Mostly due to bad regulation. It's the only asset the average person can get access to high leverage and loose lending standards. People will move to areas with the least resistance, no real surprise.
True if you mistakenly see Australia as a closed system, not true if you see it as a global system. We have become dependent on the demographics in countries like China and now India.
Developing nations can rely on demographics to drive growth, any growth in our productivity has to be driven by credit. Without credit driven growth we can't make the most of China and India's demographic comparative advantage.
I don't disagree credit growth is needed, but i just thought it was silly to say that it's the only important thing. If you think from a global point of reference, then both credit and demographics is important to sustain the current economic conditions. I just think everyone has to stop looking at things from a small closed system perspective, you have to see the system as a hole. Look at the issue Japan is now facing because they focused too much on credit and too little on demographics.
Exactly, AI and tech is not treating patients or collecting the garbage or building houses - you need nurse to care for the elderly, there are no robots doing that. Relying on credit expansion is the greater fool theory, it's a house of cards. and it takes productivity out of economies
I said demographics no longer play a part in driving economic growth in advanced economies. Technology is important, but it's having less impact and we can't rely on demographics because people don't want to have large families and don't want to extend their working lives (which are the 2 big demographic drivers of the past). We're fortunate because there are still plenty of countries that can provide the demographic impetus in growth. Of course if the closed-minded nationalists get their way and insist we don't support developing nations on their road to prosperity, or the left-wing nutters get their way and shut down industries that provides much needed jobs for low paid skilled workers in the consumer goods manufacturing sector then we won't be able to make use of those demographic drivers in those countries and the citizens of those countries will have to go back to growing rice in trenches or giving blow-jobs to fat bogans in Bangkok for a living. You can't force people to have kids if they don't want them and bribing them with paid childcare and a year's maternity leave doesn't work either. Gone are the days where you went to school, got a job, had 5 kids, retired and then died the next day. And I can kind of understand that. People want quality life experiences for themselves and their kids and that often involves limiting the size of families by choice. It's an evolutionary thing, and economics is the science of human behaviour after all and the science is telling us that demographics is no longer the major driver that it used to be.
And who is going to fund the increasingly large service sector? Taxes and labour from the increasingly shrinking workforce? The ageing population? Or will we use robots? (You've already poo-pood that idea sensibly). What's your theory for growth then?
Yeah, it's not that people don't want children. The woke trannys and narcissists don't want them, but regular folk is who i am talking about. It's simply too expensive to house and raise them. That’s the issue.
By choice is a grey one, as it's a highly manipulated by government interventions. Governments have eroded a lot of wealth in recent times which caused people to make choices they don't really want to make in order to maintain a specific life style. One issue when they rely too much on just creating more credit. So yes technically it's still their choice, but not as clean cut as economists want to believe. I mean technically everyone that lives in North Korea has a choice. Economics today is anything but a science.
That's very true. I believe that "the more the merrier" but my wife (rightly) says that we couldn't afford another kid, and it's getting too late for another anyway. The childless and unmarried are going to have very lonely retirements. But too many in our society are "kidults" or too self-absorbed and morally bankrupt to have kids. The Arabs and Indians are going to kick our asses in the demographics stakes. have you seen the KSA stats, half the country is under 25!
So childless people are "woke trannys", "narcisists" and not "regular folk". You just gotta love the level of debate on SS sometimes.
Do you have kids? Do you get out much? It's no secret that family values are almost non-existent in many parts of our society. The glue that held it together like religion and homogeny are almost gone nowadays.
No doubt there's studies out there that examine the motives behind having smaller families and there would be a number of reasons and it wouldn't be restricted to just being forced to economically. However, every nation in the world that is developing or has developed has experienced declining birth rates, and in most of those nations families are not feeling the cost burden of credit driven growth. Trite comment. Show me a science that's infallible.
Sometimes the dull things need to be said the most, more so when people keep misunderstand the meaning or truthness of something. Always good to be grounded.
I don't follow what you're trying to say. You argued economics is not a science in the study of human behaviour yet you provide no evidence to support that claim.
