That's the impression I get about the competency of Washington every time I turn on the news.
I wouldn't be surprised if they do this to make decisions:http://www.youtube.com/v/3uYuScZOyiM
How Would You "Fix" The U.S. Economy?
- Thread starter Trademark
- Start date
That's the impression I get about the competency of Washington every time I turn on the news.
I wouldn't be surprised if they do this to make decisions:http://www.youtube.com/v/3uYuScZOyiM
I like the idea of a free market in currencies (I heard from Ron Paul). So a company could make their own currency and the strongest would become the most widely held. So badly run currencies (read: fed reserve notes) would not be used/valued.
I think doing this would eventually get rid of all the BS because it couldnt be paid for.
I think doing this would eventually get rid of all the BS because it couldnt be paid for.
lol there is only one solution to improve the world economy. Less people. It blows my mind that everyone either doesnt recognize this as the problem or chooses to ignore it intentionally. More people = less stuff to go around. Its that simple. globally enforce (through reversable sterilization or some other means) 1/2 child credit per person (meaning each person has exactly 1 chance to have a baby with 1 other person and thats it) for 2 generations and our world population will drop to 25% of its current size. 25% of people useing the same amount of resources as current population means everyone gets 4x as much stuff/money/whatever as they are getting now. Problem solved.
I know thats never going to happen but look folks here is teh deal... it doesnt matter how you shuffle the money/resources around. At the end of the day there is still only X amount of money and resources in the world and if you keep adding more people to it thats less per person. Look at whats happened to world population in the last 200 years. Its no head-scratcher that economies EVERYWHERE are falling.
I know thats never going to happen but look folks here is teh deal... it doesnt matter how you shuffle the money/resources around. At the end of the day there is still only X amount of money and resources in the world and if you keep adding more people to it thats less per person. Look at whats happened to world population in the last 200 years. Its no head-scratcher that economies EVERYWHERE are falling.
actually the world population is leveling off and will probably not even grow to 9 billion. Italy has a birthrate of like 1.2 children per family.
Birth rate - Color-Coded World Map - World
Just because "white people" (not to be taken literally) are breeding less doesn't mean WORLD birthrates are dropping. People in india are having TONS of kids for example.
Basically what you have here is a map of countries... all the countries with a nice standard of living have dramatically dropped their birth rates. All the 2nd and 3rd world countries have increased thier birthrates. All the comfortable nations outsource to the uncomfortable nations due to higher population and lower costs as a result... and that money shifts itself right out of the comfortable countries hands and gets distributed to broke people who then immigrate to the comfortable countries. Trust me... population is the problem.
Incidentally you choose a poor example... italy is tied with germany and japan for the 2nd lowest birthrate in the entire world.
Just because "white people" (not to be taken literally) are breeding less doesn't mean WORLD birthrates are dropping. People in india are having TONS of kids for example.
Basically what you have here is a map of countries... all the countries with a nice standard of living have dramatically dropped their birth rates. All the 2nd and 3rd world countries have increased thier birthrates. All the comfortable nations outsource to the uncomfortable nations due to higher population and lower costs as a result... and that money shifts itself right out of the comfortable countries hands and gets distributed to broke people who then immigrate to the comfortable countries. Trust me... population is the problem.
Incidentally you choose a poor example... italy is tied with germany and japan for the 2nd lowest birthrate in the entire world.
People won't get 4x as much money/stuff/whatever since there will only be 1/4 the amount of consumers and workers.
200 years ago we also didn't have massive government debt, socialist policies, or even widespread democracy. And are you seriously saying that an economy has never failed before 200 years ago?? Your argument doesn't really make any sense.
Ron Paul 2012
are you high? if there is X amount of a resource and Y amount of people consuming that resource and you decrease Y that means more X per Y how does that not make sense to you?
Example. Oil. We know there is a finite amount of it. if there is 1/4th the amount of people consuming it that sort of changes the landscape for a while doesnt it? But feel free to keep thinking on micro instead of macro scales.
Give this a read.. you might find it interesting. http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html
Example. Oil. We know there is a finite amount of it. if there is 1/4th the amount of people consuming it that sort of changes the landscape for a while doesnt it? But feel free to keep thinking on micro instead of macro scales.
Give this a read.. you might find it interesting. http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html
sorry for the double post but here is some more fun facts... so it took the world nearly 2000 years to get from 200mil population to 1.2bil population (0 A.D. - 1850) for a 1 billion person population increase.
from 1998-2009 (11 years) we added another billion. Yeah... population isn't an issue at all.
World Population Growth
Year Population
1 200 million
1000 275 million
1500 450 million
1650 500 million
1750 700 million
1804 1 billion
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2009 6.8 billion
from 1998-2009 (11 years) we added another billion. Yeah... population isn't an issue at all.
World Population Growth
Year Population
1 200 million
1000 275 million
1500 450 million
1650 500 million
1750 700 million
1804 1 billion
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2009 6.8 billion
Yes that might be correct if productivity and technology were static. Malthus theorized this already, and it was proven incorrect.
It was proven incorrect by whom exactly?
David Pimentel and Ron Nielsen, working independently, determined that the human population as a whole has passed the numerical point where all can live in comfort, and that we have entered a stage where many of the world's citizens and future generations are trapped in misery.[7] There is evidence that a catastrophe is underway as of at least the 1990s; for example, by the year 2000, children in developing countries were dying at the rate of approximately 11,000,000 per annum from strictly preventable diseases.[8][9] These data suggest that, by the standard of misery, the catastrophe is underway. The term 'misery' can generally be construed as: high infant mortality, low standards of sanitation, malnutrition, inadequate drinking water, widespread diseases, war, and political unrest.
Regarding famines, data demonstrate the world's food production has peaked in some of the very regions where food is needed the most. For example, in South Asia, approximately half of the land has been degraded such that it no longer has the capacity for food production.[9] In China there has been a 27% irreversible loss of land for agriculture, and it continues to lose arable land at the rate of 2,500 square kilometres per year.[10] In Madagascar, at least 30% of the land previously regarded as arable is irreversibly barren. On the other hand, recent data show the number of overweight people in the world now outnumbers that of malnourished, and the rising tide of obesity continues to expand in both rich and poor countries.[11]
David Pimentel and Ron Nielsen, working independently, determined that the human population as a whole has passed the numerical point where all can live in comfort, and that we have entered a stage where many of the world's citizens and future generations are trapped in misery.[7] There is evidence that a catastrophe is underway as of at least the 1990s; for example, by the year 2000, children in developing countries were dying at the rate of approximately 11,000,000 per annum from strictly preventable diseases.[8][9] These data suggest that, by the standard of misery, the catastrophe is underway. The term 'misery' can generally be construed as: high infant mortality, low standards of sanitation, malnutrition, inadequate drinking water, widespread diseases, war, and political unrest.
Regarding famines, data demonstrate the world's food production has peaked in some of the very regions where food is needed the most. For example, in South Asia, approximately half of the land has been degraded such that it no longer has the capacity for food production.[9] In China there has been a 27% irreversible loss of land for agriculture, and it continues to lose arable land at the rate of 2,500 square kilometres per year.[10] In Madagascar, at least 30% of the land previously regarded as arable is irreversibly barren. On the other hand, recent data show the number of overweight people in the world now outnumbers that of malnourished, and the rising tide of obesity continues to expand in both rich and poor countries.[11]
Some of your points are so ridiculous it's not even worth arguing. Right, so the first world countries outsource the shittier jobs elsewhere and probably end up with enormous end-product profit margins, yet you're worried about people making $10 a day trying to immigrate to your precious country? It wouldn't surprise me if the birthrate equalled out overall, what with bad infant mortality rates and lower life expectancy.
I bet the percentage of the population of 3rd world countries dying from diseases is less than in the past. Just because 100% of preventable disease cases aren't dealt with, it doesn't mean we're doomed. Generally, things are getting better. Look up crop yields now compared to in the past. Through the roof.
I think the question was how do we fix the U.S. economy. So population growth around the world doesn't matter. Right now our "baby boomers" are all hitting their senior years and dying off. That means that our population here in the United States will be going down.
I vote that we sit back and watch this BP oil spill fiasco. If BP manages to pay for this entire clean-up and still turns a profit, then we give GM back, and start taking over the oil companies.
I vote that we sit back and watch this BP oil spill fiasco. If BP manages to pay for this entire clean-up and still turns a profit, then we give GM back, and start taking over the oil companies.
That's it in a nutshell. 1/4 of the population = 1/4 of the productivity output or less due to the compounding effect that the division of labor has.
@Apex, your theory is great if it assumes that all models of social organization are the same. When you factor in the division of labor, more people is better than less. We're not even close to tapping into the limits of our resources, much of the planet is still uninhabited and undeveloped, and I'm not including the oceans.
We're reasonably within 4 or 5 generations of starting to colonize space (provided governments don't get in the way) which will present all manner of new opportunities and resources.
Most of mankind's economic progress in energy development, food development is throttled by governments instituted regulation that hinders marketplace innovation and protects monopolies.
@the topic,
As long as people believe they have a right to a retirement pension, education, food, shelter, health care, military adventurism, foreign aid etc. then the system won't change.
Where do you get the gold to back the dollar 100%? There hasn't been enough gold mined in the history of the world to back the dollar at a 100% margin.