraph of the article very strange:

Perhaps none of this is altogether surprising. The contrast between youthful, exuberant, multi-coloured America and ageing, decrepit, inward-looking Europe goes back almost to the foundation of the United States. But demography is making this picture even more true, with long-term consequences for America's economic and military might and quite possibly for the focus of its foreign policy.

So I guess it's looking really good for India. Or is perhaps the US planning to go to war against Europe and need to "motivate the troops"

Originally posted by C Elegans
However, I found the final paragraph of the article very strange:

I would call it (The last paragraph) an 'attempt' to troll or (Looking for word to get my meaning across)..ruffle feathers.

I have seen a growing trend on both sides to try and put spitful messages in their articles. Some not as bad as others though.



"The contrast between (1)youthful, (2)exuberant, (3)multi-coloured America"
My understanding..(1)Low age of workers in the future. (2)No idea. (3)Immigration laws

"(1)ageing, (2)decrepit, (3)inward-looking Europe" My understanding..(1) Old age of workers. (2) No idea. (3) A claim that Europe would rather bury it's head in the sand, rather than worry about world problems.

[Author's Note: In case you're wondering, I was a sociology minor in college, and demography falls under that discipline.]

This gentleman's point is that in the best case ,the US is going to end up as the world's policeman, and in the worse case, the US will be able to exert complete hegemony over the world's foreign policy because we'll have 14 strike aircraft carriers and the rest of the world combined won't. In essence, as Europe gets older and devotes more of its collective GDP to social programs and taking care of its aging population with a declining workforce, the EU won't be able to spend as much, either gross or per capita, on military projects.

On one level, this is okay because the need for conventional military forces is lessening. That is, the battles of the future won't be large-scale tank battles or big open-sea engagements between armadas. Rather, we will be seeing lots of non-conventional warfare (guerrilla warfare, chemical/biological warfare, terrorism, etc.) and regional conflicts which may flare up at any minute, but may also be diffused by politicians with equal speed.

On another level, the new kind of military will require less heavy equipment in the way of tanks, strategic bombers and aircraft carriers but a more highly-trained soldier which is more expensive to train and maintain than a conscript army (many European countries have compulsory military service which keeps the ranks full, but the level of training for the average soldier is often lower than for a full-time volunteer force such as the US Army). It will not be heavy armoured divisions which suck up the resources of future military forces but Airborne Brigades, SAS teams and quick-response Marine Expeditionary Units.

Whoever the author is (I can't even find his/her name on the page) takes a long time to generate a thesis that equates population trends with military might. He's saying that Europe's falling population is due to a downward trend in fertility, which we've been observing for years; in fact, some countries (I believe Denmark and the Netherlands) have negative population growth, even after accounting for immigration. As the author says, this means fewer workers and taxpayers to fund the social services many people have become accustomed to.

This smaller pie not only means few resources for all of the social programs the Europeans enjoy, but also fewer resources for the military forces of Europe. He contrasts this with the United States which is experiencing positive population growth, both in terms of fertility and immigration and as a consequence, America will have more resources to spend on its military programs; there will be a bigger pie, plus we don't spend as much on social programs as European countries.

In a roundabout way, the author is saying that in a couple of decades as the baby boomers retire, not only in the US but in Europe as well, that the United States will be in a stronger position militarily and politically to make the kinds of unilateral decisions that Dubya has made his hallmark because no one will be able to stop us. The author's claim is that this will be due to the fact that there will be more taxpaying and revenue-generating Americans, and we'll spend more on guns, tanks and planes than the countries of the EU.

I don't know if the author is trolling for anti-Americanism or if he just wants Europeans to breed more and beef up the Royal Marines and Bundeswehr, but after you get past the mumbo-jumbo of his numbers, he does make a little bit of sense.

@Weasel:
I think the author's last description of Europeans as inward-looking is a slam that as people get older they tend to take less of a world-view and be concerned only with the things that immedately affect them. You'll notice this if you watch voting trends in areas of the US that have a large percentage of the population at or above retirement age. In many areas, like Winter Park and Sarasota in Florida, you'll see that school bond issues almost never pass and that they tend to pay teachers poorly. Why? Because the senior citizens there have already educated their own kids and are more concerned with prescription drugs and locking up criminals; to hell with your kids if they want a new gymnasium or football stadium.

His point in making that statement is that as Europeans get older, they will be less prone to challenge the US lead in global policy unless it directly affects them and that at some point, they may not be able to resist the US if we decide to take a course that goes against the rest of the world's opinion but that the EU will be forced to back the US for fear of other retaliation (mostly of the economic kind).

Originally posted by Weasel
@HLD, great post. (Wish I had paid more attention in school)

After hanging out at AC's Bar & Grrrrril today, I need something to boost my words-per-post count.

Originally posted by HighLordDave

After hanging out at AC's Bar & Grrrrril today, I need something to boost my words-per-post count.

LMAO The Spam Taverns are addictive.


As to this article, I find it pretty amazing...the information about possible events (possible) in other countries could be of great interest to a soon to be Evil Tyrant.

Originally posted by Weasel


LMAO The Spam Taverns are addictive.


As to this article, I find it pretty amazing...the information about possible events (possible) in other countries could be of great interest to a soon to be Evil Tyrant.

Lots more young impressionable minds to dominate...

Apparently in the UK within 60 years there will be more people of an ethic mix than "white" people, a favourite statistic of the National party, frankly if they keep the streets cleaner and make tasty kebabs i couldn't care less

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Apparently in the UK within 60 years there will be more people of an ethic mix than "white" people, a favourite statistic of the National party, frankly if they keep the streets cleaner and make tasty kebabs i couldn't care less

Besides, who doesn't like Goodness Gracious Me?

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Apparently in the UK within 60 years there will be more people of an ethic mix than "white" people, a favourite statistic of the National party, frankly if they keep the streets cleaner and make tasty kebabs i couldn't care less

In the long run (given humankind doesn't blow up the planet) I believe white, black, tan and all the rest will be gone. Something I would call a good thing. One kind..Humankind.


@Mr.Sleep, National Party? I had thought national was for the advancement of the country as a whole? From (my limited understanding and most likely misunderstood) your meaning, I would call the National party.. Facist (sp?).

Originally posted by Weasel
From... your meaning, I would call the National party.. Facist (sp?).

yup. the BNP (british national party) claim to just be extreme right-wing, but are frankly closet fascists.

Originally posted by Weasel
In the long run (given humankind doesn't blow up the planet) I believe white, black, tan and all the rest will be gone. Something I would call a good thing. One kind..Humankind.

Right on! Let's hear it for the Green Skinned Mongrel Sapiens of the future!

Originally posted by Kayless

Right on! Let's hear it for the Green Skinned Mongrel Sapiens of the future!

As long as I'm the ruler.

Originally posted by Weasel
As long as I'm the ruler.

No can do. The Cannibal Squirelmen of Bangladesh already voted you as their Den Mother. (Anybody remember the Cannibal Squirelmen of Bangladesh?).

Gotta love fascist parties...
The scary bit is that one of them (The One Nation Party) had a decent run at getting power here in Oz... The 2 normal ones are bad enough.
Sometimes I despair for Australia.