It may seem that way to you but you are stuck in the first phase of economic development and seem to argue that no second step can exist when the shows that it is the second step that is the critical factor in controlling population growth.
Well, I'm always up for having my knowledge updated on a topic. What research is that? I'd very much like to see it since it goes against the grain of an important assumption in my political economy thinking.
A) you are agreeing with me that population growth is not a function of women deciding that they want to be free to control their own bodies. B) you agree that Landru was wrong when he asserted that that indeed was the only, or primary reason why birth rates declined as nations got wealthier C) my point to Landru (that you responded to) was that there was more than one thing that could be driving birth rates down. You agreed by listing more reasons that even I hadn't menhtioned D) your response above is a non sequitur
I dunno where I saw, but it was a comprehensive study and it determined that the real causes of birth rate decline in developed nations were many and some of the strongest drivers were really surprising. But here is the most generic pov, and it indicates considerably more complexity than you described: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate
You picked a good name Dingo. Here is one of Dingo's latest posts I take the power that is delivered to me. I can cut back but I can't cut out. The solution will ultimately be collective which takes us into politics. I support a politics that makes us less dependent on fossil fuels but in the mean time I will be using fossil fuel sourced power. I guess that makes me a hypocrite Yes you are a hypocrite. Why don't you just go kill yourself to help redduce the worlds population.
Some politicians try to make the argument that immigration grows the economy. Even if that is true, will this economic growth be able to match the population growth due to immigration? Because if not, if there is more population growth than economic growth, living standards will decline. The economy will only "grow" because there are more people, but each person will (on average) earn less.
You don't know your growth theory. Growth will match population growth, leaving the per capita result unchanged. Of course its different with immigration. Often there will be a productivity hike (e.g. British immigrants, except for the Irish, tend to have higher human capital levels than the native born) and therefore higher growth that we are benefit from
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?
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.
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.
There certainly is a link between poverty and immigration. That typically reflects underpayment of human capital. Nice vocab for exploitation! 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 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
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. http://www.politicalforum.com/immig...elow-voice-against-excessive-immigration.html (skip to the time 3:55 into that video interview)
Basic economic sense 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) 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.
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! 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....
Why do you think Malthusian analysis has been sidelined to Econ 101 growth theory, using it to introduce more complete analysis offered elsewhere?
That and ethnic warfare. I believe ethnic warfare may be a natural population control mechanism. We can see this with different tribes of baboons in Africa, or with territorial predators that hunt in packs.
I think economists should focus much more on the limited land availability in the places decent paying jobs are to be found. We can see that, within the framework of a capitalist society, although there may theoretically still be enough resources for everyone, the theory of Malthus may still be applicable. In an economic system that is incapable of efficiently distributing resources (perhaps no system is), overpopulation can still be a problem.
As already said, Malthus is already used within very specific growth theory (making a mockery of the whole thread mind you)
