The author spends more time telling us this is scary than explaining why it's scary. And I'm not convinced. In the final paragraph he finally tries to explain why: Personally I think we'll do just...
The author spends more time telling us this is scary than explaining why it's scary. And I'm not convinced. In the final paragraph he finally tries to explain why:
Here is the challenge: This is a world where every year there is a smaller audience than the year before, a smaller market for your goods or services, fewer workers to choose from, and a ballooning elder population that must be cared for. We've never seen this in modern times; our progress has always paralleled rising populations, bigger audiences, larger markets and bigger pools of workers. It's hard to see how a declining yet aging population functions as an engine for increasing the standard of living every year. To do so would require a completely different economic system, one that we are not prepared for at all right now.
Personally I think we'll do just fine. Some people worry about a declining workforce, while others worry about declining number of jobs due to automation. I believe the two will to some degree cancel each other out. As long as the living standards keep increasing faster than the population shrinks, the economy as a whole will also continue to grow. And I think our current economic system will handle population decline just fine (though long term we may have to change it anyway when we reach the point where anything can be automated).
I remember a study/article on the minimum number of people needed to maintain our standard of living, unfortunately I can't find it. edit: Found it! The comments are great.
I remember a study/article on the minimum number of people needed to maintain our standard of living, unfortunately I can't find it.
There's sort of historical evidence in Population bottleneck that suggests our population can be as low as 10-30k. Of course, this is for extinction, not economic stability. Personally, I don't...
There's sort of historical evidence in Population bottleneck that suggests our population can be as low as 10-30k. Of course, this is for extinction, not economic stability.
Personally, I don't think being unable to support a bloated economy is really a real danger. I fully admit, I don't have enough evidence to support either side, but worrying about overpop is still a greater and more immediate threat.
Still, interesting article. Thanks for posting.
Edit: thanks for the additional article. I would be super sad that we're not going to be space-faring.
Those are all far more capitalistic countries than they are socialistic. Also the wealth and economies of those countries were built but a much less socialistic history. It's some econ 101 people...
Those are all far more capitalistic countries than they are socialistic.
Also the wealth and economies of those countries were built but a much less socialistic history. It's some econ 101 people strolling in to say "but they have free healthcare" that have zero understanding on how they were able to reach that point, how that is only sustainable as long as the population remains relatively rich (aka can't take in tons of refugees), and how they still fall far on the capitalist side.
Hell just out of those countries you listed, Denmark and Sweden are MORE financially free than the US. Germany, Norway and Finland are just below the US. France is the only one even close to separated, and they are still only halfway down the list. Literally no other country I can spot below them would be considered a world leader in economy.
I am talking about the dictionary definition of socialism: "social ownership of the means of production". Not one of the countries you just mentioned is socialist. Socialism is cancer. Social...
I am talking about the dictionary definition of socialism: "social ownership of the means of production". Not one of the countries you just mentioned is socialist. Socialism is cancer. Social programs are not socialism. Social democracy is not socialism either. The post-Keynesian liberal European states with social safety nets aren't socialists.
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
No. Capitalism allows private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit and socialism don't. Either it's allowed or it isn't.
Can you not imagine a middle way?
No. Capitalism allows private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit and socialism don't. Either it's allowed or it isn't.
Would you consider it capitalism if regulations existed that required owners of companies to labor for those companies? Is that allowing ownership in your view?
Either it's allowed or it isn't.
Would you consider it capitalism if regulations existed that required owners of companies to labor for those companies? Is that allowing ownership in your view?
Regulated ownership is still ownership so it's still capitalism.
Would you consider it capitalism if regulations existed that required owners of companies to labor for those companies? Is that allowing ownership in your view?
Regulated ownership is still ownership so it's still capitalism.
Yeah, that's about the lack of effort that I expected. If you want to make bold claims about systems of government, you should at least try to back them up with something more substantial than...
Yeah, that's about the lack of effort that I expected.
If you want to make bold claims about systems of government, you should at least try to back them up with something more substantial than "common knowledge". Even if what you claim is true, the claim itself is useless without some more in-depth backing. A quick google search yields that Bangladesh was fairly socialist in the years after their 1971 rebellion, was life there significantly worse than in neighboring Bhutan? India? Mynmar?
If all that is to come out of posting this article is a circle-jerk about the evils of socialism as a form of government, there are definitely better places to have that discussion.
I'm not making a claim, I reject a claim, the claim that socialism is working. I don't need to argue this case because of something called the burden of proof. Please provide an example of a...
If you want to make bold claims about systems of government, you should at least try to back them up with something more substantial than "common knowledge".
I'm not making a claim, I reject a claim, the claim that socialism is working. I don't need to argue this case because of something called the burden of proof. Please provide an example of a country where you think socialism is working and I will show you how you're wrong.
Would you like to start with Bangladesh? Oh, boy...
Choose one. My point is not the Bangladesh in the 1970's is some paragon of excellent living conditions, merely that I genuinely don't know whether it was better or worse than surrounding...
I'm not making a claim
Life under socialism is far worse for the average people.
Choose one.
Would you like to start with Bangladesh? Oh, boy...
My point is not the Bangladesh in the 1970's is some paragon of excellent living conditions, merely that I genuinely don't know whether it was better or worse than surrounding countries. Further, there are several countries on this list for which that is the case (e.g., Nepal, Benin, Sri Lanka, Madegascar, Ethiopia, Uruguay, etc.) among several examples where it is clearly not (e.g. the USSR block). Claiming off-hand that all socialist countries are bad because reasons definitely requires some burden of proof on your end, good day.
The author spends more time telling us this is scary than explaining why it's scary. And I'm not convinced. In the final paragraph he finally tries to explain why:
Personally I think we'll do just fine. Some people worry about a declining workforce, while others worry about declining number of jobs due to automation. I believe the two will to some degree cancel each other out. As long as the living standards keep increasing faster than the population shrinks, the economy as a whole will also continue to grow. And I think our current economic system will handle population decline just fine (though long term we may have to change it anyway when we reach the point where anything can be automated).
I remember a study/article on the minimum number of people needed to maintain our standard of living, unfortunately I can't find it.
edit: Found it! The comments are great.
There's sort of historical evidence in Population bottleneck that suggests our population can be as low as 10-30k. Of course, this is for extinction, not economic stability.
Personally, I don't think being unable to support a bloated economy is really a real danger. I fully admit, I don't have enough evidence to support either side, but worrying about overpop is still a greater and more immediate threat.
Still, interesting article. Thanks for posting.
Edit: thanks for the additional article. I would be super sad that we're not going to be space-faring.
Unless you're rich, life under capitalism sucks. Why inflict life as a worker on innocent people by conceiving them and birthing them?
Life under socialism is far worse for the average people.
What kind of socialism are you talking about? They seem to have it pretty good in France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.
Those are all far more capitalistic countries than they are socialistic.
Also the wealth and economies of those countries were built but a much less socialistic history. It's some econ 101 people strolling in to say "but they have free healthcare" that have zero understanding on how they were able to reach that point, how that is only sustainable as long as the population remains relatively rich (aka can't take in tons of refugees), and how they still fall far on the capitalist side.
Hell just out of those countries you listed, Denmark and Sweden are MORE financially free than the US. Germany, Norway and Finland are just below the US. France is the only one even close to separated, and they are still only halfway down the list. Literally no other country I can spot below them would be considered a world leader in economy.
I am talking about the dictionary definition of socialism: "social ownership of the means of production". Not one of the countries you just mentioned is socialist. Socialism is cancer. Social programs are not socialism. Social democracy is not socialism either. The post-Keynesian liberal European states with social safety nets aren't socialists.
From Wikipedia
No. Capitalism allows private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit and socialism don't. Either it's allowed or it isn't.
Would you consider it capitalism if regulations existed that required owners of companies to labor for those companies? Is that allowing ownership in your view?
Regulated ownership is still ownership so it's still capitalism.
Con confirm, I've tried it both ways
Source?
Literally every socialist state, ever? And I'm talking about actual socialist states, not Noway or something.
Yeah, that's about the lack of effort that I expected.
If you want to make bold claims about systems of government, you should at least try to back them up with something more substantial than "common knowledge". Even if what you claim is true, the claim itself is useless without some more in-depth backing. A quick google search yields that Bangladesh was fairly socialist in the years after their 1971 rebellion, was life there significantly worse than in neighboring Bhutan? India? Mynmar?
If all that is to come out of posting this article is a circle-jerk about the evils of socialism as a form of government, there are definitely better places to have that discussion.
I'm not making a claim, I reject a claim, the claim that socialism is working. I don't need to argue this case because of something called the burden of proof. Please provide an example of a country where you think socialism is working and I will show you how you're wrong.
Would you like to start with Bangladesh? Oh, boy...
Choose one.
My point is not the Bangladesh in the 1970's is some paragon of excellent living conditions, merely that I genuinely don't know whether it was better or worse than surrounding countries. Further, there are several countries on this list for which that is the case (e.g., Nepal, Benin, Sri Lanka, Madegascar, Ethiopia, Uruguay, etc.) among several examples where it is clearly not (e.g. the USSR block). Claiming off-hand that all socialist countries are bad because reasons definitely requires some burden of proof on your end, good day.