If you look through the links which Google throws up you’ll be led to believe that Economic Growth is linked to Population Growth.
However, this does not add-up when you look at so-called ’ developed countries ’ (my own included) which welcome immigrants with open arms, and often claim that: " More immigrants are needed in order to maintain economic growth " ( sound familiar? ).
So, with that in mind, do economies need to grow in developed countries; countries which would have relatively little, or static population growth were it not for immigrants ?
Yes and no . . . It depends on the country’s developmental stage, and birth/death rate ratio ( or so it seems ).
I’m not sure I understand this sentence.
Reading between my own lines - and in doing so, probably answering my own question - I think I was implying that the governments of developed countries ( that have a low population density ) seem to do little to impede the inflow of immigrants.
There is one possible main reasons for this :
Capitalism is all about Economies of Scale, bigger is better, and if a large proportion of a country’s industries are ‘multinationals’ then a government would be foolish to not feed their demand for more workers.
Unfortunately, multinationals have little interest in the social-fabrics of the countries in which they base themselves.
[size=84][ pulls on ski-mask and starts making fire-bombs ][/size]
As far as I understand it economic growth needs to grow is one or either of two conditions is present: a growing population or a need for rise in quality of life. If an economy doesn’t grow there is either no room for new populations within the economy (so if a child boom comes or immigration peaks the quality of life will go down) or there is no rise in the quality of life. Granted, given how when the economy grows SOMEONE makes money there is usually a drive to expand the economy regardless of social conditions.
As for how immigrants are required to assure economic growth, I believe this simply ties in with infrastructure. Someone has to be at the bottom doing all the crap jobs that are NECESSARY, and people usually look toward immigrants to fill these roles so that natives of the county can receive training to work in economically-fuelling positions.
I remember that the world bank proposed for the third world countries to “grow their way out of poverty” as one of the most effective means for them to catch up with the modern first world countries (as an alternative to dependency theory or neoliberalism). It was one of their major points in their last report, I think. So, perhaps growth is a means of eradicating poverty. This is still under the “global triumph of capitalism” mindset, though.
Referring to jobs which the common population would rather not fill. Not necessarily every necessary job would fall under my ‘definition’ of a ‘crap job’ but many of them would be. Not to step on any toes, but certain undesirable jobs in the service sector would traditionally fall into this role (such as the person who collects animal fat and renders it into tallow).
You are a bank — You want more customers — There is a country that is almost totally populated by subsistance farmers (people who don’t have bank accounts) — What should you do in order to subvert this population, and turn them into customers (slaves) ?
The elected officials of this planet need to wake-up.
Any manufacturing process which requires large amounts of man-made heat is inherently wrong and unsustainable.
I am not sure how it would be inherantly wrong, but in terms of sustainability I think the process has well proven itself to be sustainable given the use of animal fat to make soaps has been emplyed for thousands of years. You might want to explain WHY it is both wrong and unsustainable.
Yes, BlueChicken, you are probably right there, about tallow. I’ve looked it up and it’s production involves nothing hotter than steam, so it’s probably ok.
In all honesty, it was the only ’ Economic ’ angle that could have been salvaged from your post. [size=84]( Try to stay on topic )[/size]
Why don’t you go back and respond to my accusing you of robot loving ?
I am all for the robots! I got nothing to say ba about robots, when they pick my straberries and clean my bedsheets it leaves me more time to get gased and try to play frisbee inside. Bring on the automation, or robots, or immigrants, or cat-people, or whoever wants to keep society going so my philosophic butt can keep up the gross debauchery!
As I have already stated, immigrants are used (in developed countries) to fuel economic growth, or more precisely, the growth of large companies based in those countries.
But what happens when, in the future, there are no more developing countries?. . . No more people who are willing to leave their homeland in search of work, because they no longer need to?
Robot Madness has already begun in Japan . . . Hopefully, it will end there.
I think limitations are only a figment of our time, in any case when humans have faced economic stagnation there has been a set-back (either through an economic check like a depression, or a population check such as a proposed Malthus check). I am not well versed in economics but on a meta-timescale I believe recession and even depression is an inevitability.
As for the lack of developing countries, I am personally going to wait and see what happens there. Given the current trends I don’t see a shortage in the near future in terms of a lack of developing nations. From what I understand developing nations are necessary in any global economic system, just like there where always the poorer parts of isolated countries. What will it be like when (or if) there is a lack of developing nations, I am not sure but given the timeframe involved it may be a very different question to ask.
As for those creepy Japanese robots, they have gone a little more robo-crazy than even I would support. I will state this once only… I prefer HUMAN women to robot women.
But that need not be a bad thing . . . It would make ’ permacultural practices ’ a necessity. I hope you can find the time to watch the video in my current sig [ this one: [size=75]Permaculture Video[/size] ]. Apologies in advance for the musical ’ PERMACULTURE RAP ’ interlude at @30min mark. [size=84]Someone should edit that out and re-upload it.[/size]
The thoughts which have led you to that belief could well be polluted; if you learned it in school/college then that is almost certainly the case.
That’s all well and good, but how would you go about converting an almost global capitalist economy into a noncapitalist one . . . without some kind of violent revolution ?
I think ’ Local Exchange Trading Systems ’ and perhaps ’ Time-based Currency ’ could be key elements of a peaceful way.
One thing is for sure . . . Big Banks have got to go !!
Economies grow either through propagation or immigration (the assimilation of foreign populations) or through exploitation.
In capitalistic economic systems the economy is kept at a steady state of increase through coercion – using the idealization of materialism and consumerism – or through threat (by making any non-productive accumulation of wealth unviable or by nurturing a state of fear and anxiety).
In the west economies are kept growing by keeping the populations unsatisfied with what they possess or by promoting an unreachable ideal or by maintaining a state of improbable hope.
This is accomplished by manipulating the primordial human instinctive drives for procreation, social acceptance and power.
Marketing schemes, for instance, tap into inherit human metaphysical anxieties and existential fears thusly promoting an idealized, hopeful utopia through their products or by manipulating natural sexual tendencies. For this reason capitalism is still the most successful economic arrangement, because it does not seek to usurp natural drives but to sublimate them and manipulate them into socially acceptable activities.
