What is the nature of the relationship between population and quality of life?

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:

What is the nature of the relationship between population and quality of life?

That depends!

And it depends on many things.

For example, the expectations or perceptions, were that question to have been asked in the 1950's & 1960's would have drawn a very different answer, to some of the answers which may be forthcoming today and the answers will no doubt change again, over the next 10-20 years.

The answers will also vary according to whether the onus is on what it should be or what it actually is, according to one persons reality?

If we listen to some, then we must have an exponential Growth in Population, to achieve Economic Growth, which is automatically linked to a good & improving quality of life.

However, those outcomes are not automatic for some, in fact not automatic at all and as the current Political & Economic paradigm morphs into a new paradigm we will find that Global & Local Population levels will actually neeed to fall, to sustain our quality of life at reasonable levels.

In fact, ever increasing (Exponential) growth is simply not possible, due to the fact that we live on a finite planet, with finite levels of Essential Resources, such as Energy (Oil, Coal, Gas etc), Food & Water, to name but a few.

So quality of life & indeed a happy life, should not be automatically equated specifically with growth in GDP or Economic Growth generally, otherwise we are bound to be disappointed, at some point in time!  

Then there's the agricultural rent theory. If a country relies on it's agricultural or mineral wealth then a smaller population will be wealthier than a larger one, given the latter means the wealth is spread more thinly.

The Big Interview With David Rosenberg

Below is a very good and nearly unfiltered 30-minute session with David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff. He speaks with the Wall Street Journal’s Kelly Evans in the weekly "Big Interview" feature, a format I really like. I have featured Stephen Roach and Sheila Bair at CW from previous big interviews.

Rosenberg has been one of the more prescient economists regarding the contours of the particular business cycle and their causes. His overarching theme expressed in the interview is that we are at or near the end of a super credit cycle that makes this downturn unique in post-World War II history. This means we are in the throes of a secular private sector deleveraging which will crimp growth for some time to come.

In Rosenberg’s view (and mine), the pace of this particular cyclical upturn has been unsustainable from the beginning because all of it has been predicated on the inventory cycle and stimulus. I first pointed to this in May of 2009. Late in 2009, I noted a Paul Krugman piece which demonstrated that the way the stimulus is being applied necessarily meant lower GDP growth in the second half of this year. I think fiscal stimulus is dead for the reasons I first gave in January 2009 – one reason the focus now seems increasingly on the Federal Reserve. Can this recovery be sustained without more stimulus? Given the jobs picture, it is doubtful. Rosenberg believes Q4 could see a decline in GDP.

Here’s Rosenberg. (P.S. he calls 9,000 on the Dow, 2% on the 10-year and 11% unemployment in a year’s time.)

Video follows (on Link) -
http://seekingalpha.com/article/220824-the-big-interview-with-david-rosenberg?source=email
===========
David Rosenberg, an Economist, is one worth a listen, he has some realistic comments.

PS - His expectation is a 15-20% decline in the DOW, with around 9,000 in 12 months from now.

Lol.. ;D

Any moron could've told you 5 years ago that the western world was heading towards a meltdown, just like any other pyramid scheme.
But you choose to listen to the most elite of morons..economists.

Not surprisingly, there seems to be one obvious facet lacking in your equation..and that is a solution.
We've known for a long while now that we need a solution. It's taken economists years of wasted brain matter to crunch the data and come up with the same blatantly obvious assertion which was known and discussed years ago.

Why haven't you heard much about here? Because it's already been debated to death over and over..that's why.
Then come the enonomists who try to state a gobbledegook reason for what is happening now, and of course they provide no solution.

The blatantly obvious is that a large population who are duped into working for nix for some "supposed cause" which renders their own life useless, will provide more economic efficiency than other populations who are not so willing to surrender their lives to the leeches.
That's why we had a union movement.

A union movement now for large slave populations such as China and India would bring back the alignment of quality of life similar to that which has been fought so hard for in western societies.
In a global economic world, the only way to stop us from becoming the subserviant ones is for them to fight for their own rights in the only life that they have.

You talk about "bandaid" solutions employed by the Labor party, but you don't even provide a bandaid.
Investing in infrastructure is what the Labor party does best, and it is what the Liberals always pass on to future Labor governments.

Wasn't it you who said that savings are useless in todays economic world? The Howard government skimped on infrastructure, they sold off our assets (Telstra, our gold..etc.) and produced savings.

And wasn't it you who said that investing in property was one of the few vehicles for for good returns?
Then how do you make a particular slice of land worth more than any other random slice of land on the planet? You invest in it, that's how. Infrastructure is the best form of investment.

I have confidence that the slave labour of more populous industrial nations will stand up for their one and only life and demand some real reward for their efforts, at the expense of the leech mentality of course.

Amadd wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

Lol.. ;D Any moron could've told you 5 years ago that the western world was heading towards a meltdown, just like any other pyramid scheme. But you choose to listen to the most elite of morons..economists. Not surprisingly, there seems to be one obvious facet lacking in your equation..and that is a solution. We've known for a long while now that we need a solution. It's taken economists years of wasted brain matter to crunch the data and come up with the same blatantly obvious assertion which was known and discussed years ago. Why haven't you heard much about here? Because it's already been debated to death over and over..that's why. Then come the enonomists who try to state a gobbledegook reason for what is happening now, and of course they provide no solution. The blatantly obvious is that a large population who are duped into working for nix for some "supposed cause" which renders their own life useless, will provide more economic efficiency than other populations who are not so willing to surrender their lives to the leeches. That's why we had a union movement. A union movement now for large slave populations such as China and India would bring back the alignment of quality of life similar to that which has been fought so hard for in western societies. In a global economic world, the only way to stop us from becoming the subserviant ones is for them to fight for their own rights in the only life that they have. You talk about "bandaid" solutions employed by the Labor party, but you don't even provide a bandaid. Investing in infrastructure is what the Labor party does best, and it is what the Liberals always pass on to future Labor governments. Wasn't it you who said that savings are useless in todays economic world? The Howard government skimped on infrastructure, they sold off our assets (Telstra, our gold..etc.) and produced savings. And wasn't it you who said that investing in property was one of the few vehicles for for good returns? Then how do you make a particular slice of land worth more than any other random slice of land on the planet? You invest in it, that's how. Infrastructure is the best form of investment. I have confidence that the slave labour of more populous industrial nations will stand up for their one and only life and demand some real reward for their efforts, at the expense of the leech mentality of course.

I asumme you are talking to freediver, but I would like to comment on your first sentence.

You say that "Any moron could've told you 5 years ago that the western world was heading towards a meltdown", however I heard very, very few making that prediction.

In fact, the few that did, were generally laughed at, by mainstream commentators & economists!

So, does that mean that those few people, who did predict this meltdown, were/are actually quite astute morons?

Quote:

I asumme you are talking to freediver, but I would like to comment on your first sentence. You say that "Any moron could've told you 5 years ago that the western world was heading towards a meltdown", however I heard very, very few making that prediction. In fact, the few that did, were generally laughed at, by mainstream commentators & economists! So, does that mean that those few people, who did predict this meltdown, were/are actually quite astute morons?

I was talking to you.
The "moron" comment shouldn't be taken literally of course, but any Joe/Jane Bloggs who could their hand in front of their face could've told you that over-lending, over-borrowing, and the over-purchasing of imported goods will not do well for the home economy.
Nobody needs a thousand graphs and charts to realise this. IMO, economists can get majorly bogged down by graphs and charts and lose sight of the obvious.

For every 100 economists who predict one thing, there are another 100 who predict another, somebody has to be right.
And anybody could predict a market crash, they happen all the time with greed always being the constant pivotal factor.

What annoys me most is the furphy of explaining what is, what everybody can see, without providing a solution.

IMO, and if you get a chance to watch the video that I've attached below (it's quite long, but funny, and made in 2005), there are obvious flaws that can be seen in this filmaker's POV.
The main flaw is that China is not rich whilst the people are being treated as slaves and living in poverty. No nation is.

The likes of "google" who bow to Chinese pressures to hide the real world from their slaves view should be severly dealt with. Google are doing a great disservice to our western economies there.

Yes, if the chinese (and other similar industrial nations) raise their quality of life by providing better wages, working conditions, schools, water, hospitals..etc. etc., we will pay more for those breakable items that we don't really need, however, our own industries will be far better for it.
Australia's mining industry may suffer somewhat, but there will be more market opportunies opening up elsewhere, most probably offering a better price.

If you haven't seen this 2005 chinese short film (about 15 mins), it's very funny, and also very hypocritical.
Some may cower to it, and say: "Oh yeah, China is killing us economically", but on the other side of the coin, it's "Ha Ha Ha China, you are a country of poverty stricken slaves who are too weak to demand what you deserve".

China slave-boy miss swipe at fragrant monkey tail, they catch instead tale of crap.


Oops, that link didn't work. The second part can be found on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmANxHJ6s9Mi

So you will merely continue with your graphs and charts will you perceptions?
No bother about debating a solution at all hey?

Amadd wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 4:38am:

So you will merely continue with your graphs and charts will you perceptions? No bother about debating a solution at all hey?

I have been doing both, as well as voicing my own opinions and I intend to continue to do so!

Although, my responses will not always be immediate and no doubt that will also apply to you & others.

Amadd wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

Lol.. ;D Any moron could've told you 5 years ago that the western world was heading towards a meltdown, just like any other pyramid scheme. But you choose to listen to the most elite of morons..economists. Not surprisingly, there seems to be one obvious facet lacking in your equation..and that is a solution. We've known for a long while now that we need a solution. It's taken economists years of wasted brain matter to crunch the data and come up with the same blatantly obvious assertion which was known and discussed years ago. Why haven't you heard much about here? Because it's already been debated to death over and over..that's why. Then come the enonomists who try to state a gobbledegook reason for what is happening now, and of course they provide no solution. The blatantly obvious is that a large population who are duped into working for nix for some "supposed cause" which renders their own life useless, will provide more economic efficiency than other populations who are not so willing to surrender their lives to the leeches. That's why we had a union movement. A union movement now for large slave populations such as China and India would bring back the alignment of quality of life similar to that which has been fought so hard for in western societies. In a global economic world, the only way to stop us from becoming the subserviant ones is for them to fight for their own rights in the only life that they have. You talk about "bandaid" solutions employed by the Labor party, but you don't even provide a bandaid. Investing in infrastructure is what the Labor party does best, and it is what the Liberals always pass on to future Labor governments. Wasn't it you who said that savings are useless in todays economic world? The Howard government skimped on infrastructure, they sold off our assets (Telstra, our gold..etc.) and produced savings. And wasn't it you who said that investing in property was one of the few vehicles for for good returns? Then how do you make a particular slice of land worth more than any other random slice of land on the planet? You invest in it, that's how. Infrastructure is the best form of investment. I have confidence that the slave labour of more populous industrial nations will stand up for their one and only life and demand some real reward for their efforts, at the expense of the leech mentality of course.

First, if you want a response from a particular person, then it would help if you specifiy, in some way, that you are talking to that person.


Quote:

Amadd - "You talk about "bandaid" solutions employed by the Labor party, but you don't even provide a bandaid."

Not that I am aware of.


Quote:

Amadd - Wasn't it you who said that savings are useless in todays economic world?

Not that I am aware of.


Quote:

Amadd - And wasn't it you who said that investing in property was one of the few vehicles for for good returns?

Not that I am aware of.


Quote:

Amadd - Any moron could've told you 5 years ago that the western world was heading towards a meltdown, just like any other pyramid scheme. But you choose to listen to the most elite of morons..economists.

There are still very few, even today, that say we are heading for a meltown, let alone 5 years ago.
I am not aware that I chose to listen to the most elite of morons..economists, in fact I would think I would be listed as a contrarian, on both major sides of the Economic & Political debate.


Quote:

Amadd - I have confidence that the slave labour of more populous industrial nations will stand up for their one and only life and demand some real reward for their efforts, at the expense of the leech mentality of course.

That is possible, particularly in China, but I would certainly not be confident about it and I would not be confident that it would make things better, either in China or the rest of the world.


Quote:

Amadd - Why haven't you heard much about here? Because it's already been debated to death

I would suggest the debate is only just getting under way.


Quote:

Amadd - Then come the enonomists who try to state a gobbledegook reason for what is happening now, and of course they provide no solution.

Well, they actually do provide their version of what they think are solutions, but you are correct, they just don't work, because this is different, it is not something that most Economists &/or Politicians have been trained for, it is beyond the realm of their experience.


Quote:

Amadd - Not surprisingly, there seems to be one obvious facet lacking in your equation..and that is a solution.

If you are looking for a Hollywood ending, where everyone lives happily ever after, the am I sorry, that is very unlikely!

Amadd wrote on Aug 26^th, 2010 at 8:15am:

Quote: I asumme you are talking to freediver, but I would like to comment on your first sentence. You say that "Any moron could've told you 5 years ago that the western world was heading towards a meltdown", however I heard very, very few making that prediction. In fact, the few that did, were generally laughed at, by mainstream commentators & economists! So, does that mean that those few people, who did predict this meltdown, were/are actually quite astute morons? I was talking to you. The "moron" comment shouldn't be taken literally of course, but any Joe/Jane Bloggs who could their hand in front of their face could've told you that over-lending, over-borrowing, and the over-purchasing of imported goods will not do well for the home economy. Nobody needs a thousand graphs and charts to realise this. IMO, economists can get majorly bogged down by graphs and charts and lose sight of the obvious. For every 100 economists who predict one thing, there are another 100 who predict another, somebody has to be right. And anybody could predict a market crash, they happen all the time with greed always being the constant pivotal factor. What annoys me most is the furphy of explaining what is, what everybody can see, without providing a solution. IMO, and if you get a chance to watch the video that I've attached below (it's quite long, but funny, and made in 2005), there are obvious flaws that can be seen in this filmaker's POV. The main flaw is that China is not rich whilst the people are being treated as slaves and living in poverty. No nation is. The likes of "google" who bow to Chinese pressures to hide the real world from their slaves view should be severly dealt with. Google are doing a great disservice to our western economies there. Yes, if the chinese (and other similar industrial nations) raise their quality of life by providing better wages, working conditions, schools, water, hospitals..etc. etc., we will pay more for those breakable items that we don't really need, however, our own industries will be far better for it. Australia's mining industry may suffer somewhat, but there will be more market opportunies opening up elsewhere, most probably offering a better price. If you haven't seen this 2005 chinese short film (about 15 mins), it's very funny, and also very hypocritical. Some may cower to it, and say: "Oh yeah, China is killing us economically", but on the other side of the coin, it's "Ha Ha Ha China, you are a country of poverty stricken slaves who are too weak to demand what you deserve". China slave-boy miss swipe at fragrant monkey tail, they catch instead tale of crap. Oops, that link didn't work. The second part can be found on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmANxHJ6s9M

Quote:

Amadd - IMO, economists can get majorly bogged down by graphs and charts and lose sight of the obvious.

Agreed!


Quote:

Amadd - Nobody needs a thousand graphs and charts to realise this.

I disagree, the vast majority of the Public & even many Politicians & Economists, still have NFI about what is coming at us. So, IMO, everything needs to be thrown into the mix to get the message out there.


Quote:

Amadd - For every 100 economists who predict one thing, there are another 100 who predict another, somebody has to be right.

I agree! However, there are 2 major opposing camps, the Keynesians & the Austrians, both have good arguements for certain circumstances, but the current circumstances are unique in history.


Quote:

Amadd - What annoys me most is the furphy of explaining what is, what everybody can see, without providing a solution.

Let me put it this way, of the 100 Keynesians & 100 Austrians, it is likely none will have "a solution" now, because the steps towards todays solutions should have been taken 40, 50 & 60 years ago and they were not!

As I have said elsewhere, we have 2 basic future options -
1) Extinction, via the status quo.
2) Life, via the Society & Economy finding ways to become mutually sustaining!

But what will that mean?

It will mean 20-30 years of higher taxes & lower benefits.

It will mean heading to ZPG, over the next 20-30 years, then a gradual reduction in the Global Population, by natural regression, over time.

It will mean an urgent "Manhattan Style Project" to locate any possible replacement/s for Oil, Coal & Gas, as quickly as humanly possible. A large part of that project will be to enable the transition away from Fossil Fuels, to their replacements, in the shortest time possible, to assist in restricting the flow of GHG's into the environment.

It will mean changing the Political & Economic status quo, into something new, which will allow us the time needed to extricate ourselves from the CRAP that we ALL created! And, to do that, it will mean dragging every nation into a common agreement, on the actions needed, by any & all means available.

Now, I don't know IF we will be allowed to make our own decisions, which may result in better outcomes, as I suspect that some contingency plans are already under way.

Whether we like it or not & whether they work or not, are entirely different questions!

So, as George Bernard Shaw & Malcolm Fraser said, "life wasn't meant to be easy" and I suspect we are in the process of confirming that to be a fact?

Quote:

I would suggest the debate is only just getting under way.

Well yes, possibly a reason that these issues aren't debated much here is due to lacking a forum where the discussions fit in.
So congrats to you for starting this long overdue topic board.
I'm already enjoying your knowledge and comments, even though I (like most others) tend to comment on that which I disagree with in some way.


Quote:

If you are looking for a Hollywood ending, where everyone lives happily ever after, the am I sorry, that is very unlikely!

No of course not, there's no ending anyway.
I'm talking about practical solutions for viable investments in Australia.
Whatever steps it is that should have been taken 40 or 50 yrs ago, I have no idea. I think we've done pretty well as a nation.

But the obvious bottom line is that we can't compete industrially with the likes of nations who pay their workers only enough to live in a putrid slum (by our standards).
For years we rode on the sheep's back, now we ride on the miner's back.
Our standard of living has increased amazingly over the past 100 years. We have very good infrustructures in place (could be better) which can sustain large populations in relative comfort for many years to come. It's not all doom and gloom by any means.

Real solutions, as far as I can see, will need to come in the form of new economies for nation.
What they may be, who knows? Maybe will we someday use our vast expanses of land for solar energy production, maybe giant solar hydro farms, etc.
We need something to produce that the rest of the world wants in order to sustain or increase our standard of living.
Shuffling bits of paper or pixels around won't do the trick. Investing in the right commodities may help, but we also need to produce something.i

What are your thoughts towards the Australian Federal Election?
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KVYF99W

Your feedback is highly welcomed.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:

What is the nature of the relationship between population and quality of life?

Following on from previous discussions, you may or may not, like to look over the information provided in the following  2 articles, which provide quite a bit of information on the Population & Peak Oil issues. The articles in question are recent.

Coal and Oil: The Dark Monarchs of Global Energy: Understanding Supply and Extraction Patterns and their Importance for Future Production
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1276908003/all

Peak Oil, Carrying Capacity and Overshoot: Population, the Elephant in the Room - Revisited
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1276775027/all

However, neither article goes to the issues of the Aging Boomer generation Demographic, they only lightly touch on Climate Change and they don't go to many of the Economic issues.

That said, you may gather some insights into your question regarding quality of life, which will be greatly influenced, by an accident of birth.
ie - where you are born.

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 11:43am:

freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 11:31am: You keep switching between population and economic growth as if it is the same thing. THEY ARE!!!

Try telling that to the Haitians or the Chinese.

Do you agree with the people who claim it is good for our economy if our population keeps growing exponentially?

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 11:50am:

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 11:43am: freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 11:31am: You keep switching between population and economic growth as if it is the same thing. THEY ARE!!! Try telling that to the Haitians or the Chinese. Do you agree with the people who claim it is good for our economy if our population keeps growing exponentially?

I think we already covered that adeqautely on a number of previous occasions, such as -



perceptions_now wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 11:13am:

We have gone from 1 Billion to nearly 7 Billion people, in just over 200 years, I doubt even you would contemplate that can continue to happen? 50 Billion people in 2300AD? It's not going to happen! So, at some point and I think we are now close to that point, Population Growth will stop, probably about the time that our Energy supplies go into decline and that will be followed by an actual Population decline. The wash up of that is the reverse of the last 200 years, but this time Demand will be in a relentless decline mode, instead of the Growth mode of the last 200 years. There are no doubts about this, it will happen! The only thing that remains unclear, is whether we will adapt OR not?

As previously discussion, exponential Population &/or Economic Growth in any finite Environment is NOT possible!

Btw, at least the Chinese have taken some positive action by reducing what their Population would otherwise have been, by some 400 million, by introducing their "one child policy", back in 1979.

So you don't see any contradiction between your earlier posts in this thread and claiming that economic and population growth are the same thing?

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 7:21pm:

So you don't see any contradiction between your earlier posts in this thread and claiming that economic and population growth are the same thing?

Happy to have a look, anything in particular in mind?

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2010 at 8:10pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2010 at 7:21pm: So you don't see any contradiction between your earlier posts in this thread and claiming that economic and population growth are the same thing? Happy to have a look, anything in particular in mind?

Couldn't you find anything?

Let's start with your first post in this thread.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2010 at 9:38pm:

Let's start with your first post in this thread.

Sure, what is it, you're having a problem with?


perceptions_now wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 1:34pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2010 at 12:47pm: What is the nature of the relationship between population and quality of life? That depends! And it depends on many things. For example, the expectations or perceptions, were that question to have been asked in the 1950's & 1960's would have drawn a very different answer, to some of the answers which may be forthcoming today and the answers will no doubt change again, over the next 10-20 years. The answers will also vary according to whether the onus is on what it should be or what it actually is, according to one persons reality? If we listen to some, then we must have an exponential Growth in Population, to achieve Economic Growth, which is automatically linked to a good & improving quality of life. However, those outcomes are not automatic for some, in fact not automatic at all and as the current Political & Economic paradigm morphs into a new paradigm we will find that Global & Local Population levels will actually neeed to fall, to sustain our quality of life at reasonable levels. In fact, ever increasing (Exponential) growth is simply not possible, due to the fact that we live on a finite planet, with finite levels of Essential Resources, such as Energy (Oil, Coal, Gas etc), Food & Water, to name but a few. So quality of life & indeed a happy life, should not be automatically equated specifically with growth in GDP or Economic Growth generally, otherwise we are bound to be disappointed, at some point in time!

I'd probably be of the opinion that increases in population (of working age immigrants, like we do) will equal economic growth in the right conditions.

I don't think that PN really suggested that, but it's a pretty easy out for current governments IMO.

Do you remember a film called "Logan's run" where life must end at aged 30?
I think we may be able to extend suitability to age 40 or even 45, but to sustain our economy, we're gonna require productiveness. Why on earth should we pay for those pensioners huh?
They thoughtlessly brought us into this mess didn't they? Now they must pay shouldn't they?

Meet science-fiction.
Meet Logan's run.

Never mind. I just asked if you could see it. If you can't, I'm not going to bother.

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2010 at 9:30pm:

Never mind. I just asked if you could see it. If you can't, I'm not going to bother.

As long as your happy, then I'm happy!

But, if you think there's something there, then tell me exactly what you think it is and we can have a nice long talk about it?

Real GDP growth rate in developed countries is found to be a sum of two terms. The first term is the reciprocal value of the duration of the period of mean income growth with work experience, Tcr. The current value of Tcr in the USA is 40 years. The second term is inherently related to population and defined by the relative change in the number of people with a specific age (9 years in the USA), (1/2)*dN9(t) /N9(t), where N9(t) is the number of 9-year-olds at time t. The Tcr grows as the square root of real GDP per capita. Hence, evolution of real GDP is defined by only one parameter - the number of people of the specific age. Predictions for the USA, the UK, and France are presented and discussed. A similar relationship is derived for real GDP per capita. Annual increment of GDP per capita is also a combination of economic trend term and the same specific age population term. The economic trend term during last 55 years is equal to $400 (2002 US dollars) divided by the attained level of real GDP per capita. Thus, the economic trend term has an asymptotic value of zero. Inversion of the measured GDP values is used to recover the corresponding change of the specific age population between 1955 and 2003. The population recovery method based on GDP potentially is of a higher accuracy than routine censuses.

jenika wrote on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 7:13pm:

Real GDP growth rate in developed countries is found to be a sum of two terms. The first term is the reciprocal value of the duration of the period of mean income growth with work experience, Tcr. The current value of Tcr in the USA is 40 years. The second term is inherently related to population and defined by the relative change in the number of people with a specific age (9 years in the USA), (1/2)*dN9(t) /N9(t), where N9(t) is the number of 9-year-olds at time t. The Tcr grows as the square root of real GDP per capita. Hence, evolution of real GDP is defined by only one parameter - the number of people of the specific age. Predictions for the USA, the UK, and France are presented and discussed. A similar relationship is derived for real GDP per capita. Annual increment of GDP per capita is also a combination of economic trend term and the same specific age population term. The economic trend term during last 55 years is equal to $400 (2002 US dollars) divided by the attained level of real GDP per capita. Thus, the economic trend term has an asymptotic value of zero. Inversion of the measured GDP values is used to recover the corresponding change of the specific age population between 1955 and 2003. The population recovery method based on GDP potentially is of a higher accuracy than routine censuses.

jenika,
You may like to explain, how that fits into real world Economics?

perceptionsnow:
Could you please explain to me what you mean by the Keynesian and Austrian school of economic thought.
Austria was in a mess 60 years ago, its population has been almost constant; about 7million, but if there is population growth, it would only lower the standard of living, because, although not as densely populated as some European countries, it is dense enough.
One thing what the Austrians and more Northern countries have going for them, they are more willing to pay taxes, without which any government cannot function. Greece is a good example, pay little or no tax, even if you can afford  a million dollar Villa.
As far as China is concerned, we in the western world are reaping the rewards of their slave labour, although the tide is turning and the rich Chinese are eating our cray-fish at $65.00 a kilo, and out of reach of most Australians.
Is population growth the answer, definitely not, as we live on a finite planet as previously stated by others in this debate.
Is life really that much better now than it was 50 years ago?
It must be very frustrating to drive to work for often more than an hour and in some places two hours; i would prefer 20 minutes on a push-bike, which is not possible today for most people.
How long is it, since the population reached 1billion, it is less than 200 years, and now some so-called experts are talking of 9billion; a lot of hogwash.
Population growth is only good for a minority of the population.

The best way to do population and GDP is the American way. This is through 'hyper-spending' and then everybody has a lot of money to spend, because a lot of money is floating around anyway and everywhere. I know that class warfare is popular, but all classes need tax breaks for 10 years.

Don't save up and always spend your money on the free markets and Australia will achieve high GDP.

hawil wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 5:46pm:

perceptionsnow: Could you please explain to me what you mean by the Keynesian and Austrian school of economic thought. Austria was in a mess 60 years ago, its population has been almost constant; about 7million, but if there is population growth, it would only lower the standard of living, because, although not as densely populated as some European countries, it is dense enough. One thing what the Austrians and more Northern countries have going for them, they are more willing to pay taxes, without which any government cannot function. Greece is a good example, pay little or no tax, even if you can afford  a million dollar Villa. As far as China is concerned, we in the western world are reaping the rewards of their slave labour, although the tide is turning and the rich Chinese are eating our cray-fish at $65.00 a kilo, and out of reach of most Australians. Is population growth the answer, definitely not, as we live on a finite planet as previously stated by others in this debate. Is life really that much better now than it was 50 years ago? It must be very frustrating to drive to work for often more than an hour and in some places two hours; i would prefer 20 minutes on a push-bike, which is not possible today for most people. How long is it, since the population reached 1billion, it is less than 200 years, and now some so-called experts are talking of 9billion; a lot of hogwash. Population growth is only good for a minority of the population.

My apology for the delay, I am still time restrained, at present, which will continue to be the case for a while to come.

Keynesian & Austrian are lines of Economic thought, as you put it and particularly in the Austrian case, not so much where it came from.

In a nutshell, I would describe the two lines of thought, as follows -

Keynesian
Contends that the "free market" doesn't always work efficiently and government is needed to smooth the road.

Austrian
Contends that the "free market" is the proper arbiter and that governments inevitably get it wrong.

Following are some sites that go a little further in describing both trains of thought & a video which goes into both, more from the Austrian perspective -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnekzRuu8wo

In my opinion, both lines of thought have a place, given the circumstances.

At the present time, neither of these OR both of these are needed, but neither WILL PROVIDE A SIMPLE FIX, for the current situation.

Why?

Because, Demand, due to the following issues, is effectively in decline -
1) Baby Boomer generation (worldwide) going into retirement.
2) The slowing World Population Growth rate.
3) Peak Energy (Oil initially) is either already here or is imminent.

Additionally, government Revenues are going Down & Expenses, in the form of Pensions, Health Care & interest on government Debt is going to go UP.

This is a long term situation, it will be with us for 20 years or more.

Given that these are long term factors, it is very difficult to see where sufficient Global Employment is going to arise from, to get the Unemployed back to work and get the Economy back on its usual track.

The time for fixes was probably around 40-50 years ago, the Private sector would not have seen the problems coming and governments have "elected" to look the other way, in "Hopium" that the future would fix itself. IT HASN'T!

We are being had! At least, there is an attempt by TPTB to continue the status quo, via a "smoke & mirrors" campaign.

As you suggest Population Growth is not the answer. In fact, Population Growth has been slowing for some time and in about 25-30 years, it will actually go into decline, which is another consideration, for long term planners. But Population Growth can not be re-instituted as a fix for our current economic ills, for a number of reasons, it would actually be counter-productive!  

You asked when the 1st Billion came, I believe it was around 1800AD.

Given no major miscalculations, the Global Population may reach 8 Billion, but I can see it ever reaching 9 Billion, there are just too many problems in the way!

Finally, the reason that TPTB want a continuation of the status quo, is that they gain the most from a continuation of Population & Economic Growth, in its current form.

That said, the Exponential Economic Growth Fairy is dying, all that remains is a good cremation!

So you don't see any contradiction between your earlier posts in this thread and claiming that economic and population growth are the same thing?
If the population increases, so will the GDP or GNP in a country like Australia as a total, but will it increase as an increase of per capita?

An increase of population density over certain levels will also reduce the quality of life.
I,am sure that it was more pleasant to live in many cities 50 years ago, than it is today, particularly cities like Cairo, which I found very crowded in 1963, when the population was some 4million; it is now 18million, and there are many more cities which have increased similarly.

hawil wrote on Feb 27^th, 2011 at 11:10am:

So you don't see any contradiction between your earlier posts in this thread and claiming that economic and population growth are the same thing? If the population increases, so will the GDP or GNP in a country like Australia as a total, but will it increase as an increase of per capita? An increase of population density over certain levels will also reduce the quality of life. I,am sure that it was more pleasant to live in many cities 50 years ago, than it is today, particularly cities like Cairo, which I found very crowded in 1963, when the population was some 4million; it is now 18million, and there are many more cities which have increased similarly.

Population Growth is certainly one of the major factors that influence Economic Growth, but it isn't the only factor, there are others including Energy availability & Pricing and Technology/Innovation, to mention a few.

In terms of Population increases, the last 65-75 years has certianly seen a very substantial Population Growth rate, but that Growth rate has been slowing for some time and over the next 20-30 years, in will continue to slow due to declining birth rates and increasing death rates amongst the Massive Baby Boomer generation.

Btw, My definition is slightly different to the official one, I start when the baby Bomm started, which was in the mid 1930's and I run thru until 1975, when the 4th Billion clocked over.

So, although Population Growth will remain for a while, it is the rate of Population Growth that is slowing and that is what will slow Economic Growth, together with the dramatic Aging of that Population, as MORE (Taxes) will be expected from fewer Workers, to pay for much greater Pensions & Health Care, for the Boomers.

There will also be a severe Economic Downturn, due to Lower Energy availability & Higher Energy Prices, due to Economics 101, growing Demand & declining Supply.

Here is an interesting article about the effect of population growth on the economy and quality of life and the reasons we don't need a "big Australia"

http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2008/12/20/dispelling-some-myths-about-australias-population/

Makes a lot of sense I think.

Amadd was right. The Western World has melted down.
America has Biden dumping millions of pleb-useless immigrants into it.
Australia's housing shortage, while bringing in 500,000 immigrants from India and east Asia.
It goes on.

Told yez already - GDP is meaningless when the actual good outcomes - such as profits - head Offshore or into smacking Internal Tax Havens (FITH 2.0), at which points they cease being Gross DOMESTIC product - but become Gross International Product (GIP) to suit the few well-established to take full advantage of it ...

You can also add in that GDP is increasingly worthless due to when it is spread across a greater and greater number of internal national (domestic) 'contributors' and 'recipients' (GDP inflation/dilution)... those being the ones who receive the crumbs from the rich Globalist's tables....

Get with it, oh ye tortoises of the Western World.... stop feeding idiots to ruin everything for you..........

https://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/population-sustainability.html#IPAT

So far I have touched on the fundamental tradeoff between population and quality of life in a scarcity driven economy. The next factor to throw in is technology. To do this I need to get a bit mathematical, but I only need one equation:

IPAT: Impact=Population x Affluence / Technology

https://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/IPAT.jpg

That is, impact (on the environment) is proportional to population, multiplied by affluence (quality of life), divided by technology.

This equation captures the fundamental tradeoff between population and quality of life, along with the role that technology plays. For a given population, more technology allows a higher quality of life for the same environmental impact. Of for a given quality of life, you can squeeze in more people. Many people assume that technology causes environmental problems, but it doesn't. It's just that we often breed faster and get richer at a pace that exceeds the rate at which technology is improving. This population increase is usually a direct result of the technology that enables it, which blurs cause and effect. However, there is no way that the earth could peacefully support the current population and standard of living on the technology from a century ago without destroying our environment.

For the western world technology has kept ahead lately, to the extent that many people have lost touch with the fundamental tradeoffs. In the past, and in poorer countries, a farmer has to split his land between his children and knows that if he has a lot of children, he won't be able to provide for them. Importantly, there is no fundamental reason for technology to continue to keep one step ahead. Jared Diamond has a nice way of explaining the role of technology - as an analogy of a two horse race. One horse represents population, which is increasing and putting us at risk. The other represents technology, which is saving us from self inflicted demise. No-one knows which horse is going to win, only that they keep getting faster and the stakes higher. Is this a gamble we want to make?

Good post.
You know Smith will turn up to call you a moron.

He's not the sort of person you want agreeing with you.

Good point.
You know Peccary will turn up to say that 'Trump's a Rapist'.