|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jun 24, 2008 16:41
>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>> Now I know the concept of growth rates over time is difficult for some
>> but _over time_ the Chinese economy will be larger than the American
>> economy.
> Quite likely. They are, in fact, a
> much larger country than ours.
If that economic theory were true we could increase our growth rate --
and always stay ahead of China -- simply by having 8 children / family
for a generation.
Are you Catholic? The Pope will make you a saint if you can get
anyone to believe that economic theory!
Bret Cahill
|
| |
|
| | 95 Comments |
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Jun 24, 2008 18:42
On Jun 24, 8:55Â pm, Larry y.com> wrote:
> You don't believe economic growth and population growth are related?
Yes, they are - but only on the precondition of free markets.
In backward/socialist, etc countries more people means more burden -
more mouths to feed when they can't even feed the mouths they've got
now.
But more people in a free market is a huge opportunity. It's a
resource to tap for increased production. That's why we were once able
to easily absorb 10's of millions of immigrants. We still could of
course - and should.
Fred Weiss
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Les CargillLes Cargill Date: Jun 24, 2008 19:28
Larry wrote:
> In article
> t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>>>> Now I know the concept of growth rates over time is difficult for some
>>>> but _over time_ the Chinese economy will be larger than the American
>>>> economy.
>>> Quite likely. They are, in fact, a
>>> much larger country than ours.
>> If that economic theory were true we could increase our growth rate --
>> and always stay ahead of China -- simply by having 8 children / family
>> for a generation.
>
> We probably could, as long as we could support all those people with
> jobs, goods, and services. Those would be 8 more jobs than now and 8
> more consumers.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.11Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BretCahillBretCahill Date: Jun 24, 2008 19:50
>>>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>>>>> Now I know the concept of growth rates over time is difficult for some
>>>>> but _over time_ the Chinese economy will be larger than the American
>>>>> economy.
>>>> Quite likely. �They are, in fact, a
>>>> much larger country than ours.
>>> If that economic theory were true we could increase our growth rate --
>>> and always stay ahead of China -- simply by having 8 children / family
>>> for a generation.
>
>> We probably could, as long as we could support all those people with
>> jobs, goods, and services. �Those would be 8 more jobs than now and 8
>> more consumers.
>
>> Let's make it simple for you and look at it the other way. �What will
>> happen to economic growth if instead of 8 children/family, an entire
>> generation has no children at all?
>
> That is the premise of the movie "Children of Men", and it's a ...
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ron PetersonRon Peterson Date: Jun 24, 2008 21:07
On Jun 24, 6:41 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
>> Quite likely. They are, in fact, a
>> much larger country than ours.
> If that economic theory were true we could increase our growth rate --
> and always stay ahead of China -- simply by having 8 children / family
> for a generation.
Progress depends on growth in human knowledge and more people will
enable that. At some point high populations may reduce the standard of
living to the point that time and resources for developing human
knowledge and technology would be less than a smaller population would
have available.
--
Ron
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: The TruckerThe Trucker Date: Jun 24, 2008 21:08
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:42:01 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:
> On Jun 24, 8:55Â pm, Larry y.com> wrote:
> >> You don't believe economic growth and population growth are related?
>
> Yes, they are - but only on the precondition of free markets.
Once the population has increased to the point where division and
specialization of labor contributes less than the loss to land rents then
additional population simply increases rents and results in less economic
growth. This can be augmented by technological innovation and real
capital development. But all too often, the gains are so malapportioned
that rent is still the determining factor.
> In backward/socialist, etc countries more people means more burden -
> more mouths to feed when they can't even feed the mouths they've got
> now.
|
| Show full article (2.35Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: The TruckerThe Trucker Date: Jun 24, 2008 21:14
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:50:57 -0700, BretCahill wrote:
>>>>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>>>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>>>>>> Now I know the concept of growth rates over time is difficult for some
>>>>>> but _over...
|
| Show full article (1.92Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jun 24, 2008 21:16
Rightards still believe there's an infinite supply of oil.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jun 24, 2008 21:21
>>> Quite likely. �They are, in fact, a
>>> much larger country than ours.
>> If that economic theory were true we could increase our growth rate --
>> and always stay ahead of China -- simply by having 8 children / family
>> for a generation.
> Progress depends on growth in human knowledge and more people will
> enable that. At some point high populations may reduce the standard of
> living to the point that time and resources for developing human
> knowledge and technology would be less than a smaller population would
> have available.
The only solution is the Jewish - European way:
High advances in technology and low birth rates.
As they say in Rome, "when on Earth, do as the Italians do: Ignore
the Pope."
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Jun 24, 2008 21:44
On Jun 25, 12:16Â am, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
> Rightards still believe there's an infinite supply of oil.
There is. Well...not literally an "infinite" supply. But it is
certainly infinite for all practical purposes - assuming of course
continued advances in technology (which are only possible in free
markets).
However, it doesn't matter anymore today than it did 150 years ago
when we were "running out" of whale oil.
(We've also of course been "running out" of petroleum about every
10-20 years for the last 100 years).
Well before we "run out", we will have developed viable and real
alternatives (probably something no one has heard of or is even
imagining today) - again, only assuming free markets to provide the
profit incentive to find them.
Fred Weiss
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
