-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Overpopulation
- Thread starter Ian4
- Start date
This is a furphy. Birthrates are in decline almost everywhere outside the "third world". Agree with others as education increases birthrates decline. In the "western world" they are below 2.1 in most countries which is below replacements rates, that means more people are dying than being born. Hence the baby bonuses. Governements know that growth cannot be sustained in a declining society. The bigger problem is going to be massive bureaucracies weighing down change and innovation IMO.
KnightersRevenge said:
In many developing countries fertility rates are declining too - this correlates with economic development and education levels of course.
Livers fixation on Africa is puzzling given it's one of the more sparsely populated regions of the world, and HIV (sadly) is a big check on population growth. For example Europe is about twice as densely populated as Africa. Asia is about four times as densely populated.
I guess it's harder to accuse Europeans of witch doctory and cultural backwardness though.
Disco08 said:
Its not only an enormous situation that may never come to fruition and will cost trillions of dollars to try and implement....but is it the answer?
By lowering the fertility rate but having such good healthcare and knowledge (regarding foods we eat and general well-being of our bodies)...won't we just end up with an older population instead?
Azza said:
That is a discussion for a different thread I think Azza, but yes, we (our governments - our disconnect from the business of government) have allowed a very small number of companies to aquire a lot of smaller companies. We get the appearance of competition without the pesky need for any actual competition. If we didn't get a wake up call from the Borders collapse that took out almost every bookshop in the country then we will never learn.
KnightersRevenge said:
I agree it's a discussion for a different thread. It's only that you singled-out government bureaucracy as a repressive element, but ignored others.
Now you're saying that governments should inhibit company acquisitions - I suggest it would take bigger bureaucracy to do that! Also, it takes (big) government to promote innovation in the face of multinational market dominance in some cases. I wish like hell the government had promoted our fledgling solar industry rather than letting it drift offshore.
But as you say, another thread.
Before we move to the other thread, it's a massive overgeneralisation to claim that multinationals stifle innovation - they are also incredibly innovative organisations in their own right. And if they weren't, they'd go bust just like smaller companies do. Of course, they will try and negate competitor innovation through patent wars, acquisitions and so on.
They actually tend to stimulate innovation when they enter a market through increased competition, cooperation with and purchasing from local firms, dissemination of new technology and the like.
They actually tend to stimulate innovation when they enter a market through increased competition, cooperation with and purchasing from local firms, dissemination of new technology and the like.
KnightersRevenge said:
Is there an economics thread buried somewhere? I know bugger all about it, but would find it interesting to see one of the spill-over from the politics thread into one of it's own. I saw someone mention that Giardiensis followed the Austrian school, which I'd never heard of.
antman said:
Its not that puzzling. They are mostly white in Europe and onlykind of a tan colour in Asia.
KnightersRevenge said:
The Fidel Castro stick it up your arse America thread?
A big reason why big companies swallow smaller companies is that government regulations make the cost of running business too high, which only the big dogs can afford. Subsidies, tarrifs, price controls (such as minimum wage) have the same effect.
The best way to support innovation is to protect private property rights (so that people can bear the fruits of their labour), to lower the costs of doing business (cutting red and green tape), to lower the transaction costs of raising capital (lower taxes so more money is diverted to capital goods, allow interest rates to be set by the market), etc. Basically get the government out of the economy, and get it doing what it should be doing (protecting private property).
The best way to support innovation is to protect private property rights (so that people can bear the fruits of their labour), to lower the costs of doing business (cutting red and green tape), to lower the transaction costs of raising capital (lower taxes so more money is diverted to capital goods, allow interest rates to be set by the market), etc. Basically get the government out of the economy, and get it doing what it should be doing (protecting private property).
Giardiasis said:
Yeah everytihg to do with government restrictions. Nothing to do with economies of scale, creating oligopolies to control prices, buying up the supply chain to do same, becoming so powerful they can manipulate government policy and public opinion, having the economic clout to suppress innovation that will challenge their profits.
The only way to create monopolies is by tamping into the only true monopoly that exists, i.e. the government. Without it, all business is at the mercy of the market. We need to stop big business from gaining advantages through government policy that disadvantages consumers.Azza said:
Becoming so powerful they can manipulate government policy is interesting. Remember both government and big business like getting into bed with each other, so what would you like done about it? I’d prefer to not allow the government to set policies that advantage big business at the expense of consumers. Perhaps we need a new model of government?
Economies of scale bring benefits to consumers, so why would you want to change that? Competition for competition’s sake defeats the purpose.
My reply was to your claim that corporations only grow large at the expense of smaller companies in response to government policy. I pointed out reasons independent of government policy. There are both advantages and disadvantages for consumers in large corporations.
