KEM, considering how our economy is structured - that "growth" (in population/customer base) is needed for economic success - global declining birth rates is a serious economic problem. What we need is a different system, not higher birth rates. By different, I mean new, and not yet imagined, and not merely a re-tread of one of the exist…
KEM, considering how our economy is structured - that "growth" (in population/customer base) is needed for economic success - global declining birth rates is a serious economic problem. What we need is a different system, not higher birth rates. By different, I mean new, and not yet imagined, and not merely a re-tread of one of the existing "isms".
Population size also supports military power. So I don't see a transition to a new economic model occurring soon nor without upheaval.
Jerry, yes, exactly my point! The article that ticked me off so much was about the/this economy and birth rates, and nothing else. No alternatives, no other consequences of unbridled population increase considered, etc. It's just a re-tread of Republican goals, masquerading as scientific study.
The WSJ has a blind spot when it comes to giving humans equal footing to businesses. Other than that small detail, they're a pretty good source of info. I just unsubscribed from that publication because their blind spot has not changed, and I can get decent balanced news elsewhere that doesn't piss me off.
KEM, considering how our economy is structured - that "growth" (in population/customer base) is needed for economic success - global declining birth rates is a serious economic problem. What we need is a different system, not higher birth rates. By different, I mean new, and not yet imagined, and not merely a re-tread of one of the existing "isms".
Population size also supports military power. So I don't see a transition to a new economic model occurring soon nor without upheaval.
Jerry, yes, exactly my point! The article that ticked me off so much was about the/this economy and birth rates, and nothing else. No alternatives, no other consequences of unbridled population increase considered, etc. It's just a re-tread of Republican goals, masquerading as scientific study.
The WSJ has a blind spot when it comes to giving humans equal footing to businesses. Other than that small detail, they're a pretty good source of info. I just unsubscribed from that publication because their blind spot has not changed, and I can get decent balanced news elsewhere that doesn't piss me off.
I unsubscribed last year, for the same reason.