Can you comment on why the theory of Malthusian “Population Trap” was well accepted in his time, but broken-down later? Any implications and insight for making a better population policy in China? Malthus argued that capital productivity, especially land productivity given its central role as the most valuable physical capital in Malthus’ time, decreased as population increased. Increases in technology should, according to Malthus, only increase population, therefore reducing relative income and only reduced fertility could increase income, resulting in a natural limit on population control. While Malthus’ claims were supported by the long term relative stability in the population over ancient history, Malthus could not foresee the independent impact technological advances could have on income, namely that land would in the future not be the most important physical capital and that technology increases capital’s productivity, thus not only increasing the possibility of population increase but also income. Population policy in China should, therefore, not depend on the depressive impact of resources per population mentality of controlling population, but rather focus energy and policy on improving the efficiency of production, which can improve income independent of population growth.
Some Stock Markets Are More Equal Than Others: Global Performance Since 2009 Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/28/2012 12:19 -0400 Back in March 2009, when the US financial system was imploding, one of market oddities was that European financial risk was far more muted than that of its American counterparts, with European stock markets trading, on a relative basis, far better than the epic collapse that the SP had just experienced having plunged by over 50% in months. It was this freefall that forced the Fed to take on the most daring capital markets rescue attempt ever attempted, and by injecting and guaranteeing tens of trillions at the nadir of the financial crisis, it spawned a doubling of the US stock markets (at a huge cost: US capital markets are now all centrally planned, and the price of gold: that inverse indicator of faith in fiat currencies, has also doubled in the past 4 years following an epic fiat dilution orgy). Over the same time period, Europe has demonstrated what happens to capital markets when there is no central planner willing and able to accept the risk of runaway inflation in the future (not to mention soaring deficits and deferred austerity) in exchange for instant stock market gratification right here, right now. End result: the French, Italian and Spanish stocks markets have barely budged since their 2009 lows (and Spain is well below). How does this look in the context of all global stock markets on a Price to Book ratio? The answer is below. The next logical question becomes: just why is the global investor willing to pay over 2 times book value for the average US stock, and unwilling to pay more than 0.8 Book for Italy and Spain. And how long until the realization that the rickety house of cards supporting the US stock market's 2.0+ P/B ratio is resting purely on the shoulders of a profligate Fed now that US corporations have once again resumed their downward "profitability" trajectory? 9490 reads Printer-friendly version Send to friend Similar Articles You Might Enjoy: Bill Gross On Doo Doo Economics Things That Make You Go Hmmm - Such As The Spread Between Gold And Gold Miners Futures Tumble, Spreads At Record, Euro Drops On Another Awful Spanish Auction; More LCH Margin Hike Rumors "China Accounts For Nearly Half Of World's New Money Supply" A Record $2 Trillion In Deposits Over Loans - The Fed's Indirect Market Propping Pathway Exposed
标签: better经管大学堂：名校名师名课
京公网安备 11010802022788号
论坛法律顾问：王进律师
知识产权保护声明
免责及隐私声明
