Thread: The economy versus population growth

Originally Posted by Reiver

So? What argument you going to go with that? International inequalities and possible resource conflict with economic development? Difference between economic growth and sustainable growth? Some other variation?

Sure.... let's go with that!

Originally Posted by grantedpanda

Sure.... let's go with that!

Which one? The conflict angle is a little suspect. We're still waiting, for example, for the predicted 'water wars'. To go for sustainable growth argument you're going to have to apply some sort of green economics, using that to reject orthodox growth theory.

Originally Posted by Reiver

You don't know your growth theory. Growth will match population growth, leaving the per capita result unchanged.

And how exactly will economic growth match population growth if there are only low wage jobs available for most of these immigrants?
No, bringing in migrants is just bringing in mass poverty.

Your ideology seems to only focus on labor, while neglecting the importance of capital.
These immigrants (for the most part) do not bring money or capital with them. We already have an oversupply of labor.
Just because an unfilled job exists in our country does not mean we should automatically bring someone in from outside to do it.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

And how exactly will economic growth match population growth if there are only low wage jobs available for most of these immigrants?
No, bringing in migrants is just bringing in mass poverty.

There certainly is a link between poverty and immigration. That typically reflects underpayment of human capital. Nice vocab for exploitation!

Your ideology seems to only focus on labor, while neglecting the importance of capital.

The two cannot be separated so you're talking guff. Understanding labour (such as the human capital levels of immigrants compared to the native born) helps us understand the product market and therefore the return to capital

These immigrants (for the most part) do not bring money or capital with them. We already have an oversupply of labor.

Capitalism naturally delivers involuntary unemployment. However, that cannot be understood in the standard 'oversupply of labour' terms. It cannot, for example, be understood as simply a wage floor that exceeds the market clearing level of labour. An increase in human capital does not then increase unemployment, nor can we refer to the standard 'they're stealing our jobs' myth. Productivity (and therefore the demand for labour) also increases.

You again show no understanding of supply & demand

Originally Posted by Reiver

An increase in human capital does not then increase unemployment,

How can you actually say this? What about all those unemployed russian PhD's that come to the western countries to take menial jobs?
I believe that "human capital" accounts for only a small portion of the overall price-worth of capital.

Obviously, if (hypothetically) capital was unlimited and free for all, an oversupply of labor could not result in unemployment.
But this is not reality. Workers are competing amongst eachother for access to limited land where the job opportunity is, not to mention other natural resources whose ownership is concentrated amongst the wealthy.

Your emphasis on human capital is only part of the overall workings of the economy. The other half is Marxian economics.
Peter Brimelow (who is a conservative) made this quite clear during an interview about immigration.
Peter Brimelow, a voice against excessive immigration
(skip to the time 3:55 into that video interview)

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

How can you actually say this?

Basic economic sense

I believe that "human capital" accounts for only a small portion of the overall price-worth of capital.

You only show ignorance of the term. Human capital isn't an element of capital. Different terms are used for different forms of investment. Human capital, by definition, increases productivity and therefore economic activity (essentially there is an outward shift in the production possibility frontier). Social capital, in contrast, is an investment in friends and family (leading to a change in marginal utilities within the utility function)

Your emphasis on human capital is only part of the overall workings of the economy. The other half is Marxian economics.

This doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Reiver

This doesn't make sense.

Probably because you were never really taught about, nor cared to learn about Marxian economics.
I blame the economics departments in the unversities for failing to teach it. It should be part of basic economics classes. Instead, they only make brief mention to Marx instead of saying what the root of Marxian theory is about, which is that the supply/demand of labor determines wages. More wealth in the hands of a few individuals can (potentially) make the masses worse off, by increasing the cost of capital.

The only thing I do not particularly like about Marxist economics is that they fail to distinguish finite natural resource capital from human-made capital.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Probably because you were never really taught about, nor cared to learn about Marxian economics.

I haven't seen you come out with one valid reference to Marxist economics. Crikey, you tried to refer to supply & demand (standard neoclassical economics) in trying to understand labour outcome. Admittedly you made a pig's ear of it!

...they only make brief mention to Marx instead of saying what the root of Marxian theory is about, which is that the supply/demand of labor determines wages.

Crikey, you couldn't be more wrong. Could you think before typing?

You have identified one of the most serious threats to the planet.....You dont need to be a mathematical genius to work out that this is clearly unsustainable....and its certainly not helped when we have backward thinking primitive fools in the Catholic church,telling their flock not to use contraception......Its not the first time these idiots have interfered with common sense intelligent science....

Originally Posted by Dingo

With roughly 200,000 new people being added to the earth every day I'd like to have some of the economic geniuses on this forum come up with an economic solution to the challenges of providing for all these new folks.

You haven't got a solution? Then what alternative do you contemplate?

sadly, when populations get to big, plague is mother earth's answer