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?

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


Couldn't you find anything?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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


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


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!