BF2S Forums Population

Ban contraception.

Show more porn on terrestrial TV at night








Purely for the national interest of the country, of course

FEOS wrote:

Childbirth is one of the many areas where govt has no place.

I agree. But how do we face the issues I raise in the OP? Embrace immigration whole-heartedly? Streamline immigration?

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Childbirth is one of the many areas where govt has no place.

I agree. But how do we face the issues I raise in the OP? Embrace immigration whole-heartedly? Streamline immigration?

A country must balance immigration policy with employment opportunity. If one truly buys the OP's assertion (not sure that I do), then the only thing that the government can (or should) do is affect immigration policy.

one may argue that an excessive population boom might also be a 'drag' on the economy in case they cannot get gainful employment and govt continues to dole out social programs to these same people who do not produce enough.  this would mean that the economy would actually have to increase itself through some other means (productivity increase or perhaps new and emerging markets) to compensate. 

my take is that productivity has an even more direct relation to economic growth.  take for example the US growth of the late 19th and early 20th century due to industrialization.  increased productivity and automation has allowed huge profits to be achieved in manufacturing goods.  could people have done these things instead of automation and ingenuity?  sure, and the economy would have crawled.  it's a matter of rate and scale.  i am not addressing whether this is good or bad for people - granted.

economics is the study of how to make the most out of what resources you have.  so given that we have fixed resources, having more population can actually be a detriment.  especially since the most prolific breeders are the ones not putting the most into the pot.  one may think that by simply scaling population that we can overcome this 'drain' with more people, but i believe that this actually cannot happen.  an example of why this might not work is in africa or even india and china.  again, it comes down to resources needed to deal with the added labor force.  those costs are higher than the productivity that the extra people would provide since you need to house, job-train, etc. 

perhaps this could be amortized over time a bit so that say in 50 years it might improve to make your argument sound - but you need the cooperation of the people to do it.  i don't see this in western europe with it's huddled masses from north africa refusing to integrate into society.

bottom line, i think population scaling is not effective in increasing economic growth at a strong rate.  rather, by increasing productivity you can get a faster rate of change.  both 'may' work, but which will get you faster?  i claim productivity.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I agree. But how do we face the issues I raise in the OP? Embrace immigration whole-heartedly? Streamline immigration?

A country must balance immigration policy with employment opportunity. If one truly buys the OP's assertion (not sure that I do), then the only thing that the government can (or should) do is affect immigration policy.

My OP assertion is based on classical economic theory as outlined by Adam Smith.

Not all economic growth relies on a growing population. Economic growth can occur with increased production and export without a markedly increased population. A growing economy does better support a growing population, but the latter is not a requirement for the former.

FEOS wrote:

Not all economic growth relies on a growing population. Economic growth can occur with increased production and export without a markedly increased population. A growing economy does better support a growing population, but the latter is not a requirement for the former.

I was not asserting that population growth was the be all and end all of economic growth. As you mention, productivity and innovation are also major drivers. A shrinking/stagnating population is not a recipe for economic success, as witnessed in Japan - one of the most innovative and productive nations on earth.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-13 11:10:49)

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Not all economic growth relies on a growing population. Economic growth can occur with increased production and export without a markedly increased population. A growing economy does better support a growing population, but the latter is not a requirement for the former.

I was not asserting that population growth was the be all and end all of economic growth. As you mention, productivity and innovation are also major drivers. A shrinking/stagnating population is not a recipe for economic success, as witnessed in Japan - one of the most innovative and productive nations on earth.

interesting article on japanese economic stagnation:  http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h207_2002/ja … ecline.htm

FEOS wrote:

I guess if Ireland's economy is primarily agrarian, then perhaps Mr Smith's theory may be more applicable to your country than another.

Regardless, if your country's economy relies on population growth, the ONLY place the government can influence population growth without infringing on its citizens' rights is via immigration policies.

Ireland's economy is primarily industry and services based, agriculture is of ever decreasing consequence, especially under the terms of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. On the latter matter you're probably right, although the Norwegian government has implemented a system whereby mothers (or fathers if they choose to take the place of the mother) can take a year off work fully paid to raise their child - one measure aimed at bolstering population growth.

I still think my idea is the best

It's not even my idea, I remember someone talking about how the French did it, and it was actually quite successful.

People need to stop having kids or we won't exist in 100 years.  Regardless of what the religious nuts say.

Its already too late... but the sooner the entire world adopts a 1 child only policy, the less the damage will be when the next epidemic kills off more than half the world.

Economy what?  ohh what Braddock said.

Give every adult woman a yearly bonus of 5,000 bucks.  Every time she has a kid, cut that number in half.  Simple, really......

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-09-13 13:39:15)

CameronPoe wrote:

Economic growth relies to a great extent on an increasing population. The problem with this is that as an economy develops, people become more affluent and tend to have less children (many putting careers/materialism first and then popping out sprogs just before it becomes biologically risky). In western Europe and Japan we see this quite clearly, I'd imagine the same holds true in the US. Ireland's economic boom would have ended long ago if it were not for the 400,000 immigrants we took in over the past 10 years (nearly 10% of our population!).

So, my question is this: how do we deal with this problem? Must we rely on immigration? Should we somehow reward or incentivise childbirth?

Immigration proves an invaluable source for increasing economic growth. Remember that you don't necessarily need to have a population increase, a quality increase in the likes of machinery would lead to economic growth as well.

FEOS wrote:

Not all economic growth relies on a growing population. Economic growth can occur with increased production and export without a markedly increased population. A growing economy does better support a growing population, but the latter is not a requirement for the former.

A country can only achieve economic growth when it is already producing to its maximum potential, and then finds ... say ... a new mineral deposit. Judging from that statement you made it sounds like the country was not producing to its maximum level originally, and so there was no economic growth - just an increase in already-there production.

Last edited by kylef (2008-09-13 14:20:10)