As official data shows that recent immigrants' fertility rates are collapsing even faster than those of the native populations, we must ponder its implications--and it surely ain't pretty
Allow Western nations to grow continously more efficient to the point that once the demographic hump caused by the generation born 1940s is passed, shrinking population is not a problem. Technology will compensate for lower population numbers. Basic standard of living can be made comfortable even for those unable to work. Social problems can be solved in several different ways tailored to each case.
Consequences: lowered profits over time for the capitalists, lowered power-levels over time due to fewer and fewer administrators and politicians needed to make things run. Greater autonomy and freedom for the citizenry means they will have a great ability to tell capitalists and governments alike "No" to a lot of things the citizenry doesn't approve of, without fear of loss of standard of living, comforts, and so on. This will lead to forther loss of power.
Option two: increase population by artificial means to create a market to offset superfluous products from financing it with punitive taxes turning at least 80% of the population into de facto tax-serfs with little to no real freedom. This will keep profits in an ever-increasing loop for the capitalists while the collateral - whatever infrastructure and order built by said nations from 1945 to present (1970s) - is increasingly broken down via cost cuts with no corresponding lowering of taxes, said taxes financing migration as a vessel for transfering the taxes to the capitalists. This will also necessitate the permament administrative state's continous growth, making it more and more intrusive and controlling of all aspects as tensions and conflicts within a multicultural state grow.
---
And this is pretty much what they actually wrote, but using less direct language, in various reports and articles between the 1970s (RAND Corp. f.e. or Swedish SAF, now called Timbro-SNS), and made people believe in as a good thing.
Makroscale events such as invasion-migration do not happen by chance.
So, the question before is this: is there a way for Western-style Capitalism™ to morph, on a macro-scale, from being based on ever-expanding (population and production) growth to profiteering off population decline?
The short answer is, they could have accepted longer ROIs, and also accepted smaller wage-gaps between the highest income brackets and the majority.
Instead of 1 000 000 000:-/year in profits to the share-holders, perhaps "only" 750 000 000 would do it, the difference instead being invested into long-term improvements for workers, environment and so on.
And equal actions by the state, in the areas of personal freedom and autonomy - household taxing perhaps, with a bar to clear before you pay any taxes in the first place. Slightly lower tax-take by the state, but on the other hand lower outlays too when people have to handle things themselves (snow-plowing in the country f.e. - it needs doing under any system).
Also, focusing on high-end quality production with re-usability and repairability in the products, meaning higher price per unit but fewer units sold, rather than the opposite plus outsourcing.
Essentially, they - the movers and makers of the system we live within - faced the choice faced by all empires:
Either build long-term infrastructure to the benefit of all, or build monuments to your own glory.
My above point, however, was something else: since the advent of industrialisation, growth was the mantra; with population decline baked into the system due to demographic dynamics (and no change in sight, that is, outside North Korea, of all places), what we call Capitalism™ cannot, by definition, continue to exist (let's set aside terminological quibbles for a moment and hear me out):
Thus, if Capitalism™ so far meant economic growth coupled to eternal expansion of finance, production, consumption, and, ultimately, population, can the same power-structure morph into something that is based on the inverse of these meta categories?
Technically, if productivity offsets population/consumption/production/financial decline, then the answer is perhaps 'maybe'--not because AI™ and robotics couldn't squeeze production costs by such margins that even the manufacturing of durable goods (cars, fridges, whatnot) continues to be lucrative for some time. But: at some point, population decline will offset these gains (if there are, in fact, going to be any), which is to say that there won't be enough consumers (though wage growth will certainly offset this partially due to fewer and fewer people being around). At a certain point in time, however, no amount of money™ will induce people to buy™ ever-cheaper and more durable goods.
In short, if it's the amount of consumers that's becoming increasingly scarce, and since Capitalism™ is essentially based on scarcity, it cannot, by definition, continue (much longer).
We won't therefore also not see a regression into feudalism, techno-fascist or otherwise, for scarcity also determined pre-industrial social formations as a post-Capitalism™ society cannot maintain transportation networks into outlying areas due to under-usage and cost constraints. I suppose we'll see a few large conurbations with manufacturing still present, jobs, and social formations mimicking our present condition, but AI™ will likely run these (plus yuuuuuuuge black markets for everything).
Option One:
Allow Western nations to grow continously more efficient to the point that once the demographic hump caused by the generation born 1940s is passed, shrinking population is not a problem. Technology will compensate for lower population numbers. Basic standard of living can be made comfortable even for those unable to work. Social problems can be solved in several different ways tailored to each case.
Consequences: lowered profits over time for the capitalists, lowered power-levels over time due to fewer and fewer administrators and politicians needed to make things run. Greater autonomy and freedom for the citizenry means they will have a great ability to tell capitalists and governments alike "No" to a lot of things the citizenry doesn't approve of, without fear of loss of standard of living, comforts, and so on. This will lead to forther loss of power.
Option two: increase population by artificial means to create a market to offset superfluous products from financing it with punitive taxes turning at least 80% of the population into de facto tax-serfs with little to no real freedom. This will keep profits in an ever-increasing loop for the capitalists while the collateral - whatever infrastructure and order built by said nations from 1945 to present (1970s) - is increasingly broken down via cost cuts with no corresponding lowering of taxes, said taxes financing migration as a vessel for transfering the taxes to the capitalists. This will also necessitate the permament administrative state's continous growth, making it more and more intrusive and controlling of all aspects as tensions and conflicts within a multicultural state grow.
---
And this is pretty much what they actually wrote, but using less direct language, in various reports and articles between the 1970s (RAND Corp. f.e. or Swedish SAF, now called Timbro-SNS), and made people believe in as a good thing.
Makroscale events such as invasion-migration do not happen by chance.
So, the question before is this: is there a way for Western-style Capitalism™ to morph, on a macro-scale, from being based on ever-expanding (population and production) growth to profiteering off population decline?
The short answer is, they could have accepted longer ROIs, and also accepted smaller wage-gaps between the highest income brackets and the majority.
Instead of 1 000 000 000:-/year in profits to the share-holders, perhaps "only" 750 000 000 would do it, the difference instead being invested into long-term improvements for workers, environment and so on.
And equal actions by the state, in the areas of personal freedom and autonomy - household taxing perhaps, with a bar to clear before you pay any taxes in the first place. Slightly lower tax-take by the state, but on the other hand lower outlays too when people have to handle things themselves (snow-plowing in the country f.e. - it needs doing under any system).
Also, focusing on high-end quality production with re-usability and repairability in the products, meaning higher price per unit but fewer units sold, rather than the opposite plus outsourcing.
Essentially, they - the movers and makers of the system we live within - faced the choice faced by all empires:
Either build long-term infrastructure to the benefit of all, or build monuments to your own glory.
All of what you write is, of course, correct.
My above point, however, was something else: since the advent of industrialisation, growth was the mantra; with population decline baked into the system due to demographic dynamics (and no change in sight, that is, outside North Korea, of all places), what we call Capitalism™ cannot, by definition, continue to exist (let's set aside terminological quibbles for a moment and hear me out):
Thus, if Capitalism™ so far meant economic growth coupled to eternal expansion of finance, production, consumption, and, ultimately, population, can the same power-structure morph into something that is based on the inverse of these meta categories?
Technically, if productivity offsets population/consumption/production/financial decline, then the answer is perhaps 'maybe'--not because AI™ and robotics couldn't squeeze production costs by such margins that even the manufacturing of durable goods (cars, fridges, whatnot) continues to be lucrative for some time. But: at some point, population decline will offset these gains (if there are, in fact, going to be any), which is to say that there won't be enough consumers (though wage growth will certainly offset this partially due to fewer and fewer people being around). At a certain point in time, however, no amount of money™ will induce people to buy™ ever-cheaper and more durable goods.
In short, if it's the amount of consumers that's becoming increasingly scarce, and since Capitalism™ is essentially based on scarcity, it cannot, by definition, continue (much longer).
We won't therefore also not see a regression into feudalism, techno-fascist or otherwise, for scarcity also determined pre-industrial social formations as a post-Capitalism™ society cannot maintain transportation networks into outlying areas due to under-usage and cost constraints. I suppose we'll see a few large conurbations with manufacturing still present, jobs, and social formations mimicking our present condition, but AI™ will likely run these (plus yuuuuuuuge black markets for everything).
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney Australia
Plus you can virtue-signal those who resist into the shame corner: 'oh, you're so anti-democratic, it's disgusting'.