BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[Pblakeney]

But couldn't we do with a higher birthrate in the UK? Or is the objective to manage a shrinking economy (without the politicians admitting that that's what our future holds)? It is genuinely interesting how many of the couples I know have chosen not to have children (or been unable to).

If we do then that is a tacit admission that capitalism is a Ponzi scheme.

 

[briantrumpet]

If we do then that is a tacit admission that capitalism is a Ponzi scheme.

Hmm, I think in any system there is an element of current working-age generations looking after the post- and pre-work generations, and I don't think, for instance, you would describe an African tribe structure where that happens as a Ponzi scheme: if that tribe's reproductive ratio fell below 'one out - one in', that tribe would necessarily shrink and would have to readjust its expectations.

At the moment, the UK's reproductive ratio is way below just maintaining the status quo, and though the lead times are measured in decades, without honesty from politicians, the choices are fairly simple to either accept a shrinking population and economy, or to rely on immigration.

Ha, yes, I know, "honesty from politicians"...

 

[Pblakeney]

Hmm, I think in any system there is an element of current working-age generations looking after the post- and pre-work generations, and I don't think, for instance, you would describe an African tribe structure where that happens as a Ponzi scheme: if that tribe's reproductive ratio fell below 'one out - one in', that tribe would necessarily shrink and would have to readjust its expectations.

At the moment, the UK's reproductive ratio is way below just maintaining the status quo, and though the lead times are measured in decades, without honesty from politicians, the choices are fairly simple to either accept a shrinking population and economy, or to rely on immigration.

Ha, yes, I know, "honesty from politicians"...

Looking after others isn't what was being referred to though, it was continuous growth.
Whether that is birth rate or profit if you need continuous growth to stand still then something is off.

 

[Psamathe]

But couldn't we do with a higher birthrate in the UK? Or is the objective to manage a shrinking economy (without the politicians admitting that that's what our future holds)? It is genuinely interesting how many of the couples I know have chosen not to have children (or been unable to).

I think we should be striving to be a "Society" not an "Economy".

But if we think economic growth more important and that we need population to achieve that, immigration is a far more cost effective way to achieve those economic impacts. Raising children to the point of them contributing to the economy is slow and expensive. Immigration is fast and cheap.

Many of the major challenges and much of the damage to our planet stems from too many people. And that damage we are causing is imminently making parts of the currently inhabited land uninhabitable so those living there will need to move elsewhere ...

 

[Ian H]

Hmm, I think in any system there is an element of current working-age generations looking after the post- and pre-work generations, and I don't think, for instance, you would describe an African tribe structure where that happens as a Ponzi scheme: if that tribe's reproductive ratio fell below 'one out - one in', that tribe would necessarily shrink and would have to readjust its expectations.

At the moment, the UK's reproductive ratio is way below just maintaining the status quo, and though the lead times are measured in decades, without honesty from politicians, the choices are fairly simple to either accept a shrinking population and economy, or to rely on immigration.

Ha, yes, I know, "honesty from politicians"...

https://ourworldindata.org/data-ins...ty-rates-above-or-below-the-replacement-level

 

[briantrumpet]

https://ourworldindata.org/data-ins...ty-rates-above-or-below-the-replacement-level

Thanks Mr H.

 

[briantrumpet]

Looking after others isn't what was being referred to though, it was continuous growth.
Whether that is birth rate or profit if you need continuous growth to stand still then something is off.

FWIW, I wasn't referring to 'continuous growth', just the political/societal choices that lie ahead if the 'fertility rate' (sorry, hate that term, hence the scare quotes) stays well below 2. The population isn't being honest with itself, so the politicians won't be honest with the population.

I've disliked this needing 'continuous growth' to have the perception of just standing still. I can understand why those with the least would want at least their proportion of 'the economy' to expand, when they see vast wealth around them but not in their pockets, but that discussion could be just as equally be about how the wealth is distributed, rather than the size of the overall pot.

 

[Pblakeney]

I've disliked this needing 'continuous growth' to have the perception of just standing still. I can understand why those with the least would want at least their proportion of 'the economy' to expand, when they see vast wealth around them but not in their pockets, but that discussion could be just as equally be about how the wealth is distributed, rather than the size of the overall pot.

I completely agree, but those in charge want the size of the overall pot (primarily their share of it) to increase and to achieve that the population has to grow to feed demand. AI and robotics is only going to increase the wealth divide so more people spending less balances the books.

#Eeyore