Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sharpe

  1. Mortality improvements have gone upwards (google the cohort effect) in the developed world. You are right older working people will have greater health risks, but inspite of this will be net producers. The saving comparison you are making is what young adults need to do for their children vs what older people do for their health care. As savings will fall for child care as a proportion of the population, this might be partially offset by saving for health care of older workers. With a significantly higher proportion of the population working in future output can be maintained for the same labour spread over more people and less days a week.
  2. Great we have the full range - population explosion to population collapse. Whilst it is worth understanding the likely consequences of any of these scenarios - it is speculation to suggest anyone as more likely.
  3. As we have seen before projecting mortality improvements is not scientific. It is highly subjective - and boasts a long history of widely inaccurate doom sayers. If the number of years in retirement stays the same (people retire later) an aging population will have a greater proportion of workers to non workers, with the requirement for saving unchanged. A properly organised society could start to reduce the number of working days a week
  4. I thought you were going to miss this... is it the last twitching of the paper bitches? http://www.zerohedge.com/print/174015
  5. didn't something like this happen before - when the LBMA tried to maintain the $35 ounce fix. How did that play out?
  6. it is global cooling now - http://www.newscientist.com/data/html/ns/sample/e-newsletter.html get with the MSM guff will you
  7. I recall about 6-7 months ago walking out to the car and spending an hour digging it out of the car park before spending 2 hours driving to work. There was no rock salt available anywhere - probably quite cheap right now - likely a fortune in 6 months - what does anyone think? Short term killing or washed away in the rain?
  8. Thanks for the pointer - I had a quick look through. It seems less relevant to your theory - as your theory relates to a closed system, whereas much of the data relates to specific countries. The counter theory proposed (i.e. that economic growth causes population growth rather than the other way around) seems to have support from this paper also. figure 1 captures the point nicely - highlighting the low birth rates in the recessionary decades. The only evidence I see seems to support the counter of your theory I also found this population projection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png Which captures just how unscientific the process is
  9. Population rises occur due to agricultural advances seems to be the clear lesson. We surely agree on that. One thing that I find confusing is the reference to a closed system - you site japan as an example - yet dismiss others as they are not closed and making money from exports.
  10. taking it back to the agricultural revolution. In practice what happened was a large increase in productive capacity of the existing population - this lead to an increase in population. Let's imagine people had not had more children (or mortality rates stayed the same). You would have had more abundant food requiring less effort for the same population. Would the gdp per person have risen? I find the arguement that population is behind the banking crises particularly weak. Espeically given the rapidity of the crises and the long term nature of population changes.
  11. In the 1970s is almost near the peak 2%? What is the impact of people retiring significantly later on your theory? http://www.actuaries.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/31623/sm20040426_longevity.pdf is a seminal paper summarising the fairly huge problems with mortality projections - especially trends. Over 65 projections are not scientific
  12. Thanks for that detail. The population grew between 1950 and 2008 at around 1-2% per annum according to your graph - I do not see the decline in population in the 1970s you talked about. I would be sceptical about the projections - there is a long history of getting this very wrong - there is no scientific premise for population projections.
  13. The population explosion - did it show the population in the 20th century (including 1970s)exploding? Maybe you are just referring to 'the west' - would that fit with your definition of a closed system?
  14. did your graph show significant increase in population growth rates - globally?
  15. I think the sequence is: 0) Significant technological advance that results in significant growth in the economy - i.e increased capacity to provide food. 1) an increase in population 2) an increase in aggregated GDP some 80 years later 3) an increase in per capita GDP some 130 years later You have skipped step 0) - but do you agree it is key to this process?
  16. So your theory now is there was a rise in economic growth - which resulted in an equivalent population rise. This population rise then resulted in per captia increase in economic growth. The same data shows a rise in efficiency in farming standard preceeded an increase in per capita income. Even if by 100 years - it still holds. I see no evidence to support your theory and some very limited amount to suggest the alternate cause.
  17. That sounds right - it did run for a few decades but most of the natives were fairly finished after that. Other tyrannies have lasted a long time - such as the US use of slave labour and in arabia etc
  18. If you own the monopoly you make more profit than if you have a number of competitors - this is the idea the imperialists practiced. The scramble for Africa by thomas packenham detailed the profits in the belgian congo - these declined sharply one basic human rights were introduced. Tyranny can be very profitable to those practicing it
  19. So the farming revolution resulted in increase in population. This supports the alternative theory I proposed - in causality contrast to that you proposed (I.e. That population growth is a prerequisite to per capita economic growth in a closed economic system.)
  20. I have seen no historical examples supportive of the theory proposed. Most people were farmers of one sort or another or directly related to one over the last 6000 years. This is still true today.
  21. The article was interesting. I was disappointed that it did not show causality, even if it did mention it as being important. The article presents a hypothetical problem. Is the hypothetical solution to increase retirement age? That way there could be a greater proportion of people working than in a developing country.
  22. Would you mind pasting the link in this forum? There is a counter theory that I would propose. "Increased economic growth causes increased population growth - as people are wealthier they can afford more children" Given economic growth and population are correlated is it impossible to prove causality?
  23. So you have a theory - it is not down to others to prove or dis prove - you would need to able to demonstrate it for it to be taken seriously. It is difficult as population as almost always grown. And when the economy grows people naturally have more children. I await with interest for your demonstration.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.