These are notes collated in the context of research. It has often been said that a falling population will mean a falling economy (as said by Sir Mark Boleat, for example, and which I referenced in a previous blog post). In fact, as these extracts show, that is a rather simplistic equation, which does not in fact hold true.
Steven A. Camarota on Population Growth and Economy
It is often assumed that a larger population almost always results in a larger aggregate economy. More workers, more consumers, and more government spending will make for a larger GDP. But the standard of living in a country is determined by per capita (i.e., per person) GDP, not the overall size of the economy. If all that mattered were the aggregate size of the economy, then a country like India would be considered vastly richer than a country like Sweden because it has a much larger economy. In reality, per capita GDP determines a country's standard of living.
It is worth adding that arguments for more population growth may be heard more sympathetically by many Americans who think of slow population growth or population decline as inherently undesirable because it is often associated with cities where problems like crime, chronic unemployment, and poor public services are pronounced (e.g. Detroit). But in such places the falloff in population is a symptom of social problems, as people fled the city; it is not the cause of the problems.
The chief justification for advocates who want to spur population growth, including through increased immigration, is that doing so is vital to maintaining robust economic growth. In truth, there is no clear link between the two. More people will generally make for a larger economy, but it is per capita GDP, not aggregate GDP, that determines the standard of living in the country.
https://cis.org/Camarota/There-No-Evidence-Population-Growth-Drives-Capita-Economic-Growth-Developed-Economies
Joseph Chamie, former director of the population division of the United Nations, on Ponzi Demography.
According to Ponzi demography, population growth — through natural increase and immigration — means more people leading to increased demands for goods and services, more material consumption, more borrowing, more on credit and of course more profits. Everything seems fantastic for a while — but like all Ponzi schemes, Ponzi demography is unsustainable.
When the bubble eventually bursts and the economy sours, the scheme spirals downward with higher unemployment, depressed wages, falling incomes, more people sinking into debt, more homeless families — and more men, women and children on public assistance.
Among its primary tactics, Ponzi demography exploits the fear of population decline and aging. Without a young and growing population, we are forewarned of becoming a nation facing financial ruin and a loss of national power.
Due to population aging, government-run pensions and healthcare systems will become increasingly insolvent, according to advocates of Ponzi demography, thereby crippling the economy, undermining societal well-being and threatening national security.
In addition to measures to increase fertility levels, Ponzi demography also turns to immigration for additional population growth in order to boost companies’ profits. The standard slogan in this instance is "the country urgently needs increased immigration," even when immigration may already be at record levels and unemployment rates are high.
Among other things, increased immigration, it is declared, is a matter of national security, long-term prosperity and international competitiveness. Without this needed immigration, Ponzi demography warns that the country's future is at serious risk.
Another basic tactic of Ponzi demography is a pervasive and unrelenting public relations campaign promoting the advantages and necessity of an increasing population for continued economic growth. Every effort is made to equate population growth with economic prosperity and national progress.
Despite its snake-oil allure of "more is better," Ponzi demography's advocacy for ever-increasing population growth is ultimately unsustainable. Such persistent growth hampers efforts to improve the quality of life for today's world population of nearly seven billion people as well as for future generations.
Moving gradually towards population stabilization, while not a panacea for the world's problems, will make it far easier to address problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, poverty and development, human rights abuses and shortages of water, food and critical natural resources.
https://www.theglobalist.com/is-population-growth-a-ponzi-scheme/
Steven A. Camarota on Population Growth and Economy
It is often assumed that a larger population almost always results in a larger aggregate economy. More workers, more consumers, and more government spending will make for a larger GDP. But the standard of living in a country is determined by per capita (i.e., per person) GDP, not the overall size of the economy. If all that mattered were the aggregate size of the economy, then a country like India would be considered vastly richer than a country like Sweden because it has a much larger economy. In reality, per capita GDP determines a country's standard of living.
It is worth adding that arguments for more population growth may be heard more sympathetically by many Americans who think of slow population growth or population decline as inherently undesirable because it is often associated with cities where problems like crime, chronic unemployment, and poor public services are pronounced (e.g. Detroit). But in such places the falloff in population is a symptom of social problems, as people fled the city; it is not the cause of the problems.
The chief justification for advocates who want to spur population growth, including through increased immigration, is that doing so is vital to maintaining robust economic growth. In truth, there is no clear link between the two. More people will generally make for a larger economy, but it is per capita GDP, not aggregate GDP, that determines the standard of living in the country.
https://cis.org/Camarota/There-No-Evidence-Population-Growth-Drives-Capita-Economic-Growth-Developed-Economies
Joseph Chamie, former director of the population division of the United Nations, on Ponzi Demography.
According to Ponzi demography, population growth — through natural increase and immigration — means more people leading to increased demands for goods and services, more material consumption, more borrowing, more on credit and of course more profits. Everything seems fantastic for a while — but like all Ponzi schemes, Ponzi demography is unsustainable.
When the bubble eventually bursts and the economy sours, the scheme spirals downward with higher unemployment, depressed wages, falling incomes, more people sinking into debt, more homeless families — and more men, women and children on public assistance.
Among its primary tactics, Ponzi demography exploits the fear of population decline and aging. Without a young and growing population, we are forewarned of becoming a nation facing financial ruin and a loss of national power.
Due to population aging, government-run pensions and healthcare systems will become increasingly insolvent, according to advocates of Ponzi demography, thereby crippling the economy, undermining societal well-being and threatening national security.
In addition to measures to increase fertility levels, Ponzi demography also turns to immigration for additional population growth in order to boost companies’ profits. The standard slogan in this instance is "the country urgently needs increased immigration," even when immigration may already be at record levels and unemployment rates are high.
Among other things, increased immigration, it is declared, is a matter of national security, long-term prosperity and international competitiveness. Without this needed immigration, Ponzi demography warns that the country's future is at serious risk.
Another basic tactic of Ponzi demography is a pervasive and unrelenting public relations campaign promoting the advantages and necessity of an increasing population for continued economic growth. Every effort is made to equate population growth with economic prosperity and national progress.
Despite its snake-oil allure of "more is better," Ponzi demography's advocacy for ever-increasing population growth is ultimately unsustainable. Such persistent growth hampers efforts to improve the quality of life for today's world population of nearly seven billion people as well as for future generations.
Moving gradually towards population stabilization, while not a panacea for the world's problems, will make it far easier to address problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, poverty and development, human rights abuses and shortages of water, food and critical natural resources.
https://www.theglobalist.com/is-population-growth-a-ponzi-scheme/
Jeff McMahon on Population Pyramid Schemes
The world economy is based on ever-increasing population, said Nobel laureate Steven Chu, a scheme that economists don't talk about and that governments won't face, a scheme that makes sustainability impossible and that is likely to eventually fail.
"The world needs a new model of how to generate a rising standard of living that’s not dependent on a pyramid scheme," Chu said at the University of Chicago..
"Increased economic prosperity and all economic models supported by governments and global competitors are based on having more young people, workers, than older people," Chu said. "Two schemes come to mind. One is the pyramid scheme. The other is the Ponzi scheme. I’m not going to explain them both to you, you can look it up. But it’s based on growth, in various forms."
For example, healthy young workers pay the health care costs for aging workers and retirees, the former energy secretary said, a scheme that requires increasing numbers of young workers. And economic growth requires more and more people to buy more and more stuff, with dire environmental consequences.
There are at least two problems with that: "Depending on a pyramid scheme or a Ponzi scheme, there’s no such thing as sustainability," Chu said. As standards of living increase, population growth declines. So if the economy succeeds in raising standards of living, it undermines itself.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/04/05/the-world-economy-is-a-pyramid-scheme-steven-chu-says
David R. Francis on Population and Older Citizens
Growth, whether through immigration or natural increase, is a plus for some groups. For business, it means a boost in the demand for products. It also means a surge in low- and high-skilled workers, which can keep a lid on wage pressures.
But the public pays a cost for a bigger population.
Mr. Chamie speaks of more congestion on highways, more farmland turned into housing developments, more environmental damage, including the output of pollutants associated with climate change.
Of course, there are also costs for countries with stable or declining populations.
They will need to spend more looking after older citizens and, yes, some industries like housing will shrink. But governments won’t have to spend as much on children. And any labor shortage would fade if increasingly healthy older people worked an extra year or two before retiring to maintain their standard of living.
Raising the average retirement age does far more to increase the working population than increasing immigration levels, says Steven Camarota, research director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank opposed to high immigration. Industrial nations with large service industries have plenty of employment opportunities for seniors, as opposed to poor countries where many jobs – say, planting rice or other crops – are hard work.
The goal should be gradual population stabilization, Chamie says. The costs of an aging but stable population would be more manageable than those of a population boom.
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2009/0817/economic-scene-is-population-growth-a-ponzi-scheme
Quentin Dempster on the Hidden Costs of Population Growth
It has come because they acknowledge quality of life is declining, major cities are increasingly gridlocked, housing is unaffordable, there is a discernible degree of mortgage stress and infrastructure, particularly public transport, is inadequate. The population growth debate was provoked by former PM Kevin Rudd's faux pas that he favoured a 'big Australia'. The debate exposed a very real concern that, if allowed to continue at present levels to the projected 36 million people by 2050, population growth will only exacerbate these adverse conditions.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-05/population-sustainability-and-the-ponzi-demography/933620
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment