I have only just registered for this particular site and the first thread that caught my eye was indeed this one, I'm not entirely aware of anyone here's economic background and I can assure you that mine isn't founded on 20 years of experience in the field. However I happen to live with a person whose experience does come from over 30 years in the field and I have had conversations with other highly qualified and revered business people, politicians and economists. These conversations at no point indicated a "Global Economic Downturn". At least not an ongoing one, yes we were all hit very hard by the American economic fiasco and yes the European Union probably won't recover but the real crisis wasn't a global downturn. That is to say that countries such as ours and most specifically China's economies didn't experience negative growth, merely a slowing of record growth back down to more sustainable levels. America won't ever be the economic superpower it once was, nor will the UK or anywhere else in Europe, Australia needs to diversify its' industry to encourage production over academic labor forces, and to relive the economic reliance on exports to China, should this happen, a global downturn could go on for 20 years and we would be fine, as it stands we have the materials and access to skills that are required of an independent nation, the only reason we continue to export is because it is more finacially appealing in the short term to invest in other nation's booms. What happens when China turns around and says "Sorry guys, we've built all the buildings we need, no more demand for steel", what do we do? All we can do is shave 10 or more percent off our GDP directly, not factoring in the circular flow of investment from the mining companies that are put out...

First off I would like to point out that belittling me isn't going to change my opinion. Next I would like to remind you that population is only even remotely related to our economic situation due to the social implications we as a culture put on ourselves, how many children people should have, baby bonuses and how old is too old to work. These things aren't an issue in the one country still exhibiting 10% GDP growth per annum. Any time someone tries to link an economic debate to Climate change, you know they are clutching at straws, because we are having different conditions from what are expected does not mean that they are attributable to a big Climate Change scenario. Freak natural events happen, that's why we still have words in our vocabulary describing "Mother Nature's ferocity and destructive force". In relation to the declining global population by 2050, I would like to see the justification because by all reports that I have read that seems a little far fetched to me.

Nathan1992 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2011 at 8:08pm:




That is not correct!

There are 3 major Growth Factors, particularly in the modern Economy of the last 200 years -
1) Population Growth -
The Global Population has grown from 1 Billion in 1800, to nearly 7 Billion today.

It is one of the big 3 Economic Growth drivers, having provided a massive Growth in Demand for all sorts of Producrs & Services.
That is now in the process of change, as the huge Baby Boomer generation first retire and then start dying enmasse, over the next 20 years, leaving a massive hole in Demand & experienced workers.

Then, starting around 2040-2050, the total Global Population will actually start going into decline, which will most likely continue for the rest of this century.

The likely final outcome, being a Global Population of around 3-4 Billion and obviously a lot lower Demand, for everything and a greatly different Economic system.

2) Productivity Increases -
This includes Ideas & physical Technology and it is another of the big 3 Economic Growth drivers, via massive increases in per capita productivity, which in turn has raised National & Global GDP.

3) Energy -
Energy Production has been inseparable with Population Growth and it is the last of the big 3 Economic Growth drivers.

As Population Growth increased from 1 to 7 Billion, Energy Production and Oil in particular (since 1859), has been in lockstep with Population Growth.

Population & Energy Growth, aided by Technology have forged the current Global Economy, but Population & Energy Growth are now heading the other way, leaving Technology as the remaining hold-out.

If Technology fails to come thru, particularly in respect to Energy, then the Global Economy, as we know it, fails!

I trust this gives you some further idea, where I am coming from.  

As far as Climate Change is concerned, I accept the basics are correct, but Muso (the Environment Board Moderator) is much more knowledgeable than I, on the how when where & why, of it all.

Suffice to say, we are at the beginning of a long road on Climate Change, it will likely be costly in many ways!

Japan's Changing Population Structure Will Lower Japanese Living Standards

Associated Press reports that Japan's population fell by 123,000 in 2010, or by roughly 0.1%. Yet the working age population is declining even faster.

In late 2004, there were 85.08 million people aged 15 to 64, but by late 2010, that number had dropped to 81.07 million, an average annualized drop of 0.8%. Meanwhile, the number of people older than 65 rose from 24.88 million to 29.46 million, an average annualized increase of 2.9%.This increase has been almost entirely concentrated in the above 75 years group.

Japan's problem isn't so much the moderate decline in the overall population, but rather the dramatic increase in the number of old people relative to the number of available workers.


Link -
http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2011/01/japans-changing-population-structur...
=============
Japan's problems are many, but most of their problems stem from their total Population decline & the reduction in their Worker to Retiree ratio!

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jan 4^th, 2011 at 12:56am:




The Plane, the plane!

Sometimes the future isn't quite what we imagine it to be?

Quote:


Happy New Year, Vegi!

Yes, I agree, a little of something, is much better than a lot of nothing!

Of course, in a perfect world, it would be good to be able to enjoy a long and full life, but most of us, most of the time, live in the real world.

Btw, for those who may think that the "quality of life" is all about money, let me say, money may make you rich, but it has little to do with enriching your life!

Happy New Year to you to perception 
I was an  and didnt even have my usually one or two  this year....


In my travels perception I wonder if this was of interest to you. Altho you may have already known about these books but this comment is interesting to follow etc...

This review is from: Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future (Hardcover)

AFTERSHOCK may well be the most important book written on the current economic crisis. I say this because it offers a critical insight that I have seen in very few other places: The fundamental cause of our problems is the relentless drive toward income concentration. The problem with concentrating income into the hands of a few people is that you take money from millions of people who would spend nearly all of it, and give it to a tiny number of people who can't and won't spend it -- but will instead save it, gamble with it, or invest it offshore. The end result is simply too few viable consumers to drive the economy.

Reich points out that income for American middle class families has been essentially stagnant or declining for over three decades. The middle class has coped with this in three basic ways: (1) Women have entered the workforce, (2) People worked longer hours, and, of course, (3) We all relied on debt (credit cards and home equity loans) rather than income to support our consumption. Those coping methods are now exhausted, and we are left in a position where average Americans simply do not have sufficient discretionary income to support a sustainable recovery. The great American consumer class -- which was the driving force behind our prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s -- has been largely decimated.

To his credit, Reich correctly identifies globalization and, especially, automation technology as primary forces behind declining middle class wages. At the same time, rather than enacting countervailing policies, the United States (beginning with Reagan) has gone in the exact opposite direction and adopted a conservative agenda that has actually accelerated the trend toward income concentration.

The one shortcoming of the book is that Reich -- not being a technologist -- fails to anticipate how advancing technology is likely to dramatically worsen the situation in the relatively near future. As someone who works in this area, I can tell you that the degree of progress we are soon likely to see in automation technologies is historically unprecedented.

To get a sense of what we may face in the future, I would strongly recommend that this book be read in conjunction with Aftershock: The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future. Both books offer an eerily similar analysis of the crisis -- both concluding that the problem is a dearth of viable consumers. Both books also propose very similar solutions: direct income supplementation. Reich proposes a negative income tax (which was supported by free-market icon Milton Friedman).

Anyone who wants to understand the current crisis and the danger we face in the future should read both "Aftershock" (for its emphasis on political and social implications) and "The Lights in the Tunnel" (for insight into how technology and globalization will continue to transform the economy -- and lead to an even more severe crisis, if we do not act ).

Australia is traditionally 'egalitarian' or 'middle-class'.
We like to balance things out you could say.
At the moment, the world is over-populated and one region (ours) is 'under-populated'. Open Australia up and "hey presto", our region increases and the rest of the world decreases.
Sure, it means suddenly our little 'hobbit shire' of a nation is suddenly part of a bigger population in this region of the world - but thats life.
I'm sure the 'shire' will continue in the A.C.T under the Capital Hill 'Bag-End' 

As for the floods - we now.
How many times have we heard Australians whinge and whine about DROUGHTS and the need for 'handout' aid-packages numbering in the $millions from Taxpayers each time.
Then it rains heaps and Australians just don't have a clue what to do with it all.
(I've mentioned my idea upon a previous Thread with only a few responses in the positive)
Now they want more $millions in aid-pachages.
Soon it will be back to Drought for some more $millions.
Who needs to run a successful farm - just wait for the floods and droughts, let alone bushfires.

Once again Australian Politics hasn't got a clue what to do except offer cash.