Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

awallejr (82.46)

All About Population in the End?

Recs

8

April 21, 2009 – Comments (9)

During WWII the US population was about 150ish million.  Now we are over 300 million.  There is no reason to doubt that our population will again double, it is only a question of when.  That means more food, more homes, more goods to buy and sell, etc..  This is a given. The long term player recognizes this.  The short term player just sees what tomorrow may bring. Tho the bears might win short run, bulls ALWAYS win long run.  Dispute it all you want, but long term bulls simply win.  The Great Depression?  Horrible for those living through it, yet the gains made since then (even in light of the current bear market) are fantastic.  Current market?  Horrible, but in 20-30 years it will seem as a generational bargain.

 

And what really continues to fuel this long term growth in the end is population growth.  The problem, of course, is the over taxing of our planet's resources.  Most if not all of us will be long gone before a catastrophic shortage could occur.  I say "could" simply because advancements in technology or evolution is impossible to predict.  For all we know, one day we will be mining the Moon or Mars.

The question, in the end, is if this unchecked population growth will just doom us before such advancements can occur. 

9 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 21, 2009 at 5:18 AM, RonChapmanJr (98.49) wrote:

I disagree.  Our birthrate can slow and we can get to the point where we as a country are not growing anymore.  Nothing is guaranteed.  I am as long term of an investor as anyone, but I don't use population growth as a reason to be one. 

Worldwide population growth is a different issue and leads to different investments. 

Report this comment
#2) On April 21, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Seano67 (68.56) wrote:

Our (United States) birthrate has actually been in decline for decades now, and currently stands at 14.18 births per one thousand population, which ranks 150th in the world and is less than half the 30.1 birthrate we had in 1910....and once the bulk of the Baby Boomers pass into the great beyond, well our population size is obviously going to drop that much further.

All of the matured, industrialized 'first world' nations are in the same state of population decline as we are, all of Europe, Australia, Russia, South Korea, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and etc. All of these countries lag even our declining birthrate, and oddly enough China does too (proof that a concerted effort to reduce population growth really *can* work). Japan's rate of 7.87 births per thousand is the second lowest in the world and is considered to be a real problem for Japan due to the shrinking size of their available workforce. They'd like to increase that rate, but as yet, it's not happening for them.

It's the third world where the explosive growth is taking place, first and foremost in Africa, where you will find 45 of the top 50 birthrates in the world (only exceptions in the top 50 being Oman, West Bank, Haiti, Afghanistan, and the Gaza Strip), and the top 150 all consist of African, Middle Eastern, Latin American and Asian nations, and all sharing high infant mortality and death rates and shorter life expectancies too. So there's a lot going on there, lots of birth and population growth taking place despite lots of infants dying and a population that doesn't live as long as we do.

It's ironic that the areas of the world which can least afford such population growth are the ones which are going through it, but that's what it is. Modernization and industrialization reduce the need for such large populations, and that's borne out by every possible metric. 

Report this comment
#3) On April 21, 2009 at 9:18 AM, devoish (98.78) wrote:

Seano67,

Good answer.

 

Report this comment
#4) On April 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Schmacko (91.84) wrote:

Seano67s post sums things up nicely.

I'm pretty sure it's been put out in the press in the last few years that if it weren't for immigration America would actually have negative population growth. 

Report this comment
#5) On April 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM, rofgile (99.00) wrote:

The growth rate may be slowing (births / person), but the raw number of births occuring in the United States is still rising and will continue to rise. 

Here is an article: US births 2007

 

So, the US population will continue to grow, as the poster has said.  Until we have less births than deaths (which in an immigration supporting country like the US will not occur), we'll continue to grow.  The US is a huge country with enormous amounts of land and resources.  Ask yourself if the US could double it's population without running out of resources and space, and the answer is still yes.  Many of the western states and states like the Dakotas could still have a huge growth, and many of the cities like Chicago could continue to expand.  

In 2050, the US will have many more people living in it.  That's a fact, I would invest accordingly. 

Report this comment
#6) On April 21, 2009 at 6:08 PM, awallejr (82.46) wrote:

I should have been more clear.  When I use the term "population growth" it is not neccessarily through just births. 
And I do concede the impact of the boomers passing on and leaving a void if immigration is held in tight check.  Interesting link there rofqile.

Report this comment
#7) On April 21, 2009 at 6:22 PM, beatnik11 (< 20) wrote:

I have always been of the opinion that its education that helps lower the birth rate of a population.  The more educated countries are (1st world) the fewere children they have and are actually in a population decline whereas the least educated parts of the world are still pumping out children.  Even in the 1st world countires, it tends to be the less educated part of the population that has the most children.  The reason for this I think is because when people are more educated, they tend to plan out their future and have set goals they may want to achieve, they understand that its best to raise a child in an emotionally and financially stable home, and most importantly, them getting pregnent isnt just gods will, its their choice. 

Report this comment
#8) On April 21, 2009 at 7:19 PM, awallejr (82.46) wrote:

The movie "idiocracy" with Luke Wilson kind of illustrated that point heheh.

Report this comment
#9) On May 02, 2009 at 11:43 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Great post and really good replies! Well done all.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement