Greed is good

[suncowiam]

Is there any peer reviewed analysis that actually demonstrates that correlation? It strikes me as obviously untrue.


That depends if you take the libertarian stance that things like taxes and other government policy interventions are "force." If you do, then I don't know where in the world you expect to live, because I don't know of any functional societies that don't have a government which exerts some regulatory control over their economy.

If you don't, I think things like a more progressive tax system, making the minimum wage a living wage, and investing more in public education would help.

I thought it was common knowledge concerning poverty versus population. One could logically theorize it but here are some articles as you wanted.

Population and poverty

Population growth and poverty in the developing world. - PubMed - NCBI

I come from a used-to-be third world nation that had to control it's cultural behavior on population to better control it's economic growth. A generation ago, it was common for families to have up to 10 children because the children was viewed as a workforce for the families to survive. The government aggressively marketed and enforced rules to favor less children in the hopes to better it's economy. It succeeded due to this and other factors. I'm Vietnamese...

Two-child policy - Wikipedia

I'm not so much a libertarian as I agree there should be oversight and regulations against businesses. Possibly I should rephrase the the ideology of force as more of violent force which some socialists tend to agree with more. Again, being able to have possession is a right. The question is how much that can be very subjective. Purex tends to argue that people have no right to be rich or successful. It can be seen as unfair at face value that one person owns more resources than another but if we lose the ability to own, then why would we choose to be productive to gain resources only for it to be lost.

I came to America as a very poor refugee. Actually, my family escaped a communistic regime by boat. We came here with literally nothing, and yet, we were able to pull out of poverty and become successful. We actually flourished more than our native counterparts, especially more so in the 80s and 90s. Without certain rights, we would not have been able to achieve our success. Many here theorize certain governments between socialism and capitalism. I and my family actually lived it with enough real-world results to know better.

 

[PureX]

Purex tends to argue that people have no right to be rich or successful.

I have never stated nor implied any such thing. I do, however, believe that no single individual human deserves to own, control, or deny to others many thousands of times the wealth, resources, or opportunities available to the average human being on Earth. I believe this because I feel quite sure that no individual human could possibly contribute many thousands of times more to the general well-being of Earth's human population than any other human individual. I do not propose that all humans should possess or control the same amount of wealth, resources, or opportunities as all other humans. That would be foolish, since we clearly do not all contribute equally to the well being of humanity as a whole. I do not object to anyone being "rich and successful". I object to HOW RICH some people have become relative to how much they actually contribute to the overall well-being of humanity (which is how I believe we should be determining a person's degree of "success").

 

[suncowiam]

I have never stated nor implied any such thing. I do, however, believe that no single individual human deserves to own, control, or deny to others many thousands of times the wealth, resources, or opportunities available to the average human being on Earth. I believe this because I feel quite sure that no individual human could possibly contribute many thousands of times more to the general well-being of Earth's human population than any other human individual. I do not propose that all humans should possess or control the same amount of wealth, resources, or opportunities as all other humans. That would be foolish, since we clearly do not all contribute equally to the well being of humanity as a whole. I do not object to anyone being "rich and successful". I object to HOW RICH some people have become relative to how much they actually contribute to the overall well-being of humanity (which is how I believe we should be determining a person's degree of "success").

What do you think being rich implies? Being rich is having more resources than other individuals.

The multiplying factor is subjective. You suggest a factor of 1000 to be the limit? How can anyone come to an objective evaluation of any factor?

You are against people becoming rich.

 

[PureX]

What do you think being rich implies? Being rich is having more resources than other individuals.

The multiplying factor is subjective. You suggest a factor of 1000 to be the limit? How can anyone come to an objective evaluation of any factor?

You are against people becoming rich.

I already know that it is pointless to discuss anything with you. You're far too irrational for me. Sorry I bothered you.

 

[suncowiam]

I already know that it is pointless to discuss anything with you. You're far too irrational for me. Sorry I bothered you.

So you're ok with people being rich? Yes or No?

 

[Left Coast]

I thought it was common knowledge concerning poverty versus population. One could logically theorize it but here are some articles as you wanted.

Population and poverty

Population growth and poverty in the developing world. - PubMed - NCBI

Thank you for the references. Neither of these indicate the simple correlation you were suggesting. The closest thing they have found when you dig down is that rapid population growth impedes economic growth. Which is a far cry from the idea that simply the size of a nation predicts the nation's poverty.

I come from a used-to-be third world nation that had to control it's cultural behavior on population to better control it's economic growth. A generation ago, it was common for families to have up to 10 children because the children was viewed as a workforce for the families to survive. The government aggressively marketed and enforced rules to favor less children in the hopes to better it's economy. It succeeded due to this and other factors. I'm Vietnamese...

Two-child policy - Wikipedia

I find these kinds of policies (something similar has been the rule in China, as you probably know) profoundly authoritarian and wrong-headed. It makes much more sense, and respects individual autonomy much more, to educate the public (women, especially) about contraception and give them access to it. Turns out, when given this education, women choose to have less children all on their own without a government mandate.

I'm not so much a libertarian as I agree there should be oversight and regulations against businesses. Possibly I should rephrase the the ideology of force as more of violent force which some socialists tend to agree with more.

Ah, ok. Then yes, I agree. I oppose authoritarianism whether it's from the right or the left.

I came to America as a very poor refugee. Actually, my family escaped a communistic regime by boat. We came here with literally nothing, and yet, we were able to pull out of poverty and become successful. We actually flourished more than our native counterparts, especially more so in the 80s and 90s. Without certain rights, we would not have been able to achieve our success. Many here theorize certain governments between socialism and capitalism. I and my family actually lived it with enough real-world results to know better.

I'm happy to hear that you've made a better life for yourself here in the States. I don't blame you for your perceptions given your childhood in a communist country. However, the truth is that the US, like all Western countries, has a mixed economy. We argue often here about how mixed it should be, but we do not have a purely capitalist country (and most Americans don't want us to). I don't know of such a place anywhere on Earth, because frankly it would be a mess.

 

[suncowiam]

Thank you for the references. Neither of these indicate the simple correlation you were suggesting. The closest thing they have found when you dig down is that rapid population growth impedes economic growth. Which is a far cry from the idea that simply the size of a nation predicts the nation's poverty.


I find these kinds of policies (something similar has been the rule in China, as you probably know) profoundly authoritarian and wrong-headed. It makes much more sense, and respects individual autonomy much more, to educate the public (women, especially) about contraception and give them access to it. Turns out, when given this education, women choose to have less children all on their own without a government mandate.



Ah, ok. Then yes, I agree. I oppose authoritarianism whether it's from the right or the left.


I'm happy to hear that you've made a better life for yourself here in the States. I don't blame you for your perceptions given your childhood in a communist country. However, the truth is that the US, like all Western countries, has a mixed economy. We argue often here about how mixed it should be, but we do not have a purely capitalist country (and most Americans don't want us to). I don't know of such a place anywhere on Earth, because frankly it would be a mess.

Concerning population being a correlation of poverty and the assertion that rapid growth of population being a correlation to poverty, is basically, the same thing.

It's a function of population to poverty. I didn't say it was a linear function. It's still a correlation between the two metrics. Growth is a function of acceleration or a derivative.

Yes, it was an authoritarian law by an authoritarian government. But it did not matter that the government was authoritarian. It's like forcing no one to be able to own slaves or guns as an authoritarian law, but can be done by any form of government.

I understand mixed economies, the correlation to a country's success is via their capitalist doctrines. We see over and over again, that any country with economic success installed various capitalist doctrines to achieve so. This includes socialist countries like Vietnam and especially China. So I don't argue that governments are a mixed of both doctines, but it is capitalism that defines more the economic success. Continuing with Vietnam and China, it's only when they started adopting more capitalistic ideals and limiting their population growth, that they started to reduce poverty.

 

[Left Coast]

Concerning population being a correlation of poverty and the assertion that rapid growth of population being a correlation to poverty, is basically, the same thing.

Careful there. Growth and size are not the same thing. The point the literature you cited makes is that it strains a country (or any social unit, down to even an individual family) for its population to grow too rapidly relative to its current size. That is not the same thing as saying that a country is more likely to be more impoverished than its neighbor simply because it is more populous than its neighbor.

Yes, it was an authoritarian law by an authoritarian government. But it did not matter that the government was authoritarian. It's like forcing no one to be able to own slaves or guns as an authoritarian law, but can be done by any form of government.

I don't follow.

I understand mixed economies, the correlation to a country's success is via their capitalist doctrines. We see over and over again, that any country with economic success installed various capitalist doctrines to achieve so. This includes socialist countries like Vietnam and especially China. So I don't argue that governments are a mixed of both doctines, but it is capitalism that defines more the economic success. Continuing with Vietnam and China, it's only when they started adopting more capitalistic ideals and limiting their population growth, that they started to reduce poverty.

For communist countries like Vietnam and China who have had completely state-owned economies, yes it absolutely makes sense that they needed the pendulum to swing more toward the capitalist side to be more successful. For countries with a different history like the US, which is further toward the capitalist side, we have actually seen serious reductions in poverty when we've moved further to the left with implementation of programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and more investment in public education.

 

[suncowiam]

Careful there. Growth and size are not the same thing. The point the literature you cited makes is that it strains a country (or any social unit, down to even an individual family) for its population to grow too rapidly relative to its current size. That is not the same thing as saying that a country is more likely to be more impoverished than its neighbor simply because it is more populous than its neighbor.


I don't follow.


For communist countries like Vietnam and China who have had completely state-owned economies, yes it absolutely makes sense that they needed the pendulum to swing more toward the capitalist side to be more successful. For countries with a different history like the US, which is further toward the capitalist side, we have actually seen serious reductions in poverty when we've moved further to the left with implementation of programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and more investment in public education.

Why do you rephrase what I say.

I said that population is correlated with poverty. I explained how it is still a function of population. Do you not understand that it does not need to be a linear correlation?

Yes, a country has to be able to sustain population growth or it can become impoverished. That is still a correlation to population. This is the second order derivative of population over time or the rate in change of population. Again, it is still a function of population.

Let's just focus on this first.

 

[Left Coast]

Why do you rephrase what I say.

Because what you said was overly simplistic and misleading.

I said that population is correlated with poverty. I explained how it is still a function of population. Do you not understand that it does not need to be a linear correlation?

The correlation in the evidence you linked is between rate of population change and economic growth. Your initial claim was that, "The higher the population, the higher the chance for poverty," which is not substantiated by that correlation. Simply having more people in a country does not make it more likely to be impoverished.

Yes, a country has to be able to sustain population growth or it can become impoverished. That is still a correlation to population. This is the second order derivative of population over time or the rate in change of population. Again, it is still a function of population.

No, it is a function of rate of change in population. The important variable is rate, not raw population size.

 

[suncowiam]

Because what you said was overly simplistic and misleading.


The correlation in the evidence you linked is between rate of population change and economic growth. Your initial claim was that, "The higher the population, the higher the chance for poverty," which is not substantiated by that correlation. Simply having more people in a country does not make it more likely to be impoverished.


No, it is a function of rate of change in population. The important variable is rate, not raw population size.

Fair enough, I did say that and you are valid to correct that.

However, my intentions was to correlate population to poverty which there clearly is a correlation to population to poverty. That is the correct way of phrasing it as a static population size has to be considered to its available surrounding resources before determining if the if the population can sustain itself.

Mathematically, the rate of change adds time to the equation so it is a function of time and population to poverty. I clearly said all this but to spell it out to you more: (Pop(t+1) - Pop(t)) / t= Pop(rate of change)

That is still a function of population because population is still a variable in the equation, just sampled at different times... That was explained by "This is the second order derivative of population over time or the rate in change of population. " [Edited] Actually, to further correct myself, it's the first order derivative which is first learned in basic calculus.

I'm sorry but I don't get the sense that you understand this concept mathematically.

 

[Left Coast]

Fair enough, I did say that and you are valid to correct that.

However, my intentions was to correlate population to poverty which there clearly is a correlation to population to poverty. That is the correct way of phrasing it as a static population size has to be considered to its available surrounding resources before determining if the if the population can sustain itself.

Mathematically, the rate of change adds time to the equation so it is a function of time and population to poverty. I clearly said all this but to spell it out to you more: (Pop(t+1) - Pop(t)) / t= Pop(rate of change)

That is still a function of population because population is still a variable in the equation, just sampled at different times... That was explained by "This is the second order derivative of population over time or the rate in change of population. " [Edited] Actually, to further correct myself, it's the first order derivative which is first learned in basic calculus.

I'm sorry but I don't get the sense that you understand this concept mathematically.

I'm perfectly fine with all that as long as we agree that we can't use the size of a population alone to predict its poverty level. The relationship between poverty and population size is mediated by rate of population change and resources available.

The genesis of this conversation was whether poverty is inevitable now, given our population and resources available. I'm still not convinced it is.