Comments on: Politics makes a comeback Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: zaide1776 Sat, 29 Dec 2012 17:23:03 +0000 Growth economy defects

Chrystia Freeland on ‘Up with Chris Hayes’ that aired on Saturday, December 29, 2012, stated that growth was necessary for improving the standard of living of people who are at the low end of the income scale or unemployed.

This correlation can be found where there is investment in an economy, such as extraction of natural resources, construction of infrastructure and new technology, whether in developing or third world nations or the USA during the Clinton era.

However, when the long-term outlook is exhaustion of key resources before we have scalable substitutes for them (edible seafood, drinkable and agricultural water, productive agricultural soil depth, helium and other rare elements) and environmental degradation that will require huge sums to either repair, remediate or forestall damage, then relieving population pressure as a factor in resource use and environmental degradation can have more beneficial effects than ‘growth.’

Birth rates below the replacement rate will result in fewer people. Fewer people will produce less waste, need less food, use fewer resources and put pressure on nations to educate youth, unemployed people and others who would be in the categories that Freeland posits are benefited by ‘growth.’ Lower resource usage rates will increase the number of years the resources will last. It may also lead to a higher median level of education and standard of living; both could have beneficial effects on crime reduction and improved family and community cohesion. A slow reduction in population will also reduce the number of people displaced by automation.

The downside in the USA and some other nations has to due with the redistribution mechanism that did not accommodate changes in longevity, demographics and inflation – Social Security for example. A decline in population could result in a reduction of taxes paid into the Social Security Trust Fund, if the earnings of the smaller better-educated future population don’t rise fast enough to make up the difference. Still, the Social Security structure needs revision for the long-term anyway.

Gary Landau

By: RonJeremy Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:48:59 +0000 If you think China is communist, you don’t understand China or communism. They’re abotu as communist as they are a People’s Republic, i.e. in name only.

They are closer to a fascist state at the macro level, as “the party” really is just the collection of corporate interests and oligarchs. At the small business level its closer to a libertarian model – very few regulations (and those poorly enforced), on everything from labor to the environment. Small businesses pay virtually no taxes, and are generally very easy to set up.