The Real Reason Why The Broligarchs Want Higher Birthrates So Much (And Desperately Fear Low Birthrates Like The Plague)

The Broligarchs (Musk, Trump, Vance, and their entourage), and the oligarchs in general, seem to be panicking now about birthrates being too low for their liking.  Trump himself may not be harping on it so much, but the others are.  And they, along with the rest of the GOP are apparently more than willing to revoke women's hard-won reproductive rights in their zeal to raise the numbers.

But what about the supposedly legitimate economic fears of an aging (and eventually shrinking) population?  Well, a recent study came out that found that such fears are essentially overblown.  In fact, moderately low fertility (i.e. between 1.5-2.0 children per woman) and a shrinking population would actually maximize living standards for the general population.  Another recent study found that there is essentially no robust correlation between population aging and economic growth, contrary to what many people seem to believe.  Not to say that an aging population will not pose some challenges, but on balance the benefits would outweigh such drawbacks.  And our Monetarily Sovereign federal government can easily absorb the fiscal costs of aging such as pensions and healthcare, since the issuer of its own currency by definition has infinite money.

Oh, and by the way, there is that elephant in the room--make that the "elephant in the Volkswagen"--OVERPOPULATION.  Left unchecked, it will destroy the very planet that gives us life.  While technology (and Monetary Sovereignty) can largely solve the foreseeable economic challenges of aging and declining populations, the same cannot really be said of the intractable ecological problems of overpopulation.  And the only ethical way to do this is to voluntarily have fewer children, i.e. well below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 or so.  And the TFR is now below that in the USA, around 1.6 to 1.7.  The recent drop in birthrates is thus actually GOOD news on balance.

But wait, isn't the conspiracy narrative that the oligarchs in general want depopulation?  Well, that may have been true in the past, but now that seems to be more of a "Scooby Doo" narrative (that is, the one that they want us all to "discover").  And in any case, Musk has long called for "more babies", and the Rethuglicans (both MAGA and otherwise) have long been on a self-righteous crusade of sorts to trample and revoke women's reproductive rights.  There seem to be multiple agendas here, but in 2025, they all seem to be coalescing into one overarching agenda:  to prop up the current Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme that is neoliberal late capitalist patriarchy, by any means necessary.

Enter the iron laws of supply and demand, particularly how they apply to labor.  Low birthrates now, by definition, portend labor shortages in the future, all else being equal.  And we know what happened in the decades following the Black Death:  the period from 1350-1500 was known as the "Golden Age of the European Proletariat" per Sylvia Federici.  Why?  Because after the population plummeted following the plague, there was a massive labor shortage, and the working class had a LOT of bargaining power.  Wages went way up, working hours went down, and working conditions improved as well.  And it sounded the death knell for feudalism.  Of course, the ruling class then did two things in response:  1) the Burning Times (witch trials), which killed off many revolutionaries, as Federici notes in her book Caliban and the Witch, and 2) the enclosures of the commons, thoroughly dispossessing and immiserating the working class.  Both of which combined to pave the way for capitalism, and then imperialism, colonialism, and all that jazz, and as they say, the rest is history.  Jason Hickel discusses the latter in depth in his book, Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World.

Cue the predictable cries of "nobody wants to work anymore!" from the chattering classes.  Sound familiar?  It's really more like, no one wants to be exploited anymore.  And the oligarchs fear that like, well, the plague.  Kings need peasants, after all.

Long story short, the ruling class fears a labor shortage, because that would upend their power, faster than they can automate the "problem" away.  So why are they engaging in mass deportations now, which would cause a labor shortage in the short to medium term?  Well, racism and white nationalism, for starters.  And it also serves as a form of "chaos manufacture", that is, deliberately creating unnecessary chaos in a "shock and awe" campaign to mess with everyone's heads so as to seize more power.

In other words, it's all about power and control to these psychopaths, sociopaths, and malignant narcissists.  The kinds of people that are not even bound by logical consistency, let alone ethics and morals.

All the more reason NOT to give the Broligarchs, and the oligarchs in general, what they want.  Fie upon them!

UPDATE:  Antonio Melonio notably wrote a great article called "The Childfree Are Ungovernable", noting how the capitalist oligarchs have another, related major reason why they want the common people to have as many kids as possible ASAP:  to make us all easier to control as good little serfs.  And that dovetails well with another good article of his:  "Declining Birth Rates Are A Good Thing, Actually".

P.S.  Notice also how they want people, especially women, to start having kids as early in life as possible, particularly before beginning any form of higher education.  Thus, when they start early, then it becomes the path of least resistance to keep having one baby after another, kneecapping women's careers and getting women stuck in a quagmire.  That's a feature, not a bug, of their plan to keep women tied down and tethered to men.  And of course, the Broligarchs/oligarchs are also no friend to the vast majority of men either, as clearly working-class men will be financially on the hook for it all if the oligarchs get their way and then gut all social welfare programs.  Much like Adam's punishment in Genesis, "You will work for every crumb", fellas!  If women are to be brood mares, then men will thus have to be...WORK HORSES.  Patriarchy has a rather nasty habit of backfiring on men as well.

Again, all the more reason NOT to give them what they want.  Run, it's a trap!

(Mic drop)

The Real Cause of "Secular Stagnation": Extreme Inequality

Much has been made of the concept of "secular stagnation", namely, that the current and future long-term potential for economic growth has slowed dramatically compared with the not-too-distant past.  Larry Summers defines it as "a prolonged period in which satisfactory growth can only be acheived by unsustainable financial conditions".  And at least since the Great Recession, the data do indeed seem to bear this out.  Most notably, for decades now the American economy has been requiring lower and lower interest rates to get the same effect in terms of boosting aggregate demand, the sine qua non of economic growth.  One can even argue that, relatively speaking, the United States will have had a whopping "lost two decades" of growth from 2000-2020.  We are "turning Japanese", and not in a good way either.

But why is this happening, exactly?  Some blame demographic changes, particularly population aging, as one of the causes.  But while this theory is interesting, it only seems to explain, at most, a tiny portion of the overall trend of secular stagnation.  In fact, a recent study by the American  Economic Association found that there is essentially no robust correlation between population aging and economic growth (or lack thereof).  Why?  Advances in automation and robotics seem to offset the putative adverse effects of an aging workforce to the point where the effect of aging is practically negligible.

In fact, another recent study finds the ideal total fertility rate (TFR) in terms of standards of living overall is in fact in the 1.5-2.0 range, basically the same as what the TSAP has long advocated since our founding nearly a decade ago in 2009.  Yes, really.  Take that, birth dearthers!

Others blame the decline in EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) as cheap and easy fossil fuels are increasingly less readily available than in the past, as well as the planetary limits to growth.  That is indeed true in the very long run at least, and all the more reason to end our inane and insane addiction to growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell which eventually kills its host, by the way.  Though meanwhile, renewable energy technologies are making massives strides, which again looks like it will offset such trends at least partially.

But in the relatively near term at least, the biggest elephant in the room by far in terms of the causes of secular stagnation would be the extreme level of economic inequality in this country that is now back at Gilded Age levels.  Or should we say, at banana republic levels these days.  The top 1% controls roughly 40% of the nation's wealth, the top 20% controls roughly 90%, and the bottom 80% is left to fight over crumbs.  Wages have lagged behind the cost of living for decades despite exponential increases in technological progress and resulting increases in labor productivity.   The oligarchs at the top took nearly all of the gains.  And the rest of us simply cannot afford to keep spending enough to keep the economy going without digging ourselves deeper and deeper in debt.  Eventually, something has to give, since there is not enough aggregate demand, and increasing debt clearly cannot be sustained forever.

Thus, a more accurate definition of "secular stagnation", would be, in the words of the Economic Policy Institute, "a chronic shortage of aggregate demand constraining economic growth".  They really hit the nail right on the head here.  After all, one person's spending is another person's income, by definition, and any business without enough customers will clearly not stay in business for long.

Which, by the way, was also one of the causes of the Great Depression and the long period of secular stagnation that followed until WWII.  The Roaring Twenties also had similarly extreme inequality as well, along with a wildly unregulated financial system.  And we also had a trade war from 1930-1934, which further deepened the Depression.  The only real difference now (aside from the levels of debt today) is the Feral Reserve's monetary policy, but even that will run out of ammo very fast (as interest rates are already low) unless their methods are truly overhauled to accomodate today's realities.

But what about in the long run?  Well, the Keynesian punch line to that is, "in the long run, we are all dead".  Seriously, though, an inequality-induced chronic shortage of aggregate demand not only reduces actual economic growth in the short run, but also reduces potential growth well in the future as well.  That is because less demand today leads to less business investment tomorrow, degrading the economy's productive capacity over time and thus leading to significantly less growth in the long run as well as the short run, creating a vicious cycle and downward spiral.  Hoarding such ludicrous amounts of wealth at the top of the pyramid clearly has serious consequences for the economy and society, and with much larger effect sizes than originally thought.

Thus, policies designed to tackle economic inequality would be beneficial in this regard.  In addition to more progressive taxation of both individuals and corporations (like it was before Reagan) and/or the Universal Exchange Tax and/or Georgist taxation on natural resources, that would also include things like Universal Basic Income (UBI) as well.  And nationalizing the Feral Reserve to make it a truly public national bank that creates money interest-free would be even better still, since usury (interest) and debt-based currency are essentially the biggest weapons of the oligarchy.  Problem solved.

In fact, in our Monetarily Sovereign federal government, Congress can simply spend new money into existence without the strings of interest attached, and without any corresponding increase in tax revenue either.  Rodger Malcolm Mitchell notes this in his Ten Steps to Prosperity, which includes, among other things, Medicare For All, free college for all, and a form of UBI as well.  Interest rates can still be used by the central bank as an inflation-fighting tool, but the creation of money will be decoupled from it.

(Note to Japan:  You should do the same thing as well, especially the helicopter money (QE for the People) and UBI.  Then you will finally get out of your 30 year funk, and possibly even raise your birthrates a bit.)

At the very least, in the meantime, we need to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour to give the lowest-paid workers a boost, which will also have a positive spillover higher up the wage scale.  Also, macroeconomic policy (both fiscal and monetary) should seriously prioritize very low unemployment over very low inflation, since tight labor markets have long been known to give workers much more bargaining power relative to employers. And labor unions also need to be revitalized as well.  Yesterday.

So what are we waiting for?