Market Currents
Paul Farrell pens his most apocalyptic vision yet of U.S. and global decline, as denial and...
-
Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 6:25 PM ETPaul Farrell pens his most apocalyptic vision yet of U.S. and global decline, as denial and greedy addictions render us unable to deal with the biggest bubble ever: an exploding population that could hit 10B by 2050. "Already too many people in our world. Adding too many more every day. Not enough resources." Among his solutions: "Rapid and wholly voluntary reductions of fertility."
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 34 comments:
But I don't think it's that bad. Population growth will likely slow due to increasing poverty, shorter life expectancies, etc.
Wars, too. I bet there will be a couple nasty ones before too long. WMDs are still out there, and you can be they'll be used one day.
And many cultures currently embrace the notion that you don't have to feed everyone, just the rich. It worked out great in France a few hundred years back.
See? The world will be just fine. :)
The downside is that negative population growth has never correlated with good economic outcomes.
Actually the Black Death which wiped out 1/3rd of the population enabled the remaining workforce to demand higher wages as they hired out as laborers. The size of families also bounced back as it seemed like a lot of breeding was going on to replenish their families. So standards of living actually improved!
Yeah right.
As everyone educated in the sciences knows, the Star Trek universe had nothing like limited population growth. Captain Kirk alone probably had dozens of children with dozens of women. And don't count out Commander Riker, either, you know he got himself some.
See, it's not that they limited population growth, it's that they grew the supply of inhabitable planets.
So, in conclusion, this proves that supply side economics is obviously the stuff of science fiction television. :)
So what are Kirk and Spock saying about the markets these days? Up? Down? Trading Range?
And don't forget to hedge for Trouble with Tribbles!!!
People have been saying the world is overpopulated for at least 70 years now as the world population has continued to double several times over.
Even if we are up against resource constraints, then free moving prices in a free market will force us to conserve, be efficient and deal with the resource constraints (as is happening now with higher prices for oil & commodities).
And then there are possible technological innovations that may make the whole point mute.
Oh and finally, and probably most importantly, as societies get more materially rich, people chose to have less kids anyway.
It's only the poorer countries that have too many children.
Warren Buffet admits as much , said here he was lucky , a well educated , white male in the center of an economy that grew & grew for decades.
If the western governments can't fix the broken structure , the obvious solution of increasing family saving , working harder for less for some time has no takers among voters , the rise of Asia & Africa in the next few decades will automatically reduce the wage disparities , bring back the manufacturing jobs , bring in more tourists , and create demand for expensive products.
Far more pressing are solutions to problems such as climate change and long-term unemployment.
The Economist posted an article recently that effectively quashes this topic as well:
http://econ.st/tmxBC6
We can probably take a larger population but at what cost? Wipe out all the wilderness? Live on top of each other? The earth can only take on so much stress.
Malthus did it and yet somehow we're still here.
40 years ago it was a new fad with Ehrlich, Club for Growth and "The Population Bomb". Every measure of human health has improved from that time period and every time period since records have been kept. Julian Simon proved it. Technology has and will solve any problem we face.
Not a single doom prediction proved accurate. The radical environmentalists just don't like human beings and would like to see the world depopulated so that we stop harming Gaia and the "elites" can have their playground unspoiled by the human masses.
Paul writes some interesting stuff from time to time but the guy is clearly off his meds in the last few months.
Generally agree with you but a doomsday prophet only has to be right once.
The philosophy of growth,growth,growth, as the only solution for a better economy, has to be changed so that continual growth is not absolutely necessary for our constant economic improvement.
Paul Farrell made the front of DrudgeReport last week, congrats on all the extra tin-hat traffic!
But, there are always those whose lives revolve around pessimism and fear. It's its own form of religion.
Agree with your observation about huddled masses as I do travel all over. Most cities were settled by water for transportation reasons and also as a necessity. If we decide to take over every inch of the globe and clear forests and rearrange the ecosystem we will lose a lot of wildlife and we will have other unforseen consequences. And what is the point of that?
Your cause and effect are not correct although your overriding point is fine. Cities exist in their current locations for very valid reasons and access to water was key for the founding of cities for many millenia. As they grew they became regional centers of trade and culture and that continues to sustain them today.