I like to be brief and succinct.
The reasons are thus;
1. I'm lazy and really don't like writing that much.
2. Most people's attention spans today is too short to appreciate lengthier writings.
So, assuming you are of the average Cappy Cap reader, permit me this quick, brief observation:
If a society has managed to pool financial resources by taking trust funds granted from the past, and combine them with proceeds from mortgaging the future, how long can the present society last on inherited and borrowed finances?
Anybody do the fruit fly experiment?
Thus concludes your short, succinct (yet super awesome brilliant) economic insight of the day.
Enjoy the decline!
This is a bit simplistic.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all Malthus banged the over-population drum about 300 years ago. He didn't factor in productivity increases, which have outstripped population growth.
Second of all, I'd predict lower standards of living before a population collapse. Not Haitian-style standards, but maybe Icelandic-style standards. Food will be worse, and less of it, but, worst case, only the margins will starve, not broad swathes of society.
Third, de-regulation needs to be done to allow the levels of productivity that we need today, as well as reducing government spending. That means pay cuts for workers, fewer benefits, and the expectation that they work past 65.
@Geoff Matthews
ReplyDeleteFirst of all Malthus banged the over-population drum about 300 years ago. He didn't factor in productivity increases, which have outstripped population growth.
Everyone seems to know Malthus predicted overpopulation and famine. Yet no one has ever been able to direct me to the quote. Can you assist me here?
By the way Captain you truly are the master of the short post. I've been thinking about this for some time. As a reader I enjoy it a great deal.
ReplyDeletedirty, cheating, hippie boomers
ReplyDelete@dalrock, It's hard to read chapter xi of Malthus' book (an essay on the principle of population) and not see him making the connection between an increasing population and famine. In light of the expansion of the human population of the world, it's obvious his thesis is an error.
ReplyDeleteBut he is guarded in his statements and never says explicitly (as far as I can tell) that "human populations always increase as to outstrip its resources"
I am not predicting starvation or anything like that. But rather that modern day finance allows current generations to effectively make future money and resources "time-travel" from the future to the present, not only giving themselves more resources temporarily, but robbing future generations of those resources.
ReplyDeleteLower wages, less consumption, and less happiness in general I predict as 10 years of little Jimmy's future is brought forward to pay to keep grandpa Hubert alive an extra 3 months.
@Anon
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to read chapter xi of Malthus' book (an essay on the principle of population) and not see him making the connection between an increasing population and famine. In light of the expansion of the human population of the world, it's obvious his thesis is an error.
I think you have the wrong chapter number, and are thinking of Chap 10 and not 11. Either way, the part I think you are referring to is his rebuttal to a utopian socialist/anarchist named Godwin. He is explaining why a world of free love and communal responsibility for children would end in disaster. Malthus' point was in fact that traditional social institutions function as a check to keep population in line with available resources. Quite the opposite of predicting famine. He was predicting that communism (more specifically the precursor nonsense ideas to it) would be a disaster.