Say what you like about Dave, but his resignation speech was concise.
Take note Matteo Renzi
Perhaps Davide Camerone could be drafted in to take over?
Dave's enjoying his retirement
Is he going to go back into politics? I'm sure May would give him a peerage.
Nope, he's done with politics.
He might do a Lord Home, and be Foreign Secretary when George Osborne becomes PM.
It would be a shame for young pms to be done with public service when they'll be around so long. I believe the governor of California was both the youngest in 100 years and the oldest, such was the gaps in his terms.
He's a family man, he's spending the next few years focusing on his family.
As an aside, I've finally finished writing my David Cameron legacy thread. I started writing it in June.
It'll be controversial and surprising in equal parts.
Say what you like about Dave, but his resignation speech was concise.
Take note Matteo Renzi
Perhaps Davide Camerone could be drafted in to take over?
Dave's enjoying his retirement
Is he going to go back into politics? I'm sure May would give him a peerage.
Nope, he's done with politics.
He might do a Lord Home, and be Foreign Secretary when George Osborne becomes PM.
It would be a shame for young pms to be done with public service when they'll be around so long. I believe the governor of California was both the youngest in 100 years and the oldest, such was the gaps in his terms.
He's a family man, he's spending the next few years focusing on his family.
As an aside, I've finally finished writing my David Cameron legacy thread. I started writing it in June.
It'll be controversial and surprising in equal parts.
Tough situation, promising signs, overshadowed by the end, I would imagine the summary.
Italian Banks are going to take a bath tomorrow morning. There will be a great strain on the whole Euro system.
They are already down 95% even before the referendum.
If they require a bailout, can Italy even sustain that level of sovereign debt?
The Italian national debt is roughly €2.5 trillion. Bailing out the banks would put it up less than 2%. Alternstively they could be allowed to fail, tbough that seemed to cause a few problems in the last decade.
Say what you like about Dave, but his resignation speech was concise.
Take note Matteo Renzi
Perhaps Davide Camerone could be drafted in to take over?
Dave's enjoying his retirement
Is he going to go back into politics? I'm sure May would give him a peerage.
Nope, he's done with politics.
He might do a Lord Home, and be Foreign Secretary when George Osborne becomes PM.
It would be a shame for young pms to be done with public service when they'll be around so long. I believe the governor of California was both the youngest in 100 years and the oldest, such was the gaps in his terms.
He's a family man, he's spending the next few years focusing on his family.
As an aside, I've finally finished writing my David Cameron legacy thread. I started writing it in June.
It'll be controversial and surprising in equal parts.
Cameron's legacy has been and gone in the six months it has taken you to write it!
Say what you like about Dave, but his resignation speech was concise.
Take note Matteo Renzi
Perhaps Davide Camerone could be drafted in to take over?
Dave's enjoying his retirement
Is he going to go back into politics? I'm sure May would give him a peerage.
Nope, he's done with politics.
He might do a Lord Home, and be Foreign Secretary when George Osborne becomes PM.
It would be a shame for young pms to be done with public service when they'll be around so long. I believe the governor of California was both the youngest in 100 years and the oldest, such was the gaps in his terms.
He's a family man, he's spending the next few years focusing on his family.
As an aside, I've finally finished writing my David Cameron legacy thread. I started writing it in June.
It'll be controversial and surprising in equal parts.
Cameron's legacy has been and gone in the six months it has taken you to write it!
He demonstrated coalition politics can work, but the people won't reward it.
Say what you like about Dave, but his resignation speech was concise.
Take note Matteo Renzi
Perhaps Davide Camerone could be drafted in to take over?
Dave's enjoying his retirement
Is he going to go back into politics? I'm sure May would give him a peerage.
Nope, he's done with politics.
He might do a Lord Home, and be Foreign Secretary when George Osborne becomes PM.
It would be a shame for young pms to be done with public service when they'll be around so long. I believe the governor of California was both the youngest in 100 years and the oldest, such was the gaps in his terms.
He's a family man, he's spending the next few years focusing on his family.
As an aside, I've finally finished writing my David Cameron legacy thread. I started writing it in June.
It'll be controversial and surprising in equal parts.
Cameron's legacy has been and gone in the six months it has taken you to write it!
It has been a long and painful process.
Oh man, when I took that call at 7.45 am on June 24th telling me Dave was going to quit, it is seared on my mind.
Say what you like about Dave, but his resignation speech was concise.
Take note Matteo Renzi
Perhaps Davide Camerone could be drafted in to take over?
Dave's enjoying his retirement
Is he going to go back into politics? I'm sure May would give him a peerage.
Nope, he's done with politics.
He might do a Lord Home, and be Foreign Secretary when George Osborne becomes PM.
It would be a shame for young pms to be done with public service when they'll be around so long. I believe the governor of California was both the youngest in 100 years and the oldest, such was the gaps in his terms.
He's a family man, he's spending the next few years focusing on his family.
As an aside, I've finally finished writing my David Cameron legacy thread. I started writing it in June.
It'll be controversial and surprising in equal parts.
Cameron's legacy has been and gone in the six months it has taken you to write it!
He demonstrated coalition politics can work, but the people won't reward it.
People never reward coalition politics, especially if you are the Junior partner.
Say what you like about Dave, but his resignation speech was concise.
Take note Matteo Renzi
Perhaps Davide Camerone could be drafted in to take over?
Dave's enjoying his retirement
Is he going to go back into politics? I'm sure May would give him a peerage.
Nope, he's done with politics.
He might do a Lord Home, and be Foreign Secretary when George Osborne becomes PM.
It would be a shame for young pms to be done with public service when they'll be around so long. I believe the governor of California was both the youngest in 100 years and the oldest, such was the gaps in his terms.
He's a family man, he's spending the next few years focusing on his family.
As an aside, I've finally finished writing my David Cameron legacy thread. I started writing it in June.
It'll be controversial and surprising in equal parts.
Cameron's legacy has been and gone in the six months it has taken you to write it!
He demonstrated coalition politics can work, but the people won't reward it.
I don't think we learned anything much about Coalition politics in the modern age. We were reminded however that those who try to be All Things To All Men will come a cropper.
Italian Banks are going to take a bath tomorrow morning. There will be a great strain on the whole Euro system.
They are already down 95% even before the referendum.
If they require a bailout, can Italy even sustain that level of sovereign debt?
The Italian national debt is roughly €2.5 trillion. Bailing out the banks would put it up less than 2%. Alternstively they could be allowed to fail, tbough that seemed to cause a few problems in the last decade.
Really don't think that is right. 2% of Italian GDP would be less than 40bn euros. No way that is going to be enough to refinance their banks.
Italian Banks are going to take a bath tomorrow morning. There will be a great strain on the whole Euro system.
They are already down 95% even before the referendum.
If they require a bailout, can Italy even sustain that level of sovereign debt?
The Italian national debt is roughly €2.5 trillion. Bailing out the banks would put it up less than 2%. Alternstively they could be allowed to fail, tbough that seemed to cause a few problems in the last decade.
Bloomberg cites "proposals to tackle the €360bn of problematic loans" - Assuming they deal with half of this amount, isn't that about a 7% increase in national debt? (my logic may be rubbish)
Say what you like about Dave, but his resignation speech was concise.
Take note Matteo Renzi
Perhaps Davide Camerone could be drafted in to take over?
Dave's enjoying his retirement
Is he going to go back into politics? I'm sure May would give him a peerage.
Nope, he's done with politics.
He might do a Lord Home, and be Foreign Secretary when George Osborne becomes PM.
It would be a shame for young pms to be done with public service when they'll be around so long. I believe the governor of California was both the youngest in 100 years and the oldest, such was the gaps in his terms.
He's a family man, he's spending the next few years focusing on his family.
As an aside, I've finally finished writing my David Cameron legacy thread. I started writing it in June.
It'll be controversial and surprising in equal parts.
Cameron's legacy has been and gone in the six months it has taken you to write it!
It has been a long and painful process.
Oh man, when I took that call at 7.45 am on June 24th telling me Dave was going to quit, it is seared on my mind.
I remember seeing him at the wreath-laying at the Cenotaph and thinking what a crying shame. "You bloody fool, Cameron, it didn't have to be this way..." He could have owned a 70% Leave vote.
Italian Banks are going to take a bath tomorrow morning. There will be a great strain on the whole Euro system.
They are already down 95% even before the referendum.
If they require a bailout, can Italy even sustain that level of sovereign debt?
The Italian national debt is roughly €2.5 trillion. Bailing out the banks would put it up less than 2%. Alternstively they could be allowed to fail, tbough that seemed to cause a few problems in the last decade.
Bloomberg cites "proposals to tackle the €360bn of problematic loans" - Assuming they deal with half of this amount, isn't that about a 7% increase in national debt? (my logic may be rubbish)
And it won't be just the loans unless there is fairly dynamic action by the ECB. Forcing a resolution of such loans will crystallise a lot of bad debts in the system not just in the banks and it will undermine asset values and hence the security of other loans.
Greece stretched the ECB to its limits and it was tiny compared to Italy.
Italian Banks are going to take a bath tomorrow morning. There will be a great strain on the whole Euro system.
They are already down 95% even before the referendum.
If they require a bailout, can Italy even sustain that level of sovereign debt?
The Italian national debt is roughly €2.5 trillion. Bailing out the banks would put it up less than 2%. Alternstively they could be allowed to fail, tbough that seemed to cause a few problems in the last decade.
Bloomberg cites "proposals to tackle the €360bn of problematic loans" - Assuming they deal with half of this amount, isn't that about a 7% increase in national debt? (my logic may be rubbish)
RCS1000 reckons the bailout would be €25 to 40 billion. Presumably it is more a matter of recapitalisation than writing off those loans.
Significant, but not fatal, though the impact on UK banks would not be insignificant.
I got out of my bank shares a while back, apart from Loyds who seem less exposed to international markets.
Say what you like about Dave, but his resignation speech was concise.
Take note Matteo Renzi
Perhaps Davide Camerone could be drafted in to take over?
Dave's enjoying his retirement
Is he going to go back into politics? I'm sure May would give him a peerage.
Nope, he's done with politics.
He might do a Lord Home, and be Foreign Secretary when George Osborne becomes PM.
It would be a shame for young pms to be done with public service when they'll be around so long. I believe the governor of California was both the youngest in 100 years and the oldest, such was the gaps in his terms.
He's a family man, he's spending the next few years focusing on his family.
As an aside, I've finally finished writing my David Cameron legacy thread. I started writing it in June.
It'll be controversial and surprising in equal parts.
Cameron's legacy has been and gone in the six months it has taken you to write it!
It has been a long and painful process.
Oh man, when I took that call at 7.45 am on June 24th telling me Dave was going to quit, it is seared on my mind.
I remember seeing him at the wreath-laying at the Cenotaph and thinking what a crying shame. "You bloody fool, Cameron, it didn't have to be this way..." He could have owned a 70% Leave vote.
Yes, but what would he have done with it? However eloquent his speeches prior to GE2015, when it came down to it his heart was clearly not in a Leave situation.
All credit to him for delivering the referendum. That's a big enough legacy to be going on with.
Italian Banks are going to take a bath tomorrow morning. There will be a great strain on the whole Euro system.
They are already down 95% even before the referendum.
If they require a bailout, can Italy even sustain that level of sovereign debt?
The Italian national debt is roughly €2.5 trillion. Bailing out the banks would put it up less than 2%. Alternstively they could be allowed to fail, tbough that seemed to cause a few problems in the last decade.
Bloomberg cites "proposals to tackle the €360bn of problematic loans" - Assuming they deal with half of this amount, isn't that about a 7% increase in national debt? (my logic may be rubbish)
Let's imagine you have a 500k mortgage on your house and you can't pay. There is now a 500k problematic loan.
But it is almost impossible the bank will lose 500k. Even if your property were only worth 250k, and it cost 50k to sell your house, the bank would still only lose 200k - and that's in the circumstance that you had a 200% mortgage.
If you look at loan loss ratios - i.e. what is actually lost when a loan goes bad - across the developed world, they range from 2% to 20%. The difference being (mostly) the type of debt: credit card and other unsecured personal loans are the worst, then unsecured small business lending, then large company lending, then secured lending (either on inventories, recievables, or property).
Italy has very little unsecured consumer credit: average outstanding credit card debt is about a tenth of the level of the UK. In addition, the banks have already taken provisions against losses.
Now, if you believe the Bank of Italy, the cost to the banks of clear-up will be EUR25bn. I think that's low. But even if you assume the number of EUR40bn, it's still chump change, certainly compared to the banking problems we've seen in the UK, the US, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, or even Germany. The Italian government could bail the whole sector out tomorrow, without worsening its financial situtation meaningfully.
Italian Banks are going to take a bath tomorrow morning. There will be a great strain on the whole Euro system.
They are already down 95% even before the referendum.
If they require a bailout, can Italy even sustain that level of sovereign debt?
The Italian national debt is roughly €2.5 trillion. Bailing out the banks would put it up less than 2%. Alternstively they could be allowed to fail, tbough that seemed to cause a few problems in the last decade.
Bloomberg cites "proposals to tackle the €360bn of problematic loans" - Assuming they deal with half of this amount, isn't that about a 7% increase in national debt? (my logic may be rubbish)
And it won't be just the loans unless there is fairly dynamic action by the ECB. Forcing a resolution of such loans will crystallise a lot of bad debts in the system not just in the banks and it will undermine asset values and hence the security of other loans.
Greece stretched the ECB to its limits and it was tiny compared to Italy.
It is worth remembering that overall private sector debt levels in Italy are a fraction of what they are in the UK.
I don't see the Euro surviving, as is, another ten years. Impossible. A hardcore will federalise - Germany, Benelux, probably France and Spain, maybe Austria. The rest will detach.
Plus the Baltics, Ireland.
The policy of the FPO was for the Euro to split into Northern and Southern blocs. It would be interesting if the new Italian PM were to go down that route.
I don't see the Euro surviving, as is, another ten years. Impossible. A hardcore will federalise - Germany, Benelux, probably France and Spain, maybe Austria. The rest will detach.
Plus the Baltics, Ireland.
The policy of the FPO was for the Euro to split into Northern and Southern blocs. It would be interesting if the new Italian PM were to go down that route.
I don't know about Ireland, tax policy is very important to them.
Say what you like about Dave, but his resignation speech was concise.
Take note Matteo Renzi
Perhaps Davide Camerone could be drafted in to take over?
Dave's enjoying his retirement
Is he going to go back into politics? I'm sure May would give him a peerage.
Nope, he's done with politics.
He might do a Lord Home, and be Foreign Secretary when George Osborne becomes PM.
It would be a shame for young pms to be done with public service when they'll be around so long. I believe the governor of California was both the youngest in 100 years and the oldest, such was the gaps in his terms.
He's a family man, he's spending the next few years focusing on his family.
As an aside, I've finally finished writing my David Cameron legacy thread. I started writing it in June.
It'll be controversial and surprising in equal parts.
Cameron's legacy has been and gone in the six months it has taken you to write it!
He demonstrated coalition politics can work, but the people won't reward it.
Yes, Cameron Term 1 could have had a reasonable to good record - ditto Osborne - but both came horrendously unstuck with EURef & Project Fear....
I don't see the Euro surviving, as is, another ten years. Impossible. A hardcore will federalise - Germany, Benelux, probably France and Spain, maybe Austria. The rest will detach.
Plus the Baltics, Ireland.
The policy of the FPO was for the Euro to split into Northern and Southern blocs. It would be interesting if the new Italian PM were to go down that route.
I don't know about Ireland, tax policy is very important to them.
Agreed, but they are also something like +80/-20 on "The Euro has been good for Ireland".
I don't see the Euro surviving, as is, another ten years. Impossible. A hardcore will federalise - Germany, Benelux, probably France and Spain, maybe Austria. The rest will detach.
Plus the Baltics, Ireland.
The policy of the FPO was for the Euro to split into Northern and Southern blocs. It would be interesting if the new Italian PM were to go down that route.
The federaling momentum comes from the mediterranean states; the Baltics and Ireland will increasingly find a southern-dominated federal union unpalatable.
Italian Banks are going to take a bath tomorrow morning. There will be a great strain on the whole Euro system.
They are already down 95% even before the referendum.
If they require a bailout, can Italy even sustain that level of sovereign debt?
The Italian national debt is roughly €2.5 trillion. Bailing out the banks would put it up less than 2%. Alternstively they could be allowed to fail, tbough that seemed to cause a few problems in the last decade.
Bloomberg cites "proposals to tackle the €360bn of problematic loans" - Assuming they deal with half of this amount, isn't that about a 7% increase in national debt? (my logic may be rubbish)
And it won't be just the loans unless there is fairly dynamic action by the ECB. Forcing a resolution of such loans will crystallise a lot of bad debts in the system not just in the banks and it will undermine asset values and hence the security of other loans.
Greece stretched the ECB to its limits and it was tiny compared to Italy.
It is worth remembering that overall private sector debt levels in Italy are a fraction of what they are in the UK.
Italy is pretty fucked tho. You just have to go there to see it. Italy used to have an export sector and a manufacturing sector to envy, but it's all been hollowed out by the Euro. Sunderland now produces more cars than Italy.
And outside places like Tuscany and Tyrol the infrastructure is stagnant.
It's a wonderful country to visit, enviable and alluring. But...
Like France, unable / unwilling to reform for the realities of the modern world.
I don't see the Euro surviving, as is, another ten years. Impossible. A hardcore will federalise - Germany, Benelux, probably France and Spain, maybe Austria. The rest will detach.
Plus the Baltics, Ireland.
The policy of the FPO was for the Euro to split into Northern and Southern blocs. It would be interesting if the new Italian PM were to go down that route.
That leaves just Italy, Greece and Portugal to detach.
I can't see it myself. Despite all their problems the Greeks wasnt to stay in the Euro. Depreciating your currency is rarely popular.
Why would Italians vote to be 30% poorer overnight?
Italian Banks are going to take a bath tomorrow morning. There will be a great strain on the whole Euro system.
They are already down 95% even before the referendum.
If they require a bailout, can Italy even sustain that level of sovereign debt?
The Italian national debt is roughly €2.5 trillion. Bailing out the banks would put it up less than 2%. Alternstively they could be allowed to fail, tbough that seemed to cause a few problems in the last decade.
Bloomberg cites "proposals to tackle the €360bn of problematic loans" - Assuming they deal with half of this amount, isn't that about a 7% increase in national debt? (my logic may be rubbish)
And it won't be just the loans unless there is fairly dynamic action by the ECB. Forcing a resolution of such loans will crystallise a lot of bad debts in the system not just in the banks and it will undermine asset values and hence the security of other loans.
Greece stretched the ECB to its limits and it was tiny compared to Italy.
It is worth remembering that overall private sector debt levels in Italy are a fraction of what they are in the UK.
Italy is pretty fucked tho. You just have to go there to see it. Italy used to have an export sector and a manufacturing sector to envy, but it's all been hollowed out by the Euro. Sunderland now produces more cars than Italy.
And outside places like Tuscany and Tyrol the infrastructure is stagnant.
It's a wonderful country to visit, enviable and alluring. But...
Dying.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
Italian Banks are going to take a bath tomorrow morning. There will be a great strain on the whole Euro system.
They are already down 95% even before the referendum.
If they require a bailout, can Italy even sustain that level of sovereign debt?
The Italian national debt is roughly €2.5 trillion. Bailing out the banks would put it up less than 2%. Alternstively they could be allowed to fail, tbough that seemed to cause a few problems in the last decade.
Bloomberg cites "proposals to tackle the €360bn of problematic loans" - Assuming they deal with half of this amount, isn't that about a 7% increase in national debt? (my logic may be rubbish)
And it won't be just the loans unless there is fairly dynamic action by the ECB. Forcing a resolution of such loans will crystallise a lot of bad debts in the system not just in the banks and it will undermine asset values and hence the security of other loans.
Greece stretched the ECB to its limits and it was tiny compared to Italy.
It is worth remembering that overall private sector debt levels in Italy are a fraction of what they are in the UK.
Italy is pretty fucked tho. You just have to go there to see it. Italy used to have an export sector and a manufacturing sector to envy, but it's all been hollowed out by the Euro. Sunderland now produces more cars than Italy.
And outside places like Tuscany and Tyrol the infrastructure is stagnant.
It's a wonderful country to visit, enviable and alluring. But...
Dying.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
The Demographics are kept viable by EU migration, with over a million Romanians living there.
Italian Banks are going to take a bath tomorrow morning. There will be a great strain on the whole Euro system.
They are already down 95% even before the referendum.
If they require a bailout, can Italy even sustain that level of sovereign debt?
The Italian national debt is roughly €2.5 trillion. Bailing out the banks would put it up less than 2%. Alternstively they could be allowed to fail, tbough that seemed to cause a few problems in the last decade.
Bloomberg cites "proposals to tackle the €360bn of problematic loans" - Assuming they deal with half of this amount, isn't that about a 7% increase in national debt? (my logic may be rubbish)
And it won't be just the loans unless there is fairly dynamic action by the ECB. Forcing a resolution of such loans will crystallise a lot of bad debts in the system not just in the banks and it will undermine asset values and hence the security of other loans.
Greece stretched the ECB to its limits and it was tiny compared to Italy.
It is worth remembering that overall private sector debt levels in Italy are a fraction of what they are in the UK.
Italy is pretty fucked tho. You just have to go there to see it. Italy used to have an export sector and a manufacturing sector to envy, but it's all been hollowed out by the Euro. Sunderland now produces more cars than Italy.
And outside places like Tuscany and Tyrol the infrastructure is stagnant.
It's a wonderful country to visit, enviable and alluring. But...
Dying.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
Just to add: If you increase taxes on young Italians to pay for retired ones, then you'll drive the bright young ones away.
I don't see the Euro surviving, as is, another ten years. Impossible. A hardcore will federalise - Germany, Benelux, probably France and Spain, maybe Austria. The rest will detach.
Plus the Baltics, Ireland.
The policy of the FPO was for the Euro to split into Northern and Southern blocs. It would be interesting if the new Italian PM were to go down that route.
That leaves just Italy, Greece and Portugal to detach.
I can't see it myself. Despite all their problems the Greeks wasnt to stay in the Euro. Depreciating your currency is rarely popular.
Why would Italians vote to be 30% poorer overnight?
Brexit Britain did precisely that. If we are to believe Remainers.
In the end voters, faced with no prospect of material improvement, and likely decline, shall and do roll the dice. Why not?
Italy is not going to Quitaly. Apart from anything else, they have just voted to keep the same Constitution that prevents it!.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
Birthrates should rise if unemployment and the cost of living decline.
The Demographics are kept viable by EU migration, with over a million Romanians living there.
Yes they are. A collapse of the EU would make very stark the demographic disaster zones that are Italy and parts of Eastern Europe.
I am reminded of the excellent Global Catastrophe by Philip Parker, about the impact of the Little Ice Age on the world. People assumed it was the existing social order (the elites) that was making them poor, when it was climate change. The revolts led, of course, to massively worse life outcomes for the poor.
The next NZ election was due by November 2017. I guess this news is likely to bring it forward to the start of the year.
Don't see why - the National Party will appoint a new Leader, Key will go to the Governor General, resign, and recommend the new leader be appointed PM.......
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Interesting that the total electorate in Italy is 51 million compared to 45 million in the UK. The population of Italy is about 5 million less than the UK.
Italy's collapse in TFR coincided with an economic boom. (No coincidence, of course, women not having babies are able to enter the workforce, boosting economic growth. China's one child policy drove its economic growth too.)
Italy's TFR has actually risen 20% since the mid 1990s, which were Italy's relative economic peak.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also have very low TFR despite strogly growing economies.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
The next NZ election was due by November 2017. I guess this news is likely to bring it forward to the start of the year.
Don't see why - the National Party will appoint a new Leader, Key will go to the Governor General, resign, and recommend the new leader be appointed PM.......
They could decide to seek a new mandate sooner rather than later.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Shanghai maybe the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth, but is the standard of living getting better there?
Are people in Shanghai living in larger and cheaper houses for instance?
Also unemployment made an appearance around the year 1980 in the med. region, before that those economies like Japan had total employment.
Japan too had total employment until the 90's crash which they never escaped.
Living Standards and the Quality of Life play the major role I believe in birth rates.
Unemployment, Inflation, Wage growth, House prices and sizes, the Environment, Physical Health, all play a role in having and raising a family.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Shanghai maybe the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth, but is the standard of living getting better there?
Are people in Shanghai living in larger and cheaper houses for instance?
Also unemployment made an appearance around the year 1980 in the med. region, before that those economies like Japan had total employment.
Japan too had total employment until the 90's crash which they never escaped.
Living Standards and the Quality of Life play the major role I believe in birth rates.
Unemployment, Inflation, Wage growth, House prices and sizes, the Environment, Physical Health, all play a role in having and raising a family.
The standard of living for the average person in Shanghai didn't seem particularly high to me compared to the West when I was there a couple of years ago. A heavy proportion of them seemed to spend a large chunk of their day trying to cross multi-lane roads with no pedestrian crossings.
Shanghai maybe the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth, but is the standard of living getting better there?
Are people in Shanghai living in larger and cheaper houses for instance?
Also unemployment made an appearance around the year 1980 in the med. region, before that those economies like Japan had total employment.
Japan too had total employment until the 90's crash which they never escaped.
Living Standards and the Quality of Life play the major role I believe in birth rates.
Unemployment, Inflation, Wage growth, House prices and sizes, the Environment, Physical Health, all play a role in having and raising a family.
OK. Let's answer this one with data. I don't know the answer and nor do you, so shall we formulate a question that can be answered with data, and then we agree to abide by what the data tells us?
The question is this: is a falling TFR a conseqence of falling economic growth? So, we'll look at 40 odd countries over the last 50 years, and ask what happens in the following cases:
1. In a (five year) period when economic growth decelerates from the previous five years, does the TFR rise or decline? 2. In a (five year) period when economic growth accelerates from the previous five years, does the TFR rise or decline? 3. In a (five year) period when the TFR decelerates from the previous five years, does economic growth rise or decline? 4. In a (five year) period when the TFR accelerates from the previous five years, does economic growth rise or decline?
The data is all available on Google Data Explorer and Trading Economics, shall we both do an analysis and see what the data says and agree to abide by it?
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Shanghai maybe the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth, but is the standard of living getting better there?
Are people in Shanghai living in larger and cheaper houses for instance?
Also unemployment made an appearance around the year 1980 in the med. region, before that those economies like Japan had total employment.
Japan too had total employment until the 90's crash which they never escaped.
Living Standards and the Quality of Life play the major role I believe in birth rates.
Unemployment, Inflation, Wage growth, House prices and sizes, the Environment, Physical Health, all play a role in having and raising a family.
Isn't Shanghai also a discountable exception due to China's one child policies and such historically. State intervention distorting the typical market impacts.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Point of Order, Mr Speaker. The fastest growing economy on earth (of any significant size) is no longer China. It is India. A fact often overlooked.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also have very low TFR despite strogly growing economies.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
Anecdote alert.
A Japanese man who visited America for the first time was astounded that people lived in such large houses, he complained that in Japan there is no room for a family to live in a city apartment yet a single person could have a such a large house all to himself in america.
That's when I first formed the idea that the Quality of Life can drive birth rates.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Shanghai maybe the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth, but is the standard of living getting better there?
Are people in Shanghai living in larger and cheaper houses for instance?
Also unemployment made an appearance around the year 1980 in the med. region, before that those economies like Japan had total employment.
Japan too had total employment until the 90's crash which they never escaped.
Living Standards and the Quality of Life play the major role I believe in birth rates.
Unemployment, Inflation, Wage growth, House prices and sizes, the Environment, Physical Health, all play a role in having and raising a family.
Isn't Shanghai also a discountable exception due to China's one child policies and such historically. State intervention distorting the typical market impacts.
TFRs have collapsed all over Asia, and China has introduced a massive number of exceptions to the one child policy,
Indeed, for all its loosening, the TFR in China keeps falling.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also have very low TFR despite strogly growing economies.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
Anecdote alert.
A Japanese man who visited America for the first time was astounded that people lived in such large houses, he complained that in Japan there is no room for a family to live in a city apartment yet a single person could have a such a large house all to himself in america.
That's when I first formed the idea that the Quality of Life can drive birth rates.
But Singapore has - by any measure - one of the highest standards of living in the world. And it has tiny homes.
Are they deluded? And if so, why are so many people trying to go to Singapore, and so few people trying to leave?
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also have very low TFR despite strogly growing economies.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
Anecdote alert.
A Japanese man who visited America for the first time was astounded that people lived in such large houses, he complained that in Japan there is no room for a family to live in a city apartment yet a single person could have a such a large house all to himself in america.
That's when I first formed the idea that the Quality of Life can drive birth rates.
Tough across the US and rest of the world it is the rich who have the lowest TFR, not those more marginal. I don't think your contention holds up.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also have very low TFR despite strogly growing economies.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
Anecdote alert.
A Japanese man who visited America for the first time was astounded that people lived in such large houses, he complained that in Japan there is no room for a family to live in a city apartment yet a single person could have a such a large house all to himself in america.
That's when I first formed the idea that the Quality of Life can drive birth rates.
Tough across the US and rest of the world it is the rich who have the lowest TFR, not those more marginal. I don't think your contention holds up.
Do you know where you can find data on fertility rates by socioeconomic group?
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also have very low TFR despite strogly growing economies.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
Anecdote alert.
A Japanese man who visited America for the first time was astounded that people lived in such large houses, he complained that in Japan there is no room for a family to live in a city apartment yet a single person could have a such a large house all to himself in america.
That's when I first formed the idea that the Quality of Life can drive birth rates.
But Singapore has - by any measure - one of the highest standards of living in the world. And it has tiny homes.
Are they deluded? And if so, why are so many people trying to go to Singapore, and so few people trying to leave?
And what is the TFR for Singapore ?
I would guess due to the lack of affordability of suitable family accommodation that it is low.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also have very low TFR despite strogly growing economies.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
Anecdote alert.
A Japanese man who visited America for the first time was astounded that people lived in such large houses, he complained that in Japan there is no room for a family to live in a city apartment yet a single person could have a such a large house all to himself in america.
That's when I first formed the idea that the Quality of Life can drive birth rates.
But Singapore has - by any measure - one of the highest standards of living in the world. And it has tiny homes.
Are they deluded? And if so, why are so many people trying to go to Singapore, and so few people trying to leave?
There is also a discipline to living in a small place - limitation on junk and need to be tidy. I suffer the opposite problem, too much space and too much junk
I would guess due to the lack of affordability of suitable family accommodation that it is low.
It is low despite the government having some of the most aggressive pro-natal policies on earth.
My point, though, was that on "quality of life" measures (including surveys), Singapore is one of the - if not the - highest countries on earth. Yet the TFR is still falling. It's not declining because people feel pessimistic about the future, although expensive housing is no doubt an issue, but because {x}*.
* I suspect, but don't know, that it is because people can choose not to have children.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also have very low TFR despite strogly growing economies.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
Anecdote alert.
A Japanese man who visited America for the first time was astounded that people lived in such large houses, he complained that in Japan there is no room for a family to live in a city apartment yet a single person could have a such a large house all to himself in america.
That's when I first formed the idea that the Quality of Life can drive birth rates.
But Singapore has - by any measure - one of the highest standards of living in the world. And it has tiny homes.
Are they deluded? And if so, why are so many people trying to go to Singapore, and so few people trying to leave?
There is also a discipline to living in a small place - limitation on junk and need to be tidy. I suffer the opposite problem, too much space and too much junk
There's probably an optimal population density for procreation. I'd like to study it, but my wife might disapprove.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also have very low TFR despite strogly growing economies.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
Anecdote alert.
A Japanese man who visited America for the first time was astounded that people lived in such large houses, he complained that in Japan there is no room for a family to live in a city apartment yet a single person could have a such a large house all to himself in america.
That's when I first formed the idea that the Quality of Life can drive birth rates.
seems like a fairly ignorant japanese man. Perfectly possible to find large houses. here 50 mins from Tokyo station by shinkansen. Cheap too, especially if you buy a house >20 years old.
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also have very low TFR despite strogly growing economies.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
Anecdote alert.
A Japanese man who visited America for the first time was astounded that people lived in such large houses, he complained that in Japan there is no room for a family to live in a city apartment yet a single person could have a such a large house all to himself in america.
That's when I first formed the idea that the Quality of Life can drive birth rates.
But Singapore has - by any measure - one of the highest standards of living in the world. And it has tiny homes.
Are they deluded? And if so, why are so many people trying to go to Singapore, and so few people trying to leave?
mass hysteria? far too hot and crowded!
i guess there may be a difference "standard of living" vs "quality of life"
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
I have a theory that birthrates decline not only because of birth control but due to a lower standard of living.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
There's certainly truth in that. With a big but.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea also have very low TFR despite strogly growing economies.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
Anecdote alert.
A Japanese man who visited America for the first time was astounded that people lived in such large houses, he complained that in Japan there is no room for a family to live in a city apartment yet a single person could have a such a large house all to himself in america.
That's when I first formed the idea that the Quality of Life can drive birth rates.
But Singapore has - by any measure - one of the highest standards of living in the world. And it has tiny homes.
Are they deluded? And if so, why are so many people trying to go to Singapore, and so few people trying to leave?
mass hysteria? far too hot and crowded!
i guess there may be a difference "standard of living" vs "quality of life"
There's probably an optimal population density for procreation. I'd like to study it, but my wife might disapprove.
Try like I did, what are the things that we would like to have if he had a family ?
A good job. A cheap House with enough rooms, preferably with a garden too. Decent Schools. A peaceful neighbourhood. Low living costs.
Now think of all the things that affect the above.
One of my grandfathers had eleven children. The relevant census has three of the sons still at home and described as farmworkers. Cheaper than employing people, allegedly.
Comments
Is that two sugars in your tea?
As an aside, I've finally finished writing my David Cameron legacy thread. I started writing it in June.
It'll be controversial and surprising in equal parts.
Oh man, when I took that call at 7.45 am on June 24th telling me Dave was going to quit, it is seared on my mind.
Are We Seeing Propaganda About Russian Propaganda?
http://m.slashdot.org/story/319577
Greece stretched the ECB to its limits and it was tiny compared to Italy.
Significant, but not fatal, though the impact on UK banks would not be insignificant.
I got out of my bank shares a while back, apart from Loyds who seem less exposed to international markets.
https://twitter.com/TelegraphNews/status/805554795964600320
Big falls in the value of the Euro; I'm glad I moved into Dollars last week.
And Austria may regret very soon the way they voted today.
https://twitter.com/AfredAlbion/status/805536821044269056
But they don't count.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760656
Wife told him to go.
All credit to him for delivering the referendum. That's a big enough legacy to be going on with.
But it is almost impossible the bank will lose 500k. Even if your property were only worth 250k, and it cost 50k to sell your house, the bank would still only lose 200k - and that's in the circumstance that you had a 200% mortgage.
If you look at loan loss ratios - i.e. what is actually lost when a loan goes bad - across the developed world, they range from 2% to 20%. The difference being (mostly) the type of debt: credit card and other unsecured personal loans are the worst, then unsecured small business lending, then large company lending, then secured lending (either on inventories, recievables, or property).
Italy has very little unsecured consumer credit: average outstanding credit card debt is about a tenth of the level of the UK. In addition, the banks have already taken provisions against losses.
Now, if you believe the Bank of Italy, the cost to the banks of clear-up will be EUR25bn. I think that's low. But even if you assume the number of EUR40bn, it's still chump change, certainly compared to the banking problems we've seen in the UK, the US, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, or even Germany. The Italian government could bail the whole sector out tomorrow, without worsening its financial situtation meaningfully.
He too suffered his own referendum defeat on changing the New Zealand flag for his personal choice.
https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/805557012272660480
It reminds me of a photo of Oct. 1989.
Only Gorbachev stayed on for an extra 2 years.
The policy of the FPO was for the Euro to split into Northern and Southern blocs. It would be interesting if the new Italian PM were to go down that route.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760656&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
It just underlines Merkel's longevity.
{No Xmas for John Quays by The Fall)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHFdYYIaEIc
I can't see it myself. Despite all their problems the Greeks wasnt to stay in the Euro. Depreciating your currency is rarely popular.
Why would Italians vote to be 30% poorer overnight?
Worst demographics in the Western world. Alongside Japan, it's a lesson in what happens when people stop having babies.
Leaving the Euro will probably help Italy, a bit, in that it will enable the country to become poorer by stealth. But it won't stop the fact that there are a diminishing number of working age Italians, supporting an ever larger number of retired ones, and health care costs are ever rising.
Always lurking in the background of most cultural or historical moments, slowly inching his way to the foreground.
There is an inter-generational reckoning coming.
Italy, Japan, Greece, the eastern block ect. had a nosedive which coincided with the arrival of mass unemployment or permanent recession in each of those countries.
That the birthrates recovered in some eastern block countries along with rising living standards after the 90's crash aids my theory.
Birthrates should rise if unemployment and the cost of living decline.
I am reminded of the excellent Global Catastrophe by Philip Parker, about the impact of the Little Ice Age on the world. People assumed it was the existing social order (the elites) that was making them poor, when it was climate change. The revolts led, of course, to massively worse life outcomes for the poor.
The lowest TFR in the world (that I know of) is Shanghai province in China. 0.68 babies per woman over her reproductive years. And Shanghai is the richest part of the fastest growing country on earth.
The Italian TFR collapsed in the 1970s and 1980s, a 25 year period that ended with Italy as a bigger exporter than China, the US or Germany. It's not budged since.
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=1M
See https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:ITA:USA:DEU&hl=en&dl=en
Italy's collapse in TFR coincided with an economic boom. (No coincidence, of course, women not having babies are able to enter the workforce, boosting economic growth. China's one child policy drove its economic growth too.)
Italy's TFR has actually risen 20% since the mid 1990s, which were Italy's relative economic peak.
TFR is falling worldwide, perhaps most dramatically in Iran. It mostly correlates with female education and employment.
It is also important for control of the worldwide population. It is how we adapt to it that matters.
Are people in Shanghai living in larger and cheaper houses for instance?
Also unemployment made an appearance around the year 1980 in the med. region, before that those economies like Japan had total employment.
Japan too had total employment until the 90's crash which they never escaped.
Living Standards and the Quality of Life play the major role I believe in birth rates.
Unemployment, Inflation, Wage growth, House prices and sizes, the Environment, Physical Health, all play a role in having and raising a family.
Mind, I wish I'd gone there 60 years ago.
The question is this: is a falling TFR a conseqence of falling economic growth?
So, we'll look at 40 odd countries over the last 50 years, and ask what happens in the following cases:
1. In a (five year) period when economic growth decelerates from the previous five years, does the TFR rise or decline?
2. In a (five year) period when economic growth accelerates from the previous five years, does the TFR rise or decline?
3. In a (five year) period when the TFR decelerates from the previous five years, does economic growth rise or decline?
4. In a (five year) period when the TFR accelerates from the previous five years, does economic growth rise or decline?
The data is all available on Google Data Explorer and Trading Economics, shall we both do an analysis and see what the data says and agree to abide by it?
A Japanese man who visited America for the first time was astounded that people lived in such large houses, he complained that in Japan there is no room for a family to live in a city apartment yet a single person could have a such a large house all to himself in america.
That's when I first formed the idea that the Quality of Life can drive birth rates.
Indeed, for all its loosening, the TFR in China keeps falling.
Are they deluded? And if so, why are so many people trying to go to Singapore, and so few people trying to leave?
I would guess due to the lack of affordability of suitable family accommodation that it is low.
My point, though, was that on "quality of life" measures (including surveys), Singapore is one of the - if not the - highest countries on earth. Yet the TFR is still falling. It's not declining because people feel pessimistic about the future, although expensive housing is no doubt an issue, but because {x}*.
* I suspect, but don't know, that it is because people can choose not to have children.
i guess there may be a difference "standard of living" vs "quality of life"
http://elezioni.interno.it/referendum/scrutini/20161204/FX01000.htm
A good job.
A cheap House with enough rooms, preferably with a garden too.
Decent Schools.
A peaceful neighbourhood.
Low living costs.
Now think of all the things that affect the above.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy3_k22WQAA5MZ7.jpg
Anyone watching Rillington Place? Tim Roth's portrayal of Christie was genuinely creepy.
Cheaper than employing people, allegedly.