>>>>>> 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
>> pretty good "what if" story.
>
> I'm not a strict Malthusian. Maybe there's something to the Chinese
> approach.
>
I'm a strict *non*-Malthusian, absent people fiddling about
with the system. The present price of oil, like the price of
housing before it and the price of stocks before that is
100%% an artifact of U.S. Government policy.
100%%. In the case of oil, that's meant upwards and downward
pressure.
> I just don't think they need shark fin soup to get more kids.
>
And colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
> If there's any place that doesn't need an aphrodisiac it's Asia.
>
What a remarkably Hearstian Yellow Peril thing to say....
>
> Bret Cahill
>
--
Les Cargill
