In the US alone .. close to 60 million citizens .. consumers are not alive today ..

[The_Reginator]

Have a look at this: Morality and Policy

I don’t know if I agree on everything there, but he does give food for thought. And he is ‘right on’ many times.

From the script:

As America and most of the western world sink deeper and deeper into the quicksand of
financial insolvency … one major cause of the meltdown … in fact … perhaps THE major
cause of the financial disaster has gone largely unreported.

But what never gets talked about because it would be practically the most politically
incorrect thing that someone could ever say is this … the financial chaos in the west is
owing largely to the single issue of abortion.
In the US alone … close to 60 million citizens … consumers are not alive today … buying,
selling, earning incomes, paying taxes etc.
60 million … with no end in sight. If it were not for immigration … much of it illegal …
America’s population would be declining.

Think about the stupidity of all this for a just a moment … big picture time. Lawmakers in
order to get elected … pander to an increasingly sexualized electorate that wants to have
sex with no consequences … no responsibility.
So lawmakers pass laws and support court decisions which uphold this kind of immoral
behavior. As the behavior increases … the nation becomes more and more numb to any
real sense of personal morality. How can anyone seriously claim to have a conscience
when they aren’t engaged in trying to stop child-killing?
Voters increasingly vote for candidates who promise them the good life with no personal
responsibility or sacrifice required. A vicious cycle sets in where all anyone cares about
is their own self-interest and in the area of sex … that means killing one-third of all
children conceived.

And now view this thread:
Shocking Abortion Statistics

 

[brap]

While I am appalled by the amount of abortions, this is what I would call a stretch of logic.
There are too many jumps in the logic to list here, such as the additional economic pressure those “consumers” would have had on govenment entitlements, the job market, education etc.

Speaking frankly, Mr. Voris suffers from the same problem daily commentators in other fields suffer from, mainly it’s difficult to complain about something every day.

 

[MtnDwellar]

You are correct. It is food for thought. I don’t dismiss his theory. Entitlements, such as Social Security, definitely benefit from an increasing population. It is really hard to say where the economy would be without the loss.

 

[white_sheep]

Abortion may be a minor factor, but very minor. Birth control and postponing childbirth to later in life is slightly more significant. But the real causative factor behind this economic downturn is virtually the same as the cause of the previous 20 or so in the U.S., too much money being lent out at rates which are too low with too little collateral.

 

[Apollos5600]

He is absolutely correct. Michael Voris is doing a great job for the pro-life movement and for the Truth in general. In fact, I would say his arguments against abortion and contraceptives are what have really driven me to seek out becoming a Catholic after years of being a protestant, even a pentecostal.

 

[JimG]

Declining population leads to economic stagnation. There are many formerly thriving small towns in the U.S. and elsewhere which are now dying for lack of population. And once begun, a declining population spiral is difficult if not impossible to reverse. This is the ultimate fruit of the contraception / abortion culture.

 

[Abu]

From The Reginator
one major cause of the meltdown … in fact … perhaps THE major cause of the financial disaster has gone largely unreported.

While the loss of births is real, the problem is not mainly because of that. What is continually ignored, usually because of lack of information, are the reasons for the meltdown.

A substantial and unexpected increase in mortgage defaults as house prices began to fall late in 2006, triggered a chain reaction throughout the entire financial system, as Banks had sold mortgages on the secondary market to Fannie May (the Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) – creatures of Congress and officially known as GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) – whose stock is traded on the N.Y. Stock Exchange as “government securities”. The GSEs bundled these mortgages together and marketed them to investors as mortgage-backed securities. The banks could then issue more mortgages! These are known as sub-prime mortgage securities.

But adjustable rate mortgages, fueled by people speculating in house purchases, and artificially low interest rates created by the Federal Reserve, were a major factor in defaults as prices fell. (Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, Regnery Publishing, 2009, Dr Thomas E Woods, p 22-3).

What was the source of the mortgage defaults in the first place?

As a source of the current subprime mortgage mess, economist Larry Kudlow and Wall Street Journal editorial board member Steve Moore point to the Carter-era law, Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977, that purported to prevent “redlining” - denying mortgages to black borrowers - by pressuring banks to make home loans in “low and moderate-income neighborhoods.” Under the act, banks were to be graded on their attentiveness to the “credit needs” of “predominantly minority neighborhoods.” The higher a bank’s rating, the more likely that regulators would say yes when the bank sought to open a new branch or undertake a merger or acquisition. The two economists, speaking on Larry Judlow’s weekly radio show, noted how the CRA was the creation of the same liberal political establishment that is now blaming banks and Wall Street for the subprime mortgage crisis. (30/3/2008)
[See: The Subprime Mortgage Mess and the Carter-Era Community Reinvestment Act of 1977].

 

[Shredderbeam]

While the loss of births is real, the problem is not mainly because of that. What is continually ignored, usually because of lack of information, are the reasons for the meltdown.

A substantial and unexpected increase in mortgage defaults as house prices began to fall late in 2006, triggered a chain reaction throughout the entire financial system, as Banks had sold mortgages on the secondary market to Fannie May (the Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) – creatures of Congress and officially known as GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) – whose stock is traded on the N.Y. Stock Exchange as “government securities”. The GSEs bundled these mortgages together and marketed them to investors as mortgage-backed securities. The banks could then issue more mortgages! These are known as sub-prime mortgage securities.

But adjustable rate mortgages, fueled by people speculating in house purchases, and artificially low interest rates created by the Federal Reserve, were a major factor in defaults as prices fell. (Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, Regnery Publishing, 2009, Dr Thomas E Woods, p 22-3).

What was the source of the mortgage defaults in the first place?

As a source of the current subprime mortgage mess, economist Larry Kudlow and Wall Street Journal editorial board member Steve Moore point to the Carter-era law, Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977, that purported to prevent “redlining” - denying mortgages to black borrowers - by pressuring banks to make home loans in “low and moderate-income neighborhoods.” Under the act, banks were to be graded on their attentiveness to the “credit needs” of “predominantly minority neighborhoods.” The higher a bank’s rating, the more likely that regulators would say yes when the bank sought to open a new branch or undertake a merger or acquisition. The two economists, speaking on Larry Judlow’s weekly radio show, noted how the CRA was the creation of the same liberal political establishment that is now blaming banks and Wall Street for the subprime mortgage crisis. (30/3/2008)
[See: The Subprime Mortgage Mess and the Carter-Era Community Reinvestment Act of 1977]

.

You’re exactly right.

The Reginator, you’re making the assumption that all of those aborted, had they grown up to be adults, would all be contributing towards the economic recovery. What if they were weren’t? What if they, by taking out more bad loans than the national average, made the situation worse?

 

[The_Reginator]

I see that Real Catholic TV has removed the video I linked to YouTube.
That is unfortunate. I originally started this thread because I found the video to be food for thought.
If anyone is interested, but has not had a chance to watch, the video can be found by going to RealCatholicTV.com.
Under ‘free programs’ look for ‘The Vortex’. This one is entitled Morality and Policy – look for the March programs on the right. (Date: 03-11.)
If you prefer reading, after clicking on the desired video there is the option (if you look carefully to the right of the video) to view the script.
It is worth listening to. As I said in my OP, I don’t agree with everything Michael Voris says here, but it did make me look at another aspect of the situation. An aspect that the secular media will not touch.

Reg.

 

[rcjksu]

It’s an interesting argument but seems to make an implicit assumption that ever increasing consumption is necessary to drive the economy. If the massive amounts of US debt at all levels hasn’t driven a robust economy, I’m not sure additional consumers would. (We’re all spending enough for more than one now anyway.) Economists, as usual, can be found on all sides of the question.

But respectfully, I think it is not a good argument to make, even if we assume it were true. To attempt to counter abortion with economic arguments surely isn’t the best way. Abortion is so unnatural an act and such a heinous offense against inalienable rights that trying to appeal to economic argument seems somehow trivializing and opens some unpleasant doors.

God Bless.

 

[cooterhein]

That’s not politically incorrect. This is politically incorrect- suggesting that abortion has had a socially constructive effect on the nation’s crime rate.

I’m pro-life, but I disagree with a couple of the arguments made here. Number one, it’s true that a declining population is not a good thing, but neither is an exploding population. Extremely fast-growing populations are readily associated with “developing nations” and not “global superpowers;” moderate growth on the order of a 0-5% increase is healthy and that’s what America has. Any loss is troublesome, but the US can easily made up for it through immigration. It’s really not a bad deal when you let another country foot the bill for raising kids who then bring their skills to America and get the work done there. Population growth is right where we want it to be, and if we need it to go up, that’s very easy to do. Keeping growth slow is the hard thing to do in a country like America. Even if immigration were limited to the human capital that’s significantly more valuable than the average American, the US could easily have a population in excess of ½ billion by 2020 if they just started letting more people in. But that kind of growth isn’t what’s good for the country, so it won’t grow quite that fast. In short, the US has a decent handle on its population growth and abortion hasn’t thrown it way off-kilter.

Number two, he says one-third of all children conceived are killed. That’s not really an accurate picture of what happens. First, he chose to talk about “all children conceived.” Truth is, though, one-third of all children conceived fail to implant and they are expelled from a woman’s body in the exact same way that an unfertilized egg is. I would venture to guess that any of the numbers he quotes on “all children conceived” actually refer to “all children conceived that also implant.” It’s a little bit nit-picky, but it also raises a couple of uncomfortable questions. For example, how does he feel about the zygotes that failed to implant? Does he treat that human death just the same as any other human death? Or…if he’s so committed to life beginning at conception, why does he quote figures on abortion that only pertain to children post-implantation?

I don’t completely disagree with all of it, but I do think it’s comical when he says this is practically the most politically incorrect thing that anyone could say. He thinks he’s being daring and edgy? No way, he’s just being conservative, and not even the kind of conservative that scares people. This is pretty pedestrian. I can easily come up with several scenarios that are waaaayyyyy more politically incorrect. I already did one right off the top of my head.

 

[paedagogo]

A more cogent argument could be made that our largest single problem is overpopulation. This is not to say that I approve of abortion, but to point out that this argument is specious. Recently, a member of Congress opined that the reason Social Security is approaching solvency is the reduction in population due to abortion. Of course, he failed to point out that if most of the baby boomers have been aborted, then there would not be so many people to support. The problem is that the Congress has used the fund as a general fund, and not as it was intended. It would have be solvent today, if they had not earmarked its funds for other spending over the decades.

Abortion is intrinsically evil, in my opinion. But don’t try to pin political of economic problems on it. That is just rationalization.

 

[MtnDwellar]

The problem is that the Congress has used the fund as a general fund, and not as it was intended. It would have be solvent today, if they had not earmarked its funds for other spending over the decades.

Abortion is intrinsically evil, in my opinion. But don’t try to pin political of economic problems on it. That is just rationalization.

Yes, I remember congress debating how to spend the Social Security “Surplus”.

The money left after payments could only be considered a surplus if one assumed that the economy would continue to grow at a rate sufficient to fund future expenditures. What were they thinking?

 

[JustaServant]

Have a look at this: Morality and Policy

I don’t know if I agree on everything there, but he does give food for thought. And he is ‘right on’ many times.

From the script:

And now view this thread:
Shocking Abortion Statistics

I think its more than abortion. Artificial birth control has played a major factor as well. Far-thinking people warned about this back in the 1970s, and the chickens have now come home to roost. Never in human history has society exterminated itself out of existence.

 

[brap]

A more cogent argument could be made that our largest single problem is overpopulation. This is not to say that I approve of abortion, but to point out that this argument is specious. Recently, a member of Congress opined that the reason Social Security is approaching solvency is the reduction in population due to abortion. Of course, he failed to point out that if most of the baby boomers have been aborted, then there would not be so many people to support. The problem is that the Congress has used the fund as a general fund, and not as it was intended. It would have be solvent today, if they had not earmarked its funds for other spending over the decades.

Abortion is intrinsically evil, in my opinion. But don’t try to pin political of economic problems on it. That is just rationalization.

The problem in all the arguments (in Congress and those presented by the Vortex) is oversimplification. More people does not necessarily lead to a more robust economy (more accurately it is what becomes of those people - are they added to the welfare roles or the workforce?)

As far as population decline leading to SS solvency, abortion or any decline, would do exacty the opposite (since it is a govenment sponsored Ponzi scheme), less people contributing to the system and an growing aging population withdrawing more out of it.

 

[paedagogo]

The problem in all the arguments (in Congress and those presented by the Vortex) is oversimplification. More people does not necessarily lead to a more robust economy (more accurately it is what becomes of those people - are they added to the welfare roles or the workforce?)

As far as population decline leading to SS solvency, abortion or any decline, would do exacty the opposite (since it is a govenment sponsored Ponzi scheme), less people contributing to the system and an growing aging population withdrawing more out of it.

I agree that these matters are complex. Sometimes common sense which would seem to apply, is not being applied, and sometimes it is very difficult to come to any well reasoned conclusion because of the expertise and breadth of knowledge required.

It came out during this economic crisis that economists largely disagreed as to whether it could even be determined if the economic recovery efforts by the government had a positive or a negative effect during the Great Depression.

I am of the opinion, that in spite of the difficulty in modeling a complex economy, that my simple idea keeping the money paid into the social security trust fund reserved for its own use, and not other government spending, would have left the fund in much better shape today than it currently is. This country experienced phenomenal economic growth for some decades after WW2, and our governmental bodies were not mismanaging things over the short run with deficit spending, because it was reasonable to expect future growth. However, as that growth slowed down, our governments did not react responsibly and do the same thing with government spending. At least that is my simple view of things.

I don’t think our economic problems have much to do with the direct effects of abortion, but then how would you model an analysis of that? I suppose you would assume average income and use of government programs, etc…

I might be inclined to make the case that the general lack of temperance, the ever increasing avarice, with no shame at all when exposed, is all part of the same problem as the sexual promiscuity issues. This is related to the abortion question, in my mind. The growth of selfishness, and the turning away from more noble aims than personal aggrandizement and impulse gratification. This banking collapse, the Madoff scandal, the Enron collapse… the scale of the greed is astounding, and the lack of shame by the perpetrators is as appalling as the governments failure to prosecute anyone, or to enact economic reform. At least in the 1930’s new safeguards were put in place in markets and banking to try to prevent the problem from recurring.

So, in the sense that the increase in abortion rates is also an aspect of more general decline in moral values, then yes, I agree with the premise of this thread.

If anyone is interested in some straightforward tutorials on the current government economic recovery efforts, khan.org has some videos which I have enjoyed.

 

[Abu]

Paedagogo
It came out during this economic crisis that economists largely disagreed as to whether it could even be determined if the economic recovery efforts by the government had a positive or a negative effect during the Great Depression.
…. At least in the 1930’s new safeguards were put in place in markets and banking to try to prevent the problem from recurring.

No wonder there is so little understanding, because economists follow multitudinous theories and until the governmental finagling resulting in the Great Depression is understood little progress will be made.

Unlike the very sharp depression of 1920-21 which was short because it was sensibly handled with virtually no intervention, the Great Depression was caused by pumping money into the economy.

Even Alan Greenspan has highlighted the “excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy," resulting, finally, in an American economic collapse in the Great Depression beginning in 1929 and extending, mostly, until 1941. This judgment which Greenspan makes about the “excess credit” that directly brought about the Great Depression was made in a 1966 article in Ayn Rand’s Objectivist magazine and subsequently republished in Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.[2]
[2] Alan Greenspan, “Gold and Economic Freedom” in Ayn Rand’s *Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal *(New York: Penguin, 1987), pp. 20ff.

At Hoover’s insistence, followed by FDR, wages remained high even throughout the Great Depression propping up unemployment at an average of 18% throughout. The Keynesian “purchasing power” fallacy of prosperity had trumped over the fact that savings are the source of investment. Yet Americans bought more than twice as many refrigerators in 1935 with unemployment over 20% than they bought in 1929 with unemployment at 3.2%, but over a million had no wages at all. By 1938, 1.2 million were out of work. The continued failure was to realise that wages are a cost of doing business and that for maximum employment have to reach a sustainable level.

Without those policies econometric estimates show that the “Depression would have been completely over (less than 5% unemployment) by 1936.” [Richard K Vedder & Lowell E Gallaway, *Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America (New York, Holmes & Meier, 1993, p 142.

The Great Depression was fuelled by Hoover and then F.D.R. using his socialist New Deal by raising taxes, expanding public works spending, establishing welfare programs, destroying existing crops, imposing acreage reduction requirements, legislating for cartels to establish minimum selling prices, and limit output. We all know how deep and long that fiasco was.

In practice, the interventionist, socialist programs failed.

 

[The_Reginator]

Abu & paedagogo: Two very interesting posts!

I’ve always found economics to be almost as boring as politics.
I like how the two of you describe events and responses. Easy enough even for my little brain to understand. (Well, I *think *I understood it all.)

In addition I particularly appreciated this bit as it relates to my OP:

…
I might be inclined to make the case that the general lack of temperance, the ever increasing avarice, with no shame at all when exposed, is all part of the same problem as the sexual promiscuity issues. This is related to the abortion question, in my mind. The growth of selfishness, and the turning away from more noble aims than personal aggrandizement and impulse gratification. This banking collapse, the Madoff scandal, the Enron collapse… the scale of the greed is astounding, and the lack of shame by the perpetrators is as appalling as the governments failure to prosecute anyone, or to enact economic reform. At least in the 1930’s new safeguards were put in place in markets and banking to try to prevent the problem from recurring.

So, in the sense that the increase in abortion rates is also an aspect of more general decline in moral values, then yes, I agree with the premise of this thread.

 

[Sufjon]

You are correct. It is food for thought. I don’t dismiss his theory. Entitlements, such as Social Security, definitely benefit from an increasing population. It is really hard to say where the economy would be without the loss.

The population of the United States has doubled since Neal Armstrong walked on the moon. If we can keep repeating that every forty years, entitlement programs will be the least of our worries.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Abu]

Sufjon
The population of the United States has doubled since Neal Armstrong walked on the moon.

Hardly – an increase of about 55%.
What we do need is to face reality.
See: demographicwinter.com

Europe’s Demographic Winter threatening the U.S.A.
Having Children: Anatomy of a Cultural Strategy
“…for the first time, the birth rate in the United States has fallen below the replacement level. All of this is finally generating a buzz. If you’re a young Catholic looking for an effective long-term strategy to reclaim Western culture, having a large family should be on your short list.”

“Demographic winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends.

Demographer Philip Longman (author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity) observes: "The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st century." Worldwide, birthrates have been halved in the past 50 years. There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility.

“Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach population free-fall in our lifetimes. For some countries, population decline is already a reality. Russia is losing three-quarters-of-a-million people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050.”