[Newfie]

Geeze, you guys make me feel very glad I bought my 168 acres of wood lot in Canada. It also has a killer view.

[Newfie]

Someone on some thread suggested I read “The End of the World is Just the Beginning” Peter Zeihan

Decent book, gives a fairly thought out vision for how degrowth will occur. That is not how he describes it but it seems it is what he has done. I don’t agree with all he says, but it provides an organized space for thought and discussion.

Not very cherry, but positively light hearted compared to my opinion.

[suxs]

Democracies have great difficulty planning populations and economies- the future is probably some form of authoritarian govt. that pretends to be a democracy.

C8, I totally agree. A benevolent authoritarian government a la German National Socialism is the only viable option in delaying societal collapse. Capitalism/democracy would be an unmitigated disaster as this rapacious form of government is incapable of planning for the medium and long term and can't react swiftly except under the direst of circumstances. We require a government that is willing to make tough decisions for the benefit of all. Capitalism, it's all about money regardless of the consequences. With National Socialism, the for-profit economy operates as with capitalism, but the government serves as the umpire and assumes responsible for planning and implementation on a macro level.

[vtsnowedin]

Capitalist systems tend towards monopoly situations if they are left unregulated. This has been known from at least the time of Teddy Roosevelt. But beyond regulating corporations to prevent monopolies the government should stay out of planning anything for industry. They are just not good at it and even have a hard time planning and setting defense and infrastructure budgets.

[Newfie]

It is hard to see ANY form of government OR industry that has some reasonable planning capability.

We have known of CC for over 100 years, and scientists raised the alarm over 30 years ago. And yet the world has not reacted reasonably. Hard to see any shining lights in the sea of dim wits. Include Bill Gates and others kf his ilk in that net.

Thwaites glacier news is our real life version of “Don’t Look Up.”

[vtsnowedin]

The main reason the Capitalists plan better is they are risking their own money and take great pains not to lose it. They have to see a good prospect of a profit from the finished product or they withdraw their funds quickly. The bureaucrat on the other hand is spending other peoples money, so as long as it is in the budget passed to him he will find a way to spend it, always looking for a way to expand his program and hence his own status and power.
I used to love those "Golden fleece" awards one crusty old Senator gave out each year. Was it Proxmire? can't remember at the moment.

[vtsnowedin]

The capitalist can do very good R&D and plan out years ahead but they are slaves to quarterly reports and their stock price so really long term plans are few and far between. Another reason for that is they have to deal with the realities of what congress is doing for or against them which can change at every election. The passage of the infrastructure and the Chips bill just changed a lot of corporate plans along with events in Ukraine and the misnamed inflation reduction act.

[Newfie]

VT,

That is all well and good and it serves the investors.

OTOH it does not work so well for the over all well being of the society and culture.

Back to my CC example, or resource depletion (peal oil), or having reserve medical capacity in case of whatever,demographis, or education, etc.

This is the area where government needs to be operating, and it seems none are competent.

[vtsnowedin]

VT,

That is all well and good and it serves the investors.

OTOH it does not work so well for the over all well being of the society and culture.

Back to my CC example, or resource depletion (peal oil), or having reserve medical capacity in case of whatever,demographis, or education, etc.

This is the area where government needs to be operating, and it seems none are competent.

It also serves the customers and consumers by providing plenty of the products they need or desire.
A government that wanted to have ready reserves would have to pay in advance for the stockpiles and they are seldom capable of deciding which things to buy. Trump ordering and paying up front for millions of doses of vaccines that had not yet been approved is an exception.

[Newfie]

I see we are still talking past one another, to he expected.

Coming back to degrowth and the Zeihan book, early in the book he mentions how humanity has had a long run of growth and expansion. So ling that it is all anyone alive today remembers, those that lived through the Great Depression being mostly dead or nearly so. It has nearly died out if our collective memory’s, being retained only by the older segment of boomers as their parents childhood tales.

Se have an expectation bias of growth and advancement and have lost the memory of sustainability and stability. Alternatively we have NEVER had an ability to imagine a status quo world and have always been striving for more, More, MORE. Now, faced with a world that offers less we are at an imaginative loss on how to cope.

I have recently seen projections that by 2050 China’s population will have decreased by 900 million to under 400 million, simply through demographic collapse brought on by the One Child policy, internal (rural>apartment) migration, and knock on effects, ignoring CC and resource depletion, etc. Western civilizations have similar forces at work.

The DEPTH of the projected degrowth is largely due to our inability to imagine what it would look like and what we should do about it. In part, only, it is because the the effects of todays decisions don’t surface for one or two generations, 20 to 40 years, in the future, and then they are exponential. Market forces are incapable of “sensing” something that has not yet occurred. Corporations are sensitive to the quarterly cycle, not the generational cycle.

Personally I see degrowth as a good and necessary thing. In my perfect world humanity would adjust to have a much smaller population, just enough to maintain expansion of knowledge and capabilities. This knowledge advancement does not need to occur at breakneck speed, slow and steady does it. Degrow too rapid and we will overshoot the necessary pull back and will likely push knowledge back, perhaps deeply back.

[vtsnowedin]

While populations may stabilize or even decline the rate of change in technology is still accelerating. Look back to how little cars changed between say 1930 and 1940 then compare a 2012 car to a 2022 version. My father lived from the days of horse draw transportation to watching the moon landings on TV. I've lived from sputnik to private space flights. Party line dial telephones to smart phones. magazines to the internet. etc.
We may "degrow" but I doubt if we will stop changing and innovating and that will let us adapt to whatever degrowth brings.

[Newfie]

VT,

(I hope you can read the below as a sharing if information and ideas, not so much as simply being argumentative. Although how one eliminates argumentation eludes me.).


At the risk of sounding like a new disciple, which may be accurate, the theory is that modern globalized society requires expansion. But human demographics in most industrialized nations are collapsing because of past events. It is inevitable that there will be a population reduction in the high producing/consuming countries even while Africa continues to grow.

The destruction of growth/consumption then degrades a available capital, which will destabilize trade, and then we are in a marked downward trend.

Japan has been going through this for quite a while and is coping only because it can export its manufacturing. Italy has been relying on immigrants as has the USA. But high quality immigrants are hard to come by and will become rare competition rises. Any how, there comes a point when whole shebang starts to tumble inward.

China seems to an early entrant on the race down. One child set up a steep demographic decline. Internal planning and corruption snafus have strangled capitol and ossified markets. Zero Covid, which they seem to be set upon, has made the matter worse by mass disruption of their production basis. More central planning genius has taken over the entire private tutor market, which fueled their education boom, and has now put 10’s if thousands of tutors out of work. Graduate unemployment levels (16 - 24) are at 20% and they can’t restart production sufficiently. Housing and capitol markets have been hit hard by corruption. Some economist are even predicting an overall negative growth rate this year.

Will this continue? Maybe. They din’t seem to be in a position to analyze and react. If they din’t there is a possibility they have see their peak.

In the meantime the West will need to react to the potential loss of global production by reshoring production, building new plants and supply chains with reliable partners. In some ways hood for us/US but will suck up resources while the build out takes place slowing our economy.

Russia’s war is shaking things up pretty good. They have their own demographic and capital problems which Mr. P has made much worse. Probably pissing iff Xi in the meantime. But now Europe needs to find new energy sources and perhaps the dime has dropped they need to build out nuclear, NOW. High energy prices during a retooling of electricity generation, while arming Ukraine, while undergoing a lot of other changes will likely stress the EU.

Bottom line; a LOT of this was very predictable from One Child to NordStream. Yet all the high level brainiacs seem to have been caught flatfooted, again.

Humans planning ability is unimpressive to say the least.

[vtsnowedin]

Not a problem Newfi.
Our discussions are like two old friends sitting around a campfire enjoying our sundowners.
I don't buy into the Degrowth debate for a couple of reasons. That is not to say there are not problems coming up from many of the factors you just described.
For one I disagree with the notion that growth is essential for capitalism to succeed. It has been needed over the last few centuries to keep up with growing populations( if you did not at least match the growth in the population you were falling behind) but take that growth away and next years production will be just as good as it was this year. Second birth rates can change up or down. I expect a post war baby boom in Ukraine as having your loved ones out in the trenches focuses you on the importance of family and the fragility of life. Perhaps China will also have a boom if having three or four children becomes the patriotic thing to do and tax law makes it affordable.
I think the world's energy problems are a problem that can and will be solved with technological advances and all the above investments. That might lead to a period of energy shortages but the world has endured such conditions for decades before so can again.
So yes we will live in interesting times but I do not see it as a full collapse or the end of the world.

[Newfie]

FULL collapse is both debatable and unknowable.

IMHO SOME level of collapse is inevitable.

Within in 100 to 200 years
Sub 3billion is a sure thing.
Sub 1 billion likely.
Extinction? Possible but way too far away to predict.

[vtsnowedin]

FULL collapse is both debatable and unknowable.

agreed.

IMHO SOME level of collapse is inevitable.

Some level of collapse has happened somewhere on the planet over and over again for millennium. It is total collapse they are scaring us with at present.

Within in 100 to 200 years3

It matters where in that time frame it hits. Next summer would not be good for me. LOL!

Sub 3billion is a sure thing.

Nah we can probably support(sustain) five billion indefinitely.

Sub 1 billion likely.

Only as the result of a world wide nuclear conflict which is hopefully unlikely.

Extinction? Possible but way too far away to predict.

Agreed.

[Newfie]

With any luck neither of us or our children shall know.

[C8]

Great post newf- i will extract a few points from it below and add in bold type

Italy has been relying on immigrants as has the USA. But high quality immigrants are hard to come by and will become rare competition rises.

It makes a big difference what immigration policy is. Canada used to require much education to enter. The US is letting the poorest walk across- which may not lead to high quality. My guess is that this will lead to a large % of future welfare cases. The US labor force participation rate is down to historic lows at @ 60%. We could see the day when less than half are working to support the other half. We saw that, during lockdowns, very few people in out economy are truly "essential" maybe less than 20%. FF and automation have led to the world where people are living off of "the machine".

Bottom line; a LOT of this was very predictable from One Child to NordStream. Yet all the high level brainiacs seem to have been caught flatfooted, again.

For China and Japan- they need to let their population's slide down to a level closer to what they can support with native food production ability. They are both in a scary dependence on world trade to feed their people.

Humans planning ability is unimpressive to say the least.

So true, so true. Much of what we call planning is just a sophisticated form of wishful thinking (ex; we will all be in EV's someday) The big mistake of planning is that it assumes many things will remain static while the plan is executed- but there are thousands of moving parts and most of these are invisible to the planners.

Once again- great post

[suxs]

I have recently seen projections that by 2050 China’s population will have decreased by 900 million to under 400 million, simply through demographic collapse brought on by the One Child policy, internal (rural>apartment) migration, and knock on effects, ignoring CC and resource depletion, etc. Western civilizations have similar forces at work.

Where did this originate? How does this source explain a population reduction of more than 1 billion over the next 28 years? All conventional sources anticipate a 2050 population of slightly less than the 2020 figure of 1.439 billion. What a huge W for Mother Nature if the under 400 million figure is true.

[Newfie]

OK, I did not save the link I was quoting and I can not find it now. Admittedly it was an extreme view, not likely to pan out.

HOWEVER, Below find another similar set of projections. Not as dire but still interesting.

URL=https://imgbox.com/JDh8TT1T][/URL] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-07646-x.pdf

As my memory serves the previous article made several points.
More recent China census data indicated the population had already peaked in 2019/2020. (See link at bottom.) IOW, to adjust the above graph the peak is already behind us, not in the future, the decline will start from an earlier date, and we are already moving along the decline curve.
The ongoing suppression of non-Han minorities had pressed their reproduction rate to near zero.
The Chinese population has had a strong internal migration from rural to dense urban. From 4 children to 1.3, at best.
China lifted 1 child 10 years ago and the reproduction rates did not rise.
Because of 1 child, many females were aborted, China has a make heavy population; less reproductive capacity than you would assume.
Apparently people living in small apartments don’t want a bunch of kids.
The housing collapse has stuffed aspirations for bigger apartments.
Zero Covid has further reduced reproduction rates as people damn sure don’t want to be quarantined with tots.
Zero Covid has been extended to 2027.
Current reproduction rates (in areas or country wide?) are now around 0.8.


Additional reading makes these points:
China is suffering a sever economic contraction. Lots of lies about their current growth rate.
They recently gutted the private tutorial industry, nationalized it, putting 10’s of thousands of tutors out of work.
Current unemployment for the 16-24 yo cohort is 20%.
Tech degrees like Computer Science can not find a job due to contraction.
Degrees in Marxisim are getting a premiere un with a signing bonus.

The theory is that past and current policy is driving the economy over the edge, they will shortly be in a position like Japan where the population can not support past production rates, with each succeeding being worse. Japan dealt with this by keeping intellectual development and off shoring manufacturing. China dies not have that option.

Again the theory is, at some point (soon?) the economy will start to collapse as they can not support certain portions and that rot will spread.

My personal observation, in the weeks just BEFORE Covid China turned back, refused, 5 bulk carriers of iron ore from Australia. No reason given. These cargos were contracted and they were obligated to receive them. They defaulted on the contract. With the emergence of Covid they tried to declare force majure to weasel out. Thus the slow down started sometime BEFORE Covid. So the cause must be something in addition to Covid.

At least some analyst think things are far more sour in China than is generally recognized.

All that said, who really knows? The above is just drawing a new limit to the range of possibilities.

And just to add some flavor, look at the below UN population projections, how they changed over the years.

https://theconversation.com/how-many-hu ... ons-118938

Some additional thoughts on Chinas census manipulation.

The truth is that China’s population in 2020 probably amounted to about 1.28 billion – some 130 million fewer people than reported. That makes India, not China, the world’s most populous country.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... an-2021-08

[vtsnowedin]

I wonder if all those negative statistics for China will persuade them to leave Taiwan alone, or push them into attacking it, in an act of desperation hoping for a quick win and siezure of a mostly intact industry base that will bail their economy out?