Random thoughts on population decline, economics and the Islamic hordes

One of the greatest errors made in modern studies of demography and economics is the assumption that population decline and an ageing population is somehow disastrous.

Behind this assumption are two further assumptions - that taxes are somehow bad and that a decline in GDP is bad.

It is true that many western nations will have a declining population by 2050. Many of these nations have old age pension systems funded by tax revenue, so the retired and aged people living in these countries will be supported by these taxes.

But of course the assumption is that increasing these taxes are bad. They're not. And the reason is that when a population declines, a country is spending less money in the following areas:

• Property: Less people means less demand for property.
• Infrastructure: Less people means less need for new water, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure to be built.
• Education: Less people at the younger age spectrum means smaller schools and colleges.

So for all the doctors and nurses and administration staff that is needed to support an ageing population, there will be a drop in demand for constructions workers and teachers to compensate for it. In other words, an increase in welfare spending on the aged is matched by spending decreases in other areas of the economy.

Ah, I hear you say, but constructions workers and teachers are essential for economic growth whereas nurses and doctors looking after retired people are a drain on the economy. Not necessarily - they are all producing goods and services. What you're worried about is GDP.

An increase in GDP is not necessary for good economic conditions. Economist Robert Solow's exogenous growth model proves that the natural state of an economy without any growth inputs is one of stabilisation. In other words, it is quite possible to have a stable state economy that provides workers with full employment.

Of course, when a population declines the effect upon the economy is negative. Yet that is not necessarily a bad thing. If an economy is in decline as a result of a population decline, the trick is not to aim for growth, but to focus on GDP per capita. In other words, so long as GDP per capita increases, total GDP can continue to fall. Another way of looking at it is to ensure that GDP decline is slower than population decline: If GDP declines by 0.5% in a year while population declines by 1% over the same period, then you have a good thing happening.

There is one final problem with people worried about population decline - they do not seem to understand basic demographics. "Populate or Perish" is one catch cry that sums it up - we must increase our population or else our nations will die out.

That's rubbish.

Take the USA. In 2009, the USA had just over 309 million people. If the population in the US begins to decline such that there would be 209 million people by 2109, is that such a bad thing? Population decline won't wipe a country off the map - no one is going to "perish". Unless, of course, people somehow think that Moslems will continue to have lots and lots of babies and take over the world - a common semi-racist belief amongst many. It is racist because it is based mainly upon ethnic assumptions and because it assumes that such ethnicity will not change. The reality is that many Moslem nations have exhibited a substantial drop in fertility rate over the last ten years.

Demographers have pointed out that when you take into account things like infant mortality rates, accidents and other conditions, the average woman must have 2.1 children in order for the population to remain stable (ie 10 women producing a total of 21 babies). If the average woman has less than 2.1 children there will be (eventual) population decline, while if they exceed 2.1 there will be (eventual) population growth. Of course, many western nations have fertility rates of 2 and below, which indicates population decline. But here is a list of nations with predominately Moslem people who are near or below 2.1:

• Bahrain: 2.29
• Lebanon: 2.21
• Kuwait: 2.18
• Indonesia: 2.18
• Turkey: 2.14
• Iran: 2.04
• Tunisia: 1.93

And all of those nations have declined from higher fertility rates in the past. This proves that there are Moslem nations that are not breeding children to take over the world, which means that Moslem nations which are having lots of children can also drop down to low birth rates.

In summary, population decline is not an economic problem, it will not cause economic and social chaos and it will not allow a horde of Moslems to take over the world.

AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

China, Tibet and the Olympics

Ah yes. Tibet. Scourge of China and the interests of Richard Gere alike. What to do?

What should NOT happen is a boycott of the Olympics. It's not that I somehow think that China needs to be appeased or that the Tibetans don't somehow need justice. Sometimes boycotts are necessary, although the last two - 1980 and 1984 - were hardly effective and were conducted more out of spite than anything.

The problem I suppose is, firstly, the belief that the "side" I am on, namely the English speaking industrialised world, is hardly occupying any moral high ground. And this not just in terms of older history (ie Australia's treatment of Aborigines, America's treatment of their indigenous people, Britain's treatment of pretty much everyone) but also in recent history. If I'm going to argue for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics then I should also argue for a boycott against the countries that have invaded Iraq as well, including my own country.

In short, there a multitude of reasons for boycotting the Olympics or getting angry that certain nations are going to be there. That being the case, in theory no one should go.

The second problem, though, is more along the practical side of things. Boycotting the Olympics will not somehow soften China's resolve in Tibet. The Chinese government is not going to suddenly make Tibet free, recognise Taiwan as a sovereign country and turn into a western style democracy because a bunch of westerners decided not to attend a glorified sporting event.

What might hurt, though, is economic sanctions, though I would point out that any trade embargo against China would hurt America more than China, so that's out as well. Moreover it is inflammatory, and that is not what is needed.

We need to remember that the best sort of change is achieved slowly and carefully. Change is not wrong - in fact change is an essential part of how societies work. What hurts the most, though, is when change comes suddenly.

Take Iraq under Saddam. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but invading the country and destroying the nation's power structure has created anarchy and done far more harm to it than anything Saddam would have done.

Dealing with rogue states - and even states like China that have roguish elements - requires patience and time. Look at nations like Egypt, Syria and Libya - these nations are hardly examples of world's best practice, but they have moved over the years from being potentially bad states to being potentially good states. This should have been the goal with Iraq, and it should have been the goal in Afghanistan from the late 1980s onwards. It's also the goal we should have towards Iran, though I would argue that Iran is less a rogue state than it was in the 1980s.

Look at the problem with Cyprus. Both Greece and Turkey have been arguing over this Mediterranean island for decades and have occasionally come to blows. Yet the moderating effect of the European Union has forced both sides to make concessions and to approach this issue - which is hardly solved yet - slowly, carefully and effectively. As time passes, issues like Cyprus will lose its ability to stir up base emotions and a solution will eventually be found.

The same can be said about China and its problems with Tibet and Taiwan. Slowly, slowly is the best way. It is the most effective way. Oftentimes the best solution is not to be found in the flag of victory waving over a bloody battlefield, but in the bored looks of those examining the "small print" of agreements.

Non-nuclear Iran a real and present danger... apparently

From the department of The-Muslim-Bogeyman -is-coming-for-us:

US President George W Bush says Iran remains a threat to the world despite new intelligence saying the country may not be building nuclear weapons.

Yesterday a US intelligence report said Iran halted its program to develop nuclear weapons in 2003, but added that it had continued to enrich uranium.

Dubbed the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the report represents the considered judgement of all America's intelligence agencies.

Mr Bush says the report is a warning signal and his view that a nuclear Iran will be a danger has not changed.

"I believed before the NIE that Iran is dangerous and I believe after the NIE that Iran is dangerous," he said.

"To me the NIE provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program."

Of course, after spending the last few years warning the world that Iran was going to destroy freedom with terrorist nukes, Bush is hardly going to say "Well folks, the good news is that I was wrong about them Iranian fellas. They 'aint as dangerous as I thought they were.", but then what else could he say after painting himself into a corner?

This sort of action by Bush - being forced to defend his position when careful analysis suggests that he is wrong - reinforces the belief that Bush does not act based upon evidence, but upon, well, something else. Maybe he does think God is talking to him, or maybe he just cherry-picks evidence to suit his bias, or maybe he has made a lot of money by manipulating the market as it reacts to geopolitical conflict that he initiates, or maybe he's just plain evil and wants to destroy the world, or maybe there is someone close to him who tells him lies and manipulates him... whichever one it is it is certainly not a case of him thinking and reacting appropriately to clear and unambiguous information.

Iranians criticise Dinnerjacket

From the department of Iran-is-obviously-not-Nazi-Germany:

In a rare attack on Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hardline newspaper has accused him of behaving immorally towards his political rivals.

The Islamic Republic daily, close to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has said Mr Ahmadinejad's behaviour is dangerous for Iran.

The publication is seen as a newspaper with impeccable Islamic credentials.

The attack would be difficult to imagine without at least tacit support from Ayatollah Khamenei.

In a hard-hitting editorial on Wednesday, the Tehran paper said the president's treatment of his critics was immoral, illogical and illegal.

Since many anti-Ahmadinehad people somehow think the guy is your standard dictator who has an iron-fisted control over his country, this news dispels this idea. Remember, this is a hard-line Islamic newspaper saying this.

More evidence, if any was needed, that Iran is not a threat to us, and doesn't want to be.

Mr Putin goes to Iran

From the department of Only-Nixon-could-go-to-Mongolia:

Russian President Vladimir Putin is due to make a historic visit to Tehran on Tuesday for talks expected to focus on Iran's controversial nuclear plans.

While he has visited Gulf Arab states, his journey to Tehran marks the first visit to Iran by a Kremlin leader since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

He will also be attending a summit of leaders of Caspian Sea states.

Earlier, Mr Putin brushed aside reports of a plot to assassinate him, which the Iranian government also played down.

The Iranians probably will not believe President Putin is actually coming until they see him on the airport tarmac, the BBC's Jon Leyne reports from Tehran.

Given Mr Putin's recent history of inhibiting Democracy in his own country, his going to Iran may solve nothing. Nevertheless I feel somewhat encouraged that Iran is being approached by others in the international community. Russia does not gain anything with a nuclear-armed Iran and stands to gain much if the Middle East is more peaceful and orderly. Putin is no angel, but I'm hoping he'll be able to broker some sort of agreement with Iran to reduce tensions in the area.

The MAD solution

Here's something just reported from the BBC about Iran:

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said that Iran is not heading for armed conflict with the United States.

In an American television interview, he said Iran was not on a path of war with the US and that Iran had no need of nuclear weapons.

He is due to address the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday.

The US is leading moves to impose further sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear development programme.

"It's wrong to think that Iran and the US are walking towards war. Who says so? Why should we go to war? There is no war in the offing," the Iranian leader said in the interview with CBS television.

He also denied Iran had nuclear arms ambitions.

"You have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb. We don't need that. What need do we have for a bomb?" Mr Ahmadinejad asked.

"In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use."

I personally think that neither Iran nor North Korea have the technological know-how or economic strength to create a nuclear weapon. But even if they do, they would have problems delivering it to their target, not to mention that the natural response to a nuclear attack on a neighbour would be nuclear attack on their own soil.

Owning your own nuke is, however, a great leveller when it comes to international military power. Iran and North Korea cannot threaten major world powers with their conventional armies but they certainly can with a nuke or two.

The theory behind this is called Mutual assured destruction, or MAD for short. It was MAD that, more or less, kept both America and Russia from nuking each other between 1950 and 1990. Even if one superpower had less nukes than the other, any pre-emptive nuclear attack from one superpower would still result in a substantial nuclear response. Put simply, if you choose to destroy your enemy, he had enough nukes to destroy you at the same time.

North Korea and Iran may or may not have nukes. But even if they do, there is little chance that they would use them aggressively. Iran could, I suppose, choose to use their nukes against Israel and North Korea could use their nukes against Japan - but we know that if they do then the response would be swift and complete. American nukes would rain down on either North Korea or Iran for their attack. North Korea and Iran know this and, if they had nukes, they would know that such an action on their part would be suicidal.

Yet MAD grants protection to a nuclear Iran or North Korea. If America chooses to attack either nation there is always a chance that these nations would use their nukes to defend themselves - either through launching an attack against a neighbour (such as Israel or Japan) or upon invading enemy forces (such as a US Carrier group in the Persian gulf or US troops north of the 38th parallel).

In other words, if Iran or North Korea gain nuclear weapons, they will essentially guarantee their own safety against outside aggression. They are unlikely to use such weapons in an aggressive war - or even develop them enough to sell to terrorists.

Iran and terrorism

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, has decided that he will not "insist" on a visit to the WTC site. Yet, as a comment on a NY Times blog site says, "Why does anyone - even a visiting president of any nation, one we like or don't like - need permission to go to a public place?"

It is a measure of the success of terrorism and of the right-wing noise machine that has meant that most Americans now see Iran as a grave threat to them and to world peace.

I'm not arguing that Iran is somehow the paragon of all virtue and peace and love - of course they're not. Yet Iran is nowhere near as dangerous or as threatening as some people - read George W. Bush - make them out to be.

Consider the following facts:

• Iran has never invaded any other nations. Admittedly Iran tried to take over Iraq back during the Iran-Iraq war but that was in repsonse to Iraq invading them first. In all other respects Iran has been peaceful, both after the 1979 revolution and in the decades before it. Unlike Saddam and Iraq, they have no history of aggression towards their neighbours.

• Iran's beef with America goes back over 50 years. In 1953 the CIA engineered a coup that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government and replaced it with a corrupt dictatorship. In 1979 Iranian nationalists and fundamentalists were responsible for the Shah's overthrow in their own revolution. Since the CIA used the US embassy in Tehran as a staging and co-ordination point during the 1953 coup, the new Fundamentalist government in 1979 took over the embassy. The resulting hostage crisis was regrettable, but, in the context of 1953, understandable. Iran wanted to prevent any US influence in their new nation.

• Ali Khameni, Iran's Supreme leader (pictured), is the official head of the armed forces. Any stupid or inflammatory comments that president Ahmadinejad made about destroying Israel need to be understood in that context. Ahmadinejad, for all his fiery rhetoric, has no power at all to use the Iranian military against another nation. Moreover, Ali Khameni publicly denounced the 9/11 attacks soon after they occurred, saying "Mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned... wherever they may happen and whoever the perpetrators and the victims may be". Sympathy towards America by ordinary Iranians resulted in candlelit vigils in memory of those who died on 9/11.

• Ahmadinejad succeeded Mohammad Khatami, who was Iranian president during the 9/11 attacks. In response to the terrorist attacks, Khatami said "On behalf of the Iranian government and the nation, I condemn the hijacking attempts and terrorist attacks on public centers in American cities which have killed a large number of innocent people. My deep sympathy goes out to the American nation, particularly those who have suffered from the attacks and also the families of the victims. Terrorism is doomed and the international community should stem it and take effective measures in a bid to eradicate it."

• There are about 25,000 Jews who live in Iran. Iran's first and most revered Supreme leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa soon after the 1979 revolution which decreed that Iranian Jews should be protected (along with another minority religions, including Christians).

• Iran also has a large and influential reformist movement that has reacted against fundamentalism and likes women's heads uncovered and their rock music loud and heavy. Within this Islamic fundamentalist state there is a growing and important force of secularism that wants nothing but peace.

• Lastly, Iran is dominated by Shi'a Islam. While a minority in international Islam, Shi'ites are the majority in Iran. To fundamentalists who adhere to Sunni Islam, Shi'ites are essentially heretics. It makes no sense that Sunnis like Osama Bin Laden and Sunni terrorist groups like Al Qaeda would wish to support the Iranian government.

What to conclude therefore? As I said, Iran is not all peacefulness and light. No doubt there are some within the government or within the population who wish to bring terror to the world. Yet the evidence of history shows that Iran is much less threatening to the world - and to America - than what many might think. They have a history of non-aggression; various top politicians have publicly denounced terrorism; they offer deep sympathy to America in response to 9/11; they have acted peacefully towards religious minorities in their own midst, most notably Jews; they have a growing reformist movement that wishes dialogue and peace with America and other western nations.

I say Ahmadinejad should lay the wreath. It is to America's shame that they would not accord to him the courtesy of other world leaders.

© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author





This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Attacking Iran?

Would Bush have the guts/stupidity to attack Iran?

I keep having this horrible vision of Bush launching Nukes at them.

Ethnicity and Terrorism

One of the more obvious things that people seem to go on about is the linking of Islam to Terrorism - as though, somehow, there is a very easy merging of the two.

The problem is that ethnic differences between Muslims can and will make it harder for Terrorist-lining Fundamentalists to succeed in their supposed desire for international Jihad.

This struck me a few months ago when I discovered the Wikipedia article on Iranian Rock music. Iranain Rock bands look remarkably similar in their stage appearance to Western ones. They may sing in a different language and have facial features that are more "Middle Eastern" in appearance, but their style of music and dress seem quite similar to the West. And, of course, the big issue is - they are playing relatively freely in a country that is considered to be ruled by a Fundamentalist theocracy.

It's hardly the sort of thing we Westerners like to get our head around. It's far easier to describe them all as "Muslims" or "Middle Eastern people" and to make generalised assumptions about them. Not a good thing to do.

Osama Bin Laden, for example, is an Arabic speaking Arab. He is devout in his Sunni faith to the point of having head-dress and a long beard - the latter being a clear symbol of his religious faith. Saddam never had a beard like Osama's, and very rarely wore Arabic-style clothing. Instead he looked a bit like an Arabic version of Burt Reynolds with his moustache. He was secular, no doubt about it, and had little time to focus upon serving his religious faith. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a Farsi-speaking Persian Shiite. His beard is short, an indication of his Shiite faith.

There are other ethnic groups arounf the Middle East. There are Kurds, there are Pashtuns, there are Tajiks and there are Turkic people. All have their own customs, religious peculiarities and language.

Even though Islam unites these people in their faith, it is exceptionally difficult to cross cultural backgrounds. It certainly happens, of course, but it is not endemic.

Islamic Terrorism is, therefore, not as much a danger as people think. The 9/11 Terrorists were Arabs. The Taliban are Pashtun. Iraqis are Arabs. Iranians are Persians. Iraq may break up over ethnic lines but it is unlikely that Arabic Shiite Iraqis would agree with joing the Persian Shiite Iran. Different language and culture. Like Australia being offered to join Greece.

These differences are real, no imagined. Muslims are not a monolithic, easily-defined group of people that we Westerners can demonise. There are certainly radical elements in all these groups, but their different languages and experience make it exceptionally difficult for a group like Al-Qaeda to move through.


© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author






This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Scott Adams: Iran is a Democracy

And he has some very compelling arguments.