[robson]

One cause is demographics. Population growth contributes to economic growth, as in China or India today. From 1962-1984 Japan’s population grew 27%. 84-06 it grew 6.5%. On top of this the population has become increasingly elderly rather than working age. Many other factors contributed obviously, but this is a big one to explain long term growth stagnation.
It is both a difference and similarity with US today.
Our population is similarly getting older, which will eventually cause an economic burden, but immigration causes continual population growth for the US, which is a difference.

[robson]

One cause is demographics. Population growth contributes to economic growth, as in China or India today. From 1962-1984 Japan’s population grew 27%. 84-06 it grew 6.5%. On top of this the population has become increasingly elderly rather than working age. Many other factors contributed obviously, but this is a big one to explain long term growth stagnation.
It is both a difference and similarity with US today.
Our population is similarly getting older, which will eventually cause an economic burden, but immigration causes continual population growth for the US, which is a difference.

[robson]

One cause is demographics. Population growth contributes to economic growth, as in China or India today. From 1962-1984 Japan’s population grew 27%. 84-06 it grew 6.5%. On top of this the population has become increasingly elderly rather than working age. Many other factors contributed obviously, but this is a big one to explain long term growth stagnation.
It is both a difference and similarity with US today.
Our population is similarly getting older, which will eventually cause an economic burden, but immigration causes continual population growth for the US, which is a difference.

[robson]

One cause is demographics. Population growth contributes to economic growth, as in China or India today. From 1962-1984 Japan’s population grew 27%. 84-06 it grew 6.5%. On top of this the population has become increasingly elderly rather than working age. Many other factors contributed obviously, but this is a big one to explain long term growth stagnation.
It is both a difference and similarity with US today.
Our population is similarly getting older, which will eventually cause an economic burden, but immigration causes continual population growth for the US, which is a difference.

[robson]

One cause is demographics. Population growth contributes to economic growth, as in China or India today. From 1962-1984 Japan’s population grew 27%. 84-06 it grew 6.5%. On top of this the population has become increasingly elderly rather than working age. Many other factors contributed obviously, but this is a big one to explain long term growth stagnation.
It is both a difference and similarity with US today.
Our population is similarly getting older, which will eventually cause an economic burden, but immigration causes continual population growth for the US, which is a difference.

[robson]

drunkle that’s a good point. Extending it, I think it begs the question, even if something IS technically legal, if you know it’s morally wrong or deceitful, should you partake? Sure, you can rationalize that it’s ok because everyone else is doing it and the system is corrupt and you’d be a fool not to join in the corruption. But this is the same rationale that led to the housing problem. It’s human nature to play the system and I don’t fault anyone for that, I just think discussion of how to minimize the corruption is worthwhile, even if it is a bit idealistic.

[robson]

drunkle that’s a good point. Extending it, I think it begs the question, even if something IS technically legal, if you know it’s morally wrong or deceitful, should you partake? Sure, you can rationalize that it’s ok because everyone else is doing it and the system is corrupt and you’d be a fool not to join in the corruption. But this is the same rationale that led to the housing problem. It’s human nature to play the system and I don’t fault anyone for that, I just think discussion of how to minimize the corruption is worthwhile, even if it is a bit idealistic.

[robson]

drunkle that’s a good point. Extending it, I think it begs the question, even if something IS technically legal, if you know it’s morally wrong or deceitful, should you partake? Sure, you can rationalize that it’s ok because everyone else is doing it and the system is corrupt and you’d be a fool not to join in the corruption. But this is the same rationale that led to the housing problem. It’s human nature to play the system and I don’t fault anyone for that, I just think discussion of how to minimize the corruption is worthwhile, even if it is a bit idealistic.

[robson]

drunkle that’s a good point. Extending it, I think it begs the question, even if something IS technically legal, if you know it’s morally wrong or deceitful, should you partake? Sure, you can rationalize that it’s ok because everyone else is doing it and the system is corrupt and you’d be a fool not to join in the corruption. But this is the same rationale that led to the housing problem. It’s human nature to play the system and I don’t fault anyone for that, I just think discussion of how to minimize the corruption is worthwhile, even if it is a bit idealistic.

[robson]

drunkle that’s a good point. Extending it, I think it begs the question, even if something IS technically legal, if you know it’s morally wrong or deceitful, should you partake? Sure, you can rationalize that it’s ok because everyone else is doing it and the system is corrupt and you’d be a fool not to join in the corruption. But this is the same rationale that led to the housing problem. It’s human nature to play the system and I don’t fault anyone for that, I just think discussion of how to minimize the corruption is worthwhile, even if it is a bit idealistic.

[robson]

I was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.

[robson]

I was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.

[robson]

I was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.

[robson]

I was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.

[robson]

I was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.

[Author]

Posts