Why is the West dying?

How would they even know data pre 1700s lol

Nice try to have an intentionally manipulative graph but the US's position in the world economy is more then fine

>Cultural decay
Inevitable with the decline of the nobility. Will lead to a higher culture.
>moral relativism
Good thing for the amoral
>Marxist infections
Good thing for eveyone not a marxist
>military industrial complex
Good thing for those who aren't pacifists N.B pacifists aren't people
>the intentional dumbing down of the population through public education.
The masses should never have learned to read or had any power in the first place

Why are people so dumb they can't read charts?

>Nominal
Into the trash it goes. Nice try, amerimutt.

globalism increases competition amongst everyone, thereby spreading out the amount of money that at one time only flowed within the west

the west prefers 'cheap' products and services over more expensive 'quality' ones

impediments to business such as taxes, regulations, and accounting standards make operating in non western countries more profitable overall

improvements of technology increase inequality, minimum wage laws also increase inequality. improvements in technology 'create' unemployment by making lower order work unnecessary. this increases demand for higher order work, but the supply doesn't necessarily change. minimum wage laws are an insidious tool of population control, as there is now a minimum requirement of 'skill' to even participate in the market before you can participate in the market to learn the skills necessary to be better in the first place

anyway, next time you shop at walmart look in a mirror

Social welfare was a mistake.

Read this book amazon.com/Welfare-Nations-James-Bartholomew/dp/1849548307

Democrats. Not joking.

you are kind of being shortsighted here since you are looking at one years information instead of a historical perspective.

> % of global GDP
> must add up to 100%

The West is growing like it always was. The rest of the world just stopped being at zero.

> why is west dying

WHY?
Because murifats are ignorant and dumbed down by (((them))) . Eurofags got destabilized by western "intervention" ...that didn't work well, while murica was jewed down, europeans still knew their roots, that's why muricans decided to destabilize middle east, to bring terror and fear to eurofags.

...now eurofags are fucked too because of low-IQ murifats.

FUCK JEWRICA, it's cancer.

the rich are fleeing due to
regulation and socialist governments

HOL UP WHERES AFRICA? WHY ARE WE NOT REPRESENTED? DAS RACIS! WE WERE PRODUCTIVE AS WELL! WE BUILT PYRAMIDS N KINGDOMS N SHIET WHY IS THEY NOT ON THE CHART?

How about:

Growth depends on effective resource allocation. When a country is allocating resources inefficiently, it has a lot of room to grow. The more efficient it becomes, the harder it is to grow, so growth slows down. The US and EUW are already very efficient, but chinks, sand niggers and the like can get easy gains by copying the efficient states.

>hand manufacturing to 3rd world
>allow immigration from 3rd world
It's a fucking mystery.

>The West is growing like it always was. The rest of the world just stopped being at zero.
Not true. The West isn't growing as fast as it used to be and non-western countries are now growing at a much, much faster rate.

Overregulation and taxes

Included in this is every form of Marxism, etc.

Your x axis is all kinds of fucked up

>Why is the West dying?
you know why...best regards from /pol/

This

Europe also had almost 20% of the population in the early 20th century. Now it has 7%

This is the crux of the matter. But things naturally even out so it was probably a matter of time.

Yeah China is just a heavenly place since its GDP started rising

Jews are getting poor

>china was at its poorest from 1950-1980

I wonder what happened during those years

What happened in the 1700?

What the fuck does moral relativism and Marxism have to do with GDP decline? Can you show the causal relation?
Marxism and moral relativism are incompatible by the way, considering Marxists are materialists.

Imagine being this retarded and uninformed. Back to your containment board. /pol/acks are beyond retarded, it baffles me every time. They're still not on SJW level retardness though

ppl don't have enough babies

No, things don't naturally even out, that's never been how anything on this planet has ever functioned.

>doing TA on historical graphs
jesus christ Veeky Forums you really need to get your shit together

>Why is the West dying?

>What the fuck does moral relativism and Marxism have to do with GDP decline?

Moral relativism leads to nihilism which removes internal (fulfillment etc.) motivation for work.
Marxism removes external (money) motivation, as you can get paid doing a bullshit job or being a NEET -- both options are a net GDP sink.
Also the state and/or you wife can take your children willy-nilly, which removes yet another source of motivation.

>Moral relativism leads to nihilism
Which leads to overcoming nihilism after overcoming morality. Which is the beginning of being a good shitcoin trader and person.

Things like minimum wage, taxation, and regulation all can come from that ideology dumbshit
>what is affirmative action
>what is virtually all corporate law
>what is progressive taxation
>what is laws around discrimination
>what is welfare

>they're incompatible
Since when does cognitive dissonance not exist?

>what is affirmative action
>what is virtually all corporate law
>what is progressive taxation
>what is laws around discrimination
>what is welfare
All necessary to keep the slave classes content.

> assuming everyone can get to the ubermensh stage

Who cares about everyone?

and for the record I on't even like Nietzsche I'm just adding in the parts of his ideas that you are borrowing from that you conveniently left out.

The welfare state. Which you might recall was created by german conservatives and upheld by their neoliberal descendants in an attempt to damage control for capitalism.

liberals

So far all of the answers have been Jew scapegoating, Lolbertarian retardation, and /pol/ack MUH SJWS, MUH NIGGERS, MUH MUSLIMS, MUH IMMIGRANTS etc... I expected better from Veeky Forums.

>don't like Nietzsche

stop lyin boi you know you love the man

China will stagnate soon percentage wise. Harder to grow 9% the larger your gdp becomes.

You can always recover. See China.

This only in the capitals of nations that haven't heard of integration.

non-whites and the fall of religion

>Who cares about everyone?

Me.
No man is an island.
We're talking about nihilism's impact on GDP.

Keep going /pol/ski, I'm laughing my ass off. Which ideology are we talking about? The ideology of moral relativism? (if you are smart you will get this joke)

Marx preached the abolition of private property, also known as 'communism'. Now... when private property is not a thing anymore, so is corporate law, taxation and 'welfare' (not sure how you use this term). You Amerifats will parrot anything as gomnisum, but have you ever taken two seconds to learn what Marxism is actually about? I'm not a big fan of Marx, but your reply shows your utter ignorance and you should either
1. Kill yourself
2. Educate yourself

>German conservatives
There has never been a time in the history of the world where Germans were thinking in terms of free markets and private property

They're ultimately ground zero for the cancer killing the West

I'll just refer you to my point about cognitive dissonance

Leftist have no consistent principles about anything, it makes no sense to say that they are incapable of holding two conflicting beliefs

Both are mutually exclusive.

Poltards are truly the most pathetic pieces of trash.

What about the Austrian school of economics? Don't tell me an expert on Western culture does not know the Austrian school?

Divergent from German authoritarian autism

What? I know it is hard for you to formulate a sentence, but what are you trying to say?

wh*Tes are disgusting soulless and godless people though

It dosen't matter whether I like Nietzsche or not it doesn't change the fact I was trying to call out the user for borrowing parts of a great thinkers ideas and conveniently leaving out the important part so he could restructure them to fit his ideas.

What I am doing is like how Nietzsche didn't acknowledge Stirner's influence because it was in his best interests not to appear to be influenced by someone not taken seriously by his peers.

Where is your argument? I won't deny that much leftists suffer from cognitive dissonance (think about the identity politics of pro-hijab feminists), but there are lots of leftists philosophers and intellectual with consistent views. But I guess they're not leftist then? I really do not understand what you are trying to say.

I don't understand what you're asking me to distinguish? When did germany implement Austrian economics?

triggered amerimutt detected. how does it feel to be an inferior subspecie?

The poster said the ideas for the various motivations behind the various forces destroying the country ultimately are coming from moral relativism and notions of Marxism

You asserted that can't be the case because they are mutually exclusive

I'm saying leftists have the ability to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs and this isn't a counter to the argument

>simple answers can't be true

>There has never been a time in the history of the world where Germans were thinking in terms of free markets and private property
I showed you a German school of thinkers who thought in terms of free market and private property. 'What does thinking in terms of' actually mean? Do you mean that in the entire history of Germany people do not know what property and free market is? Do you mean that Germany lacks a free market? If so, why? Your points need arguments, which is hard when you come from the /pol/ echo chamber

He is right though. Modern day western society is the most blasphemous, atheistic, hedonistic society mankind had ever seen. There is literally nothing religious about Western society. That's why they despise Muslims so much. The y actually practice their religion, unlike modern day white ''Christians''

Leftist have no consistent principles about anything, it makes no sense to say that they are incapable of holding two conflicting beliefs
>the ability to hold two mutually exclusive belief
You should really read Baudrillard. I doubt you are capable of understanding his work but you might at least learn to stop autistically screeching "COGNITIVE DISSONANCE".

Any person has the ability to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs. So this means that all people will do so, i.e. actualize that ability? I really don't get what you're trying to say. Read some history and come back.

>Modern day western society is the most blasphemous, atheistic, hedonistic society mankind had ever seen.
And also the most successful. Makes you think.

we ching chong now

He won't read Baudrillard, that's a postmodern French philosopher and the /pol/ boogieman told him that those are actually the Jews killing the white race!!!!!!!11

And I said the type of thinking that supported Austrian economics was divergent from the traditional German thinking.

Germany shows signs of thinking in free market terms doesn't equate to functioning under those terms

Nowhere does the government assert private property or markets should be independent of the government

One could argue that the Austrian school isn't something you can implement, which can be conceded, but it's plainly apparent that the various governments of Germany, and by extension the people, have never made that type of thinking any sort of priority

true

>There is literally nothing religious about Western society
>implying two thousand year old values and culture suddenly disappear
The West is very religious, just without a God. We worship capital and the self now.

>And also the most successful. Makes you think.
>Think that being a degenerate makes a society successful and not the opposite
>knows nothing about the end of empires
t. brainlet

What are you even trying to say? That cognitive dissonance has nothing to do with conflicting thoughts?
>you should read x
It's funny that every time somebody like you cannot convey their beliefs you just refer somebody to a book, as if the argument can be deferred to another time.

So, what part of my post was incorrect?

Not really. Most of the West's success comes from a time when they were extremely religious and conservative. The modern day West is simply riding off that success.

Found the faggot from leftypol
your kind will be killed soon, start worrying

moron

Sorry I'm speaking colloquially, I'll couch it in autism qualifiers for you

"Leftists are *especially* capable of holding two irreconcilable political beliefs at the same time, therefore a criticism that they could not draw inspiration from two irreconcilable beliefs to implement policies with holds no water"

"It doesn't matter that Marxism and moral relativism are incompatible beliefs, because people, especially those that hold beliefs such as these, do not have to reconcile these beliefs to usr them both in policymaking"

Which part of this isn't clear enough for you, dishonest autist?

>There has never been a time in the history of the world where Germans were thinking in terms of free markets and private property
>Germany shows signs of thinking in free market terms doesn't equate to functioning under those terms
You contradict yourself so hard yet you can blattering about 'muh cognitive dissonance'. Thank you for proving once again that you need to be an extremely deluded idiot to become a /pol/ack. I'm out.

The West actually got wealthier and transferred work overseas I think it's actually nothing special really. Changing world, no need to be delusional about it.

>more colloquial nitpicking
People like you are so exhausting to talk to, it's takes really fucking disgusting moral flaws to act like you do

Germans using concepts sparingly does not equate to Germans ultimately guiding their policies by those concepts

Analogies:
>Using sugar does not automatically make the finished product sweet
>Using yellow in a painting does not automatically make a painting bright or particularly yellow
>bringing in some Somali refugees doesn't automatically change the nature of Germany

The West was arguably most succesful right before the First World War, when it colonized or forcefully opened almost the entire world. Christianity was already in decline then (Nietzsche died in 1900).

Great argument

You failed to formulate your point three times in a row. Using precise language is not autism, it is what people who think do. 'The ability to have' is not the same as 'have', and the distinction is not just made by autists.

I still do not get what you are trying to say (it must be my autism). You are saying leftist people hold inconsistent beliefs and use this for policy making. Is leftism a monolith, do they all believe the same things? Are all leftists Marxists?

>Most of the West's success comes from a time when they were extremely religious and conservative.

Western domination started right after secularism, spreading your culture across different continents is not exactly conservative.

>blatantly states false info by overly exaggerating a claim
>realize claim was untrue, decide to back peddle by claiming you meant something different
>say: "Thinking in terms of" means "implementing policy"
>Pointing out a simple inconsistency is the same as having fucking disgusting moral flaws
You have to be a troll. If it's real, then I hope you'll be fine user

Found the relativist.

>Western domination started right after secularism,
Not true. Western dominance started during the Renaissance and Secularism didn't exist in the West until the French Revolution and the ''Enlightenment''. The myth about western dominance starting when the West embraced Secularism is just a lie Liberals preach because they fear westerners will abandon Secularism and other ''Enlightenment'' values if they realize it.

>you failed to make your point three times
No, you're arguing in bad faith or you're just retarded
>the ability to have and have are not the same thing
Obviously, but it's clear what I mean when I am speaking specifically to the issue of Marxism and moral relativism being mutually exclusive, and yet held by leftists, or at least stated so. Its not clear to an autist of course

>is leftism a monolith
More bad faith argument. Its irrelevant whether all believe the same thing. And it's irrelevant whether they're all Marxist. What is relevant is what most do and what most implement

And then you confuse belief with action. As if people don't state they believe in certain things and do something different regularly. After all, women exist. This makes your autistic monolith point even more irrelevant, because even if they all were stated Marxist and supposedly believed the same things, their ideas about what those consisted of, or what their actions consist of could be wildly different

>using precise language isn't autism
Playing the world of forms game is

You seem upset, my pajeet friend.

>Great argument
I dont argue with blog posting faggots they think they are smart because they skimmed a few "intellectual thinkers" books

>blatantly States false info
You haven't demonstrated this to be the case. I've painstakingly played to your autism fetish about the nature of Germany's implementation of economics vs the Austrian school, which was not implemented by a German government, and you want to jerk off more

I won't indulge the rest. Kill yourself faggot