The Economist: Let the Dollar Fall - Page 2

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

if the choice is between less ppl and us all living in 150 story apartment buildings like rats scared to consume things because the earth will collapse.

I vote less ppl.

Ok you are voted out then.

yavoon · February 10, 2004, 18:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Ok you are voted out then.

communism. the ideal that everyone's life should suck.

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by alva
So you are basically asking me to go and live in a cage for the 50 years???

How about slowing breeding habits somewhat?

You don't know anything about North Korea.

Yes, each family can only have one child.

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon

communism. the ideal that everyone's life should suck.

Fascism. The idea that we should all go on a killing spree.

The Mad Monk · February 10, 2004, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Well, as far as I know, no planet has yet been discovered that is suitable for settlement.

That's only true if you have a narrowly-defined view of what's suitable. Humanity has a proven talent for creating favorable environments where ever we need them. We just need to stretch it.

yavoon · February 10, 2004, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Fascism. The idea that we should all go on a killing spree.

so fascism is the solution to avoid communism?

(for the slow, the joke is that fascism will kill the excess ppl so we don't need to live like dirt poor communists)

The Mad Monk · February 10, 2004, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by alva
So you are basically asking me to go and live in a cage for the 50 years???

How about slowing breeding habits somewhat?

Our "breeding habits" have already slowed considerably in most developed nations -- in fact, many would now be in negative growth were it not for immigration.

Some nations will be facing a very severe age gap in the decades ahead because of this.

Oddly enough, prosperity = slower population growth.

Az · February 10, 2004, 18:42

and even more oddly, slower population growth = less prosperity.

GePap · February 10, 2004, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
and even more oddly, slower population growth = less prosperity.

The proof?

The Mad Monk · February 10, 2004, 18:50

Hah?

yavoon · February 10, 2004, 18:52

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

The proof?

its pretty generally true(not to say its cause and effect).

Barinthus · February 10, 2004, 18:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Well, as far as I know, no planet has yet been discovered that is suitable for settlement.

There's always Chiron

Yeah, if I could do it I'd ban all SUVs, trucks, hummers, and other vehicles that guzzles gas except for those with exceptional gas per km/mile. If someone can prove there's a need for a such vehicle such as for farming or whatnot, he'd have to apply for a permit to purchase a such vehicle and it'd be expensive. Hummers are popping up everywhere where I live and it's so dismaying. Waste of gas and materials.

Also, the entire populace would be put on birth control. If an individual wish to have a child, again, that person would need to apply for the waiver. That way the State can control the birth rate. Ah it won't happen, at least not today.

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 18:53

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Oddly enough, prosperity = slower population growth.

How do you know that it is not the other way around?

Slower population growth=prosperity

yavoon · February 10, 2004, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc

How do you know that it is not the other way around?

Slower population growth=prosperity

I think its pretty obvious one lagged the other.

Barinthus · February 10, 2004, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

Our "breeding habits" have already slowed considerably in most developed nations -- in fact, many would now be in negative growth were it not for immigration.

Some nations will be facing a very severe age gap in the decades ahead because of this.

Oddly enough, prosperity = slower population growth.

Correct. More developed a nation become, more the birth rate drops. The States along with some European nations have ballooning elderly population. In the States, it's a concern because the working force is not large enough to support the social security needs of the elderly population and by the time they become senior citizens themselves, there'll be nothing left in the social security pot for them.

Most of the global population growth is in the developing nations especially in Africa. That's why the 'First World' nations need to get their act together and focus on developing the 'Third World' countries in order to encourage their population growth rates to drop. It's not that simple although, there are social and cultural factors to consider.

yavoon · February 10, 2004, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by DataAeolus

There's always Chiron

Yeah, if I could do it I'd ban all SUVs, trucks, hummers, and other vehicles that guzzles gas except for those with exceptional gas per km/mile. If someone can prove there's a need for a such vehicle such as for farming or whatnot, he'd have to apply for a permit to purchase a such vehicle and it'd be expensive. Hummers are popping up everywhere where I live and it's so dismaying. Waste of gas and materials.

Also, the entire populace would be put on birth control. If an individual wish to have a child, again, that person would need to apply for the waiver. That way the State can control the birth rate. Ah it won't happen, at least not today.

I would probably be willing to die to revolt against u. hard to say, depends how slow the changes creep up. but if u tried it now. it'd be gun in the streets time.

Az · February 10, 2004, 18:56

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

The proof?

It's generally true, and well known. The reason is not expanding, and to be more precise in places like europe, contracting markets for products. Unused manufacturing capacities, etc. The good population growth is a very slow one (around 1 percent per year is great). But worse of them all is population collapse.

yavoon · February 10, 2004, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by DataAeolus

Correct. More developed a nation become, more the birth rate drops. The States along with some European nations have ballooning elderly population. In the States, it's a concern because the working force is not large enough to support the social security needs of the elderly population and by the time they become senior citizens themselves, there'll be nothing left in the social security pot for them.

almost universally europe is in deeper **** w/ social security than america is. tho its certainly ugly for both.

GePap · February 10, 2004, 18:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

It's generally true, and well known. The reason is not expanding, and to be more precise in places like europe, contracting markets for products. Unused manufacturing capacities, etc. The good population growth is a very slow one (around 1 percent per year is great). But worse of them all is population collapse.

Sorry, but prosperity to me seems an issue of individual wealth, not the ability of the capitalist system to constantly expand and feed itself.

Barinthus · February 10, 2004, 18:59

Yavoon, oh I know

. Those draconian measures wouldn't be popular - human beings are way too selfish.

If I was become the Supreme Emperor of Earth or whatever and tried to pull this off, I'd be overthrown and executed within the hour.

alva · February 10, 2004, 19:00

Quote:

Most of the global population growth is in the developing nations especially in Africa

Are you sure it's not Asia?

Quote:

Some nations will be facing a very severe age gap in the decades ahead because of this.

True, but we can't keep 'growing', at some point we will need to look for a natuaral balance IMHO

Quote:

and even more oddly, slower population growth = less prosperity.

One of the basic flaws of capitalism perhaps?

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 19:04

I don't understand why people are worried about the lack of future social security, specifically elderly care.

Presently real unemployment in Europe is 25 percent, and elderly care has never been greater than it is now.

It must be that some people are afraid of taking care of the elderly. I wonder why that is.

The Mad Monk · February 10, 2004, 19:40

Capitalism has nothing to do with it -- regardless of economic system, if the ratio of workers to dependents drops below a certain point, there simply won't be enough production to support the population -- I se what Azazel is saying now.

GePap · February 10, 2004, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Capitalism has nothing to do with it -- regardless of economic system, if the ratio of workers to dependents drops below a certain point, there simply won't be enough production to support the population -- I se what Azazel is saying now.

One..as long as productivity of the workers, or the means of production goes up, this is forestalled. Second, make people work longer-this is a solution as well.

The Mad Monk · February 10, 2004, 19:55

Certainly, but the presence of mitigating factors dosen't disprove the fundamental idea.

Kuciwalker · February 10, 2004, 20:01

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

One..as long as productivity of the workers, or the means of production goes up, this is forestalled. Second, make people work longer-this is a solution as well.

Making people work longer changes the ratio of workers to dependents, so his statement stands...

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 20:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
slower population growth = less prosperity.

Yet the opposite - higher population growth=more prosperity is not neccesarily true.

There is no direct correlation between population and prosperity.

yavoon · February 10, 2004, 20:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Yet the opposite - higher population growth=more prosperity is not neccesarily true.

There is no direct correlation between population and prosperity.

that is a fallacy of cause and effect.

Bosh · February 10, 2004, 20:17

Yay! All this falling dollar stuff has given me an $80/month pay hike and upped the value of my bank account. It feels strange making money off of currency speculation.

Giancarlo · February 10, 2004, 20:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
The conservative camp believes in a stronger dollar and a balanced budget for the US. The other camp wants fiscal stimulus and a weaker dollar. The Economist calls for a weaker dollar and a balanced budget though.

I call for pretty much the same. Weaker dollar improves exports. I think conservatives believe that too. Well at least the great Bush adminstration does.