1)A shrinking world population that could cut the world population in HALF by the end of the century.
2)Senior population [those over 60] will double by 2050.
The above means that the 500 year old economic model of ever expanding demand of goods & services will be kaput sometime in the future.
Nations will have to deal with shrinking GDP growth.
Now how does that work? Governments have no experience of dealing with such an economic system.
Many business segments and a few will expand. But overall demand will shrink. Also the expanding senior population will require much more resources from government. Which will shrink other portions of government that the government has been expending tax revenue.
Big changes ahead, and given the nature of the change and our current world wide circumstance I am far more concerned about the stability of society itself than the mere economic mechanisms.
While there are a lot of predictions of shrinking GDP, population, etc., There are not many predictions of shrinking wealth.
What is more highly correlated to demand, population or wealth? I think it is wealth. Demand will shift and move but I am not convinced that it will shrink. A reduction in population is highly correlated in an increase in wealth so if we are going to lose 6 billion by the end of the century, we will likely have a correlating explosion in wealth - and that will likely equal a growing demand.
Thanks. The link indicated that a 11 billion world was predicted [an UN 2022 prediction] which I conflated to a 50% decline.
Still a 25% decline is still significant I believe.
However wealth seems to be increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. And yes the wealthy will spend such as rocket ship trips into space. But the beans and rice population [folks that spend most of their money on simply existing] seems to be growing also.
Now the UN also predicted a 11 billion world population and was wrong.
Another source:https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/Inequality/introduction-to-inequality While the progress in the reduction of global inequality over the last thirty years has been remarkable, within country inequalities have increased, especially in advanced economies. Over the past three decades, more than half of the countries and close to 90 percent of advanced economies have seen an increase in income inequality
Not the stated objective. The real objective course. The stated objective is that a rising tide lifts all boats, so you give rich people a tax cut and that makes poor people rich.
Which is about a dumb a theory as I’ve heard, but it sticks around.
I have told the story before, of an interview I saw with Jack Kemp, one of the leading lights of the “supply side” nonsense. (iirc, he was talking with Sean Hannity). Kemp clearly said, words to the effect “the rich do all the saving and investing, so the rich should have all the money”. After all, we Proles fritter our money away on frills, like food, housing, and clothes to comply with the “JC’s” dress code at work. Only the rich know the right way to use money, so they should have it all.
Yes, they say that, but then they say it giving money to the rich people makes poor people richer. In their telling, the goal isn’t to concentrate wealth, the goal is to make everybody richer by giving money to people who are already rich. Those people are job creators, is the justification.
I remember that vividly. It did not surprise me that that was his belief, but it shocked me that he would state such self serving nonsense blithely, publicly. By a year later I realized how wrong I was, and that the USAian public was perfectly content to serve as the servants of the wealthy, their betters… barf.
I don’t know if I would call that “the stated objective.” I think Kemp just said the quiet thing loud and apparently got away with it. The Made for TV / Madison Avenue pitch was the lift all boats one
One of the “problems” of saving for retirement is that if you save enough money to weather the worst of times, you’ll very likely die with an estate 5 or 10 times larger than you need. That’s why a lot of inheritances are “accidental inheritances” that really have no planning behind their disbursement. Retirement “experts” suggest buying an annuity to solve this “problem” (and transfer the benefit of that “accidental inheritance” to an insurance company). Why would having a fortune be a problem for a middle class person? The wealthy seem to cope with it just fine. {{ LOL }}
Being on Fox Noise, he probably figured it was what the audience wanted to hear: his blather about “capital formation”. He did have one positive moment in that interview. Hannity went off on one of his screeds, and Kemp stopped him short with “I’m not here to make ad hominem attacks”. He wanted to talk policy, and told the truth, not, as you said, the spin that was put on the nonsense to make Proles think they would ever get anything out of it.
Price stability is the only thing that matters to most Americans.
20% are political junkies. 80% think it is one lie after another from both parties. Econ is thought to be crapola. Ever hear someone say both sides lie? That means s/he does not want to discuss, read, hear or be involved with politics.
Only price stability matters.
Of the 80% that think it is all crap 65% vote. Only price stability matters to them.
If you say, “But…” they shut off. It is crap to them.
Rents are now stabilizing.
TFG without the inflation reports is only insulting everyone.
A particular stimulus cannot be expected to get the same reaction every time it’s applied. Much depends on the environment and characteristics of the specimen receiving the stimulus. IOW: Nothing works the same way all the time. Your response sounds designed to create a false impression. China was such wreck that almost any changes to their system would have shown improvement. Like The Mediterranean Diet et al recommendations. They always compare them to overweight, couch potatoes with all kinds of bad habits. Sure, any change in diet will show good results that way. It’s not the endorsement of trickle down it appears to be.
Are you sure about that? We keep hearing about “ghost cities” being built in China to keep the mob occupied, and receiving a paycheck. Here in Shiny-land, public works projects are “pork”, so the “JCs” use the money the government showers on them for financial speculation, instead.
one