patrick.net

Strategist says

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aE.x_r_l9NZE

That is a trip I did not know the Chinese bought that many cars.

indigenous says

The other thing that needs to be considered is that human knowledge grows geometrically.

Human knowledge actually shrinks. We are acquiring false knowledge at an alarming rate.

Heraclitusstudent says

A demographic problem: whether the population keeps growing or shrinks, that's a demographic problem.

Since when is a shrinking population a problem???

Peter P says

Human knowledge actually shrinks. We are acquiring false knowledge at an alarming rate.

I hear you, but I'm not talking conjecture.

zzyzzx says

Heraclitusstudent says

A demographic problem: whether the population keeps growing or shrinks, that's a demographic problem.

Since when is a shrinking population a problem???

That would depend on which demographic population is shrinking and which demographic population you belong to. There is potential strength in numbers, as they would have a seemingly endless supply of replacement soldiers. Though we might save resources by reducing our population, I could see where we'd run the risk of having those resources stripped by a country with enough manpower to simply take what they need, assuming they have the political will and organization to do so.

indigenous says

That is Malthus BS, he said that world growth would be constrained by food production. Or course he was projecting this through 1800 crop yields.

The whole idea of scarcity comes about through this idea of peak oil or peak what ever. Technology changes the peak.

The other thing that needs to be considered is that human knowledge grows geometrically.

Malthus was absolutely right.

There is no amount of technology or knowledge that could sustain an exponential growth of population perpetually.

If you don't believe this is true, you don't believe in arithmetic.

zzyzzx says

Since when is a shrinking population a problem???

Since a shrinking economy is a problem.

The demographics will change. As the educated and civilized have fewer kids, the rest are reproducing like rabbits.

The Armageddon will not be a mass extinction event. It is simply the intellectual de-evolution of the species.

indigenous says

The important thing to do is allow that nascent change be allowed to grow as that is where the solutions come from.

Soylent Green here we come . . .

Sure we can make more food, maybe. But not necessarily of the quality or at least form we've grown up with.

Drop the yuan to 2 and we'll see a lot more exports to them

Maybe we can make the CAFOs to fulfill this new demand. We've certainly got the land, but we also need feed and water . . .

not seeing much upside growth in corn

unless we develop new ways of producing it, or other animal feeds

Or eat less and stop using food as transportation fuel.

Bellingham Bill says

Drop the yuan to 2 and we'll see a lot more exports to them

That will be part of re-balancing.

Bellingham Bill says

not seeing much upside growth in corn

Simple quit using it to make ethanol.

Heraclitusstudent says

Since a shrinking economy is a problem.

The economy is 80% bullshit of artificial scarcity.

The economy is a means to an end, not the end. It can "shrink" without affecting the actual welfare -- aka "wealth" -- of the people.

shows a quarter of economy is simply housing and health care now, sectors rife with rent-seeking.

Even capital improvement is a means to an end, not the end. ISTM with Japan's shrinking population they no longer have to break ground on new infrastructure; they only have to maintain and recycle what they've already built (in general).

e.g.. they need to think about closing schools, not building new ones.

This affects job growth etc. but if they can manage to somehow "plan" the transition, they'll all be better off with a much smaller population. More stuff, more economic opportunity, for fewer people.

Japan still has an underemployment problem . . .

so their problem is not just one of falling working-age. They have the people, they just have to figure out how to employ them best.

Bellingham Bill says

The economy is a means to an end, not the end. It can "shrink" without affecting the actual welfare -- aka "wealth" -- of the people.

Maybe but unlikely in a capitalist world. Stocks shrinking = no investment.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you don't believe this is true, you don't believe in arithmetic.

I believe the world is a bigger, and deeper, place than we currently think.

I don't see why it can't support 100 billion people eventually. Don't expect grass-fed beef burgers unless you're part of the 1%, but technology will advance and the Earth does have the stock of stuff we'd need to feed, clothe, house, entertain ourselves, given sufficient technology advances.

But getting there from here is the tricky bit. There are other futures, too, one where climate change and drought really fuck our shit up before we can figure out new wealth-creation modes to replace what would be failing us.

Heraclitusstudent says

Stocks shrinking = no investment.

Japan's stock isn't shrinking. It's got the same stuff it had 20 years ago, modulo what has been extracted.

and I argue that since it doesn't have to worry about infrastructure expansion any more -- breaking new ground for housing etc -- it can focus more on creating actual wealth, though with the yuan still at 6 it's tough since that puts Chinese wages at 1/3 their wage level.

Japan still has millions of young people looking for work.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=FKv

even though they've lost 40% of their incoming population

turtledove says

Strategist says

In the good old days conquering distant lands made you a "Great Empire"


Today the same thing makes you an "Evil Imperialist"

Those were the good ole days! Conquering and pillaging... Just taking all the resources and enslaving whoever... Those were the days when you got something for winning. Now, you get nothing but some moral obligation. Then you have to twist yourself into knots figuring out how to get the loot while still appearing to have the moral high ground. If only things could be simple again.

Ah yes, like teh good old days when a man would find the woman of his dreams, club her on the head and drag her off to the cave.

Why oh why did we ever deviate from that perfect life?

Bellingham Bill says

I don't see why it can't support 100 billion people eventually.

Depends - is everyone willing to spend their lives treating the earth like the spaceship it is? That is existing on the absolute minimum of space, calories, oxygen and possessions then sure.

But would you really want your kids to have to exist like that?