7 trillion looks like a typo, but no, the maths shows that either by continuing the actual global population growth levels typical the 20th century, or achieving 2% per year or far less than what is currently happening in Nigeria, the maths produce this number in a relatively short time!
A key theme of this blog is that, while population growth is no longer the threat that it once was, economic policy has yet to adapt to the slowing in population growth. While population growth has slowed since the 20th century, growth is not at 2% as some dangerous people advocate, and all the world is not like Nigeria, it is still worth understanding just how quickly things can escalate and not take for granted the slowing population growth that is both happening, and needed, to avert crisis.
Does it feel crowded now? Can you imagine Earth inhabited by not 7 billion (7,000,000,000) humans, as we have now, but 7 trillion (7,000,000,000). That would be one human for every 3.3 meters x 3 meters of habitable land on the planet (calculation below). Around 10 square meters allocation per person to live, grow food all of one food and that is without allocating any wilderness for other living things or trying to allow space (corridors?) to move outside your own space. This is a level we would reach if were able to continue peak 20th century population growth rates.
Summary: Most of us now live under ‘finite world economics’, where population growth results in a smaller share of wealth for each individual and the majority of the population, but increased revenues for Governments, nationwide businesses and multinationals who gain revenue from the entire population. The rich win, the rest suffer.
The now finite World
When Christopher Columbus set sail for America, no one had a world map, doubt about a map the included America. When Captain Cook ‘discovered’ Australia, as it approached the year 1800, no civilization knew where all the land on Earth was located. By 1900, humans knew where all the land was, but still had not explored all that land. Now (2017 at the time of writing), we basically know where all the land is and have even allocated ownership and mineral rights of all the land. Our world is now finite.
The post explores the ‘finite’ world concept, then discuss each of the two dynamics resulting in the widening of the gap between rich and poor. Continue reading
The current wealth distribution system is an already a broken system about to face severe attack. As discussed in Robots & Job Terminators, the role of employment is set to change.
On engadget, the post How will you survive when the robots take your job? outlines the ‘basic income’ proposal, as put forward by many in the tech industry and being experimented with in Canada, Finland and the Netherlands. This articles provides a great starting point and conveys the basic idea and if unfamiliar with the idea it makes sense to read that article first. This post is about looking further, in terms of thoughts about what else should change if a ‘basic income’ is introduced and what would be needed to make such an idea work. What would such a measure cost, and what would be the impact on society of a total package, of a ‘basic income’ together with a logical set of policies to create a total package? Continue reading
A first reaction could be: “ok, the people who voted for Donald Trump clearly feel it is broken, but I am not sure they are that smart”, or “I am doing ok, and I think the system is fair. Yes people like that Elon Musk character have ‘X’ times more than me but he is also ‘X’ times more clever than me so he deserves it!”.
But the system feels sufficiently broken to those who voted for Trump, that they were desperate enough to vote for him, and there appears to be some similarity with the ‘Brexit’ vote in the UK. Something has to change, even if it is just perception or we are going to keep having to live with these kinds of election results.
Also, either Elon Musk is really clever, in which case we should listen when he is proposing that we need to make changes to wealth distribution (soon, if not now), or, he is not clever, in which case he does not deserve his wealth. Either way, we need to consider changes. Continue reading
Back in 1986, the movie Highlander was released. It was actually sufficiently successful to inspire four sequels, plus spin offs and even a reboot. Something in the original clearly stuck a chord, and the tagline and concept ‘in the end there can only be one’ could be part of this. The plot centres around a small group of individuals, immortals, who become ever stronger by defeating ‘competitor’ immortals in mortal combat. The immortals all seem have a share of power. Defeat another immortal and grow stronger as the victors gain the power of the vanquished, until only one immortal remains, and the one remaining will hold all the power. So how closely does the ‘rules’ of the highlander actually match the ‘rules’ for competitor companies?
How accurate is the analogy? Continue reading
Governments of developed countries all around the world are running budget deficits right now, and the reason follows from free trade. I have posted before on how every ethical decision our society makes comes at an economic cost. In many cases, this economic cost is a government cost and require increasing taxes, but in today’s free trade world international competition now dictates low tax rates to be competitive. The result is inescapable deficits. Continue reading
The USA does have a real problem.
Donald Trump has a campaign slogan ‘Make America Great Again’. So has America stopped being great? The USA has changed from a country where most people saw their incomes increasing and saw themselves getting richer, to a country where most now see themselves getting poorer. For people seeing themselves as becoming poorer, America seems not as great as it was. Donald Trump may not have the answer, but so far he is the only one in the campaign saying he sees that there is a problem, and he recognises the pain, and that America is as great as it should be. I suggest this is propelling Trump forward, and if the Democrats keep denying there is any problem, then Trump could go all the way.
Look at the graph to the right. From the mid 1920s, until the early 1980s the gap between the rich and poor in the USA closes. Most of the population were getting closer in wealth to the rich, so they also felt richer. This was also a period overall of real wage growth, people not only felt richer, the were getting richer. From the early 1980s gap between most people and rich started widening again, making people feel less and less rich. Over this same period most data sources has seen no real median income increase and many suggest for the most recent few years there has been an income decline. So while middle America is at best going nowhere the rich still get richer than ever making everyone else feel relatively increasingly poor. Continue reading