Vatican Economist: Zero Population Growth Responsible for World-wide Recession

[Pro_Life_News]

By Peter J. Smith ROME, February 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A top Italian economist and current President of the Vatican Bank says the culprit standing at the heart of the worldwide economic recession is not banking practices, but rather the low birth rate that has resulted in zero…

Full article…

 

[windows7]

By Peter J. Smith ROME, February 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A top Italian economist and current President of the Vatican Bank says the culprit standing at the heart of the worldwide economic recession is not banking practices, but rather the low birth rate that has resulted in zero…

Full article…

maybe true to a certain extend, but i think the current financial system based on debt is also unfair, bankers greed are to blame for financial problems.
lets not forget either that poor countries who exchang their natural resouces for borrowing money from the world bank will never be able to pay back/catch up what they borrow because money is simply created in the developed countries when people take out loans, cache 22.
i wish the vatican and fair would understood how the system works.
do a seach for a video entitled “money as debt” to understand how money comes into cerculation.

 

[John21652]

Mainly nonsense. The sub prime fiasco happened despite a rising population through immigration, so really there was not zero population growth.

However, we must distinguish between zero natural population growth and zero population growth. The former measures births against deaths and the latter includes immigration.

Look at these figures -

Here’s the list of the countries with negative natural increase or zero negative increase in population…
Ukraine: 0.8% natural decrease annually; 28% total population decrease by 2050
Russia: -0.6%; -22%
Belarus -0.6%; -12%
Bulgaria -0.5%; -34%
Latvia -0.5%; -23%
Lithuania -0.4%; -15%
Hungary -0.3%; -11%
Romania -0.2%; -29%
Estonia -0.2%; -23%
Moldova -0.2%; -21%
Croatia -0.2%; -14%
Germany -0.2%; -9%
Czech Republic -0.1%; -8%
Japan 0%; -21%
Poland 0%; -17%
Slovakia 0%; -12%
Austria 0%; 8% increase
Italy 0%; -5%
Slovenia 0%; -5%
Greece 0%; -4%
In the U.S., the natural growth rate is 0.6% and overall growth is 0.9%. (2006).

Now, which one of those countries can be p(name removed by moderator)ointed as being the start/cause of the sub-prime meltdown and the GFC?

 

[Smber2c]

But i think the current financial system based on debt is also unfair, bankers greed are to blame for financial problems.

I don’t really understand the whole “bankers greed” idea for causing a recession. Banks are supposed to make money. If they are making lots of money, that’s not greed that’s good business. If they are losing money, that’s not greed that’s bad business.

The banks lending to people they shouldn’t have, or their lending money to many times over may appear as greed, but instead we should call it bad business. Business that is often pushed on them by the FED, by the national gov’t, by regulators, etc…

I don’t blame banks for this. And I certainly don’t blame greed.
My list of causes of recession are:

1. An enormous gov’t that sucks up money with tiny amounts of utility provided.
2. Free loaders that take, take, take from the gov’t (and thus other tax payers), without being made to grow up.
3. Regulators (i.e. - political cronies) controlling industries that they don’t understand, making decisions whose consequences they don’t understand.
4. For the US at least, wars that literally send trillions of dollars up in smoke and make millions of more people hate us and want to attack us. (total failure in every way: dead them, dead us, they lose money, we lose money, they are less safe, we are less safe - no benefit in any way, shape, or form)
5. Maybe zero population growth…though just as women entering the work force during/after WWII allowed growth duing a time that gov’t decisions should have caused recessions - zero pop. growth acts opposite and makes the recession come sooner…but it’s not the cause, it just affects the how quickly the wasteful/power-hungry/greedy (yes they do deserve the title greedy) gov’t, the well-fare state, and over-regulation put the economy into a tail spin.

 

[John21652]

I don’t really understand the whole “bankers greed” idea for causing a recession. Banks are supposed to make money. If they are making lots of money, that’s not greed that’s good business. If they are losing money, that’s not greed that’s bad business.

The banks lending to people they shouldn’t have, or their lending money to many times over may appear as greed, but instead we should call it bad business. Business that is often pushed on them by the FED, by the national gov’t, by regulators, etc…

I don’t blame banks for this. And I certainly don’t blame greed.
My list of causes of recession are:

1. An enormous gov’t that sucks up money with tiny amounts of utility provided.
2. Free loaders that take, take, take from the gov’t (and thus other tax payers), without being made to grow up.
3. Regulators (i.e. - political cronies) controlling industries that they don’t understand, making decisions whose consequences they don’t understand.
4. For the US at least, wars that literally send trillions of dollars up in smoke and make millions of more people hate us and want to attack us. (total failure in every way: dead them, dead us, they lose money, we lose money, they are less safe, we are less safe - no benefit in any way, shape, or form)
5. Maybe zero population growth…though just as women entering the work force during/after WWII allowed growth duing a time that gov’t decisions should have caused recessions - zero pop. growth acts opposite and makes the recession come sooner…but it’s not the cause, it just affects the how quickly the wasteful/power-hungry/greedy (yes they do deserve the title greedy) gov’t, the well-fare state, and over-regulation put the economy into a tail spin.

According to one Steven Horwitz, of the Department of Economics at St. Lawrence University, you are not too far off the mark. In 2008 he wrote -

An Open Letter to my Friends of The Left

In it he blames excessive government regulation as the cause of the sub-prime fiasco. He points out to his ‘friends of the left’, who want more and more government regulation, because they want to stifle ‘greed’, that more regulation does nothing but “…channels self-interest in socially unproductive ways” inside an “institutional context”…

He tells us -

To call the housing and credit crisis a failure of the free market or the product of unregulated greed is to overlook the myriad government regulations, policies, and political pronouncements that have both reduced the “freedom” of this market and channeled self-interest in ways that have produced disastrous consequences, both intended and unintended…The current mess is thus clearly shot through and through with government meddling with free markets.

Nowhere does he mention zero population growth, or any factor other than the marriage of state and corporate power.

 

[Jennifer_G]

I read in an article (can’t remember where I saw it…), but one of the things it said was that with the shrinking population, that means there’s more elderly people that are selling their homes (baby boomers who are retiring) and not as many younger people buying homes, thus a saturation of homes.

I’m not sure 100% either way in the short term, but in the long term, yes the economy will eventually be forced to shrink.

 

[BVM_1221]

By Peter J. Smith ROME, February 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A top Italian economist and current President of the Vatican Bank says the culprit standing at the heart of the worldwide economic recession is not banking practices, but rather the low birth rate that has resulted in zero…

Full article…

WHAT zero population growth? Maybe in the more developed countries, but certainly not worldwide:dts:

I am very doubtful if any reliable arguement exists to show a link between the ALLEDGED zero pouplation growth, and the current economic crises. :coffeeread:

In any case, what would the current President of the Vatican Bank have us do? Don’t tell me, let me guess…

Ah, got IT:newidea:. I am willing to bet he wants the world to abandon abortion and birth control, right? Thought so. And this is the reason for his stateements, right?

Don’t hold your breath awaiting the rest of the world to pay serious attention to our beloved President of the Vatican Bank:nope:

Interesting try, though:yup:

 

[Petergee]

The real crunch will likely come in about 2030 when the last of China’s pre-one-child-policy generation reaches retirement/sickness/old age. China’s economy will likely crash bringing the world economy down with it, making the current recession look insignificant.

Some commenters here have not read the whole article. It is not the raw total population that is the issue (though even the total world population will be shrinking by 2050) but the number and proportion of people of productive age.

 

[buffalo]

There need to be a natural growth rate. Countries that have below 1.3 replacement rate are doomed. No country has ever come back. Most Western countries are below 1.3 or close. America is 1.8 without the Latino immigration. With it we are at 2.1, just break even. Countries are enacting monetary rewards for couple having more children.

The normal fertility rate for a woman is between 4 and 12 children. Now we have 1.8 kids and a pet.

Another statistic I seen was that 40 some years after abortion began a recession would happen. Sure enough it did.

See Demographic WInter.

 

[Petergee]

Mainly nonsense. The sub prime fiasco happened despite a rising population through immigration, so really there was not zero population growth.

Immigration generally improves the economy in the long term, but it is a cost to the economy in the shoort term, especially if the immigrants have great cultural, religious and language differences from the country they migrate to.

Now, which one of those countries can be p(name removed by moderator)ointed as being the start/cause of the sub-prime meltdown and the GFC?

True it started in the USA, but those countries with ZPG have been the worst affected by it, because they lack the capacity to respond to it due to not enough creative productive people

 

[John21652]

Immigration generally improves the economy in the long term, but it is a cost to the economy in the shoort term, especially if the immigrants have great cultural, religious and language differences from the country they migrate to.

Your argument here depends on the word “if”. You are splitting hairs. The US, where the GFC began, still has a net increase in its natural population. Immigration should increase the demand for housing, consumer goods, etc. That being the case, there should have been sufficient demand to have kept the economy going. However, something else happened. Read that letter to my friends of the left, which I posted and perhaps you will understand what did happen.

True it started in the USA, but those countries with ZPG have been the worst affected by it, because they lack the capacity to respond to it due to not enough creative productive people

Great Britain, Iceland, for starters, were the worst hit in the initial stages. the main losers from the GFC have been developing countries, which were highly geared before the crisis, as well as the countries that relied on foreign capital such as Iceland, and the Baltic states, including Lithuania and Latvia. In
terms of major regions the hardest hit were Japan, then Europe and the US. However, Japan’s economy was already weak as there was not a great deal of domestic demand to keep the economy up and its export sector was performing poorly. Countries that relied heavily on trade, such as Germany, Singapore and Taiwan, have suffered a good deal. Australia fared remarkably well for a number of reasons,
one of which was that in the 12 months to June it was the only developed nation to grow its volume of exports. I submit to you that the severity of the ‘hit’ had more to do with the monetary instruments circulating in those economies and the levels of indebtedness than it did with whether or not the population was growing. The Banks were hit first, then investment and then trade.

 

[Petergee]

Your argument here depends on the word “if”. You are splitting hairs.

No, I was merely making to the same distinction you made:

The sub prime fiasco happened despite a rising population through immigration, so really there was not zero population growth.

However, we must distinguish between zero natural population growth and zero population growth. The former measures births against deaths and the latter includes immigration.

So if I am slitting hairs, it is only because you did so first.

the main losers from the GFC have been developing countries, which were highly geared before the crisis

Correct me if I’m wrong but I understand the only countries whiose central banks have collapsed are Iceland, Greece and Dubai. None of them developing countries.

 

[BVM_1221]

Another statistic I seen was that 40 some years after abortion began a recession would happen. Sure enough it did.

See Demographic WInter.

Ummmm…nice try and all that to discredit abortion, but…

In the last 40 years, there have been several recessions. Given the short term memory of most Americans, they (and you) may have forgotten them. Or maybe claim that they were not as bad as the current one. Really?:dts:

But the recession caused by the Savings And Loans Scandel brought great hardship to many. So did the other recessions. This one, in my own abject humble opinion, had nothing to do with abortion and birth rates, and everything to do with the housing bubble.:sad_yes:

But just to satisfy my curiosity, WHY did someone think that the start of legalized abortion 40 years ago would cause a recession today. What is the chain in the cause and effect, other then wishful thinking

 

[buffalo]

Ummmm…nice try and all that to discredit abortion, but…

In the last 40 years, there have been several recessions. Given the short term memory of most Americans, they (and you) may have forgotten them. Or maybe claim that they were not as bad as the current one. Really?:dts:

But the recession caused by the Savings And Loans Scandel brought great hardship to many. So did the other recessions. This one, in my own abject humble opinion, had nothing to do with abortion and birth rates, and everything to do with the housing bubble.:sad_yes:

But just to satisfy my curiosity, WHY did someone think that the start of legalized abortion 40 years ago would cause a recession today. What is the chain in the cause and effect, other then wishful thinking

The economy is cyclical. Recessions are cyclical.

The housing bubble was a contributing factor but we should not ignore the piling on effect by the press. It is important to remember that the Dems hyped it up because they knew that was the road to reclaim the White House. It was a manipulation.

Then we have the social manipulation - Congress forcing the lenders to grant risky loans to fulfill a goal of 65% of Americans in their own home. These are not traditional lending practices and then moved the risk from the lender to the packagers.

But -
Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

"No matter how you slice it, aggressive ‘population control’ exacts a huge price in future economic growth "

MT. FREEDOM, NJ, October 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Researcher Dennis M. Howard, president of the pro-life group Movement for a Better America, who has been tracking the economic impact of abortion since 1995, has shown that the 50.5 million surgical abortions since 1970 have cost the U.S. $35 trillion dollars in lost Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If the number of missing children includes those aborted by IUDs, RU-486, sterilization and abortifacients, the figure climbs to over $70 trillion.
Originally calculating losses in “downstream tax revenues as an index of the cost of abortion,” which showed only government revenue loss, Howard then turned to using lost GDP (GDP per capita per year times the cumulative number of abortions since 1970) as a measure of total economic cost.
“No matter how you slice it, aggressive ‘population control’ exacts a huge price in future economic growth that can never be recovered. Indeed, it is a loss that reverberates through all future generations. Without an enormous new Baby Boom lasting another 40 or 50 years, that growth is lost forever. We don’t have a debt crisis. We have a death crisis,” wrote Howard.

more…

 

[buffalo]

POPULATION: The economic consequences of abortion

“You can estimate the population shortfall based on earlier birth trends,” said Howard in an interview with the Virginia-based Population Research Institute (PRI), “and a normalisation of that over a period of time.” Howard bases his numbers on the direct economic contribution of individuals to the economy.

In so doing, he turns the overpopulation zeitgeist on its head. Instead of a “population bomb”, he writes that we are facing an “abortion bomb”. Unlike Paul Ehrlich’s bogus predictions, Howard’s warnings have actually been coming true.

We are not speaking here of Howard’s timelines. For instance, he projected a 50 per cent chance of a dramatic economic downturn by 2000, an 80 per cent chance by the year 2010, and a 100 per cent chance by 2020. By this time, he insisted, the crash would be an economic certainty.

While such a timeline is a little too loose to be considered a prediction, it is true that the birth dearth is making our current economic doldrums worse. To the various factors that have pushed the US into the current economic crisis, from unscrupulous lending practices to homebuyers, to the lack of regulatory oversight of Wall Street, we must add abortion.

Another interesting insight from Howard has to do with America’s regional economies. During the economic downturn of 1989-1994, he found that the economy recovered the fastest in those states with low abortion rates. In fact, he asserts that “the low [abortion] rate states suffered virtually no recession at all, while those with the highest rates - mainly Democratic ‘blue states’ - were still in recession five years later.”

more…

 

[Darryl1958]

I don’t really understand the whole “bankers greed” idea for causing a recession. Banks are supposed to make money. If they are making lots of money, that’s not greed that’s good business. If they are losing money, that’s not greed that’s bad business.

One wonders too if the bankers were greedy just for the recession as opposed to not being greedy when the economy was doing all right?

The banks lending to people they shouldn’t have, or their lending money to many times over may appear as greed, but instead we should call it bad business. Business that is often pushed on them by the FED, by the national gov’t, by regulators, etc…

Isn’t people getting loans that they are not capable of paying for also a form or greed on behalf of the people themselves?
Shouldn’t we be adressing the greed of the people as well, or does this not play in well with the leftist talking points.

I don’t blame banks for this. And I certainly don’t blame greed.

The market has a way of dealing with bad business practices, and it can be quite harsh and painful too.

My list of causes of recession are:

1. An enormous gov’t that sucks up money with tiny amounts of utility provided.

For the really big messes, it takes something the size of the government. Markets correct, but governments always have political reasons to ensure that those corrections do not affect their friends and the people who vote them in.

1. Free loaders that take, take, take from the gov’t (and thus other tax payers), without being made to grow up.

Parasites need always be taken in account. This takes vigilance.

1. Regulators (i.e. - political cronies) controlling industries that they don’t understand, making decisions whose consequences they don’t understand.

This would seem to tie into your first point for sure.

1. For the US at least, wars that literally send trillions of dollars up in smoke and make millions of more people hate us and want to attack us. (total failure in every way: dead them, dead us, they lose money, we lose money, they are less safe, we are less safe - no benefit in any way, shape, or form)

The trillions of dollars, financed through China buying American debt is the pertinent part of the argument. While I fully support the war and its aims, the huge monetary cost of the war cannot be discounted.

1. Maybe zero population growth…though just as women entering the work force during/after WWII allowed growth duing a time that gov’t decisions should have caused recessions - zero pop. growth acts opposite and makes the recession come sooner…but it’s not the cause, it just affects the how quickly the wasteful/power-hungry/greedy (yes they do deserve the title greedy) gov’t, the well-fare state, and over-regulation put the economy into a tail spin…

In terms of American and Canada, traditionally successful at taking in immigrants, zero population growth is not yet a factor. For Japan, its economy has never really recovered from the downturn of the eighties. Since their economy is solely based in the human capital of a clever and industrious population, certainly the OP addresses their situation.
For Europe, the problems of negative birth rates and the decimation of the native population that such birth rates entails, it would seem to be complete denial to think that the demographics will be inconsequential.

It doesn’t make sense to me anyways that the removal of a full generation of Europeans will not affect their economy in any way.

 

[Petergee]

Ummmm…nice try and all that to discredit abortion, but…

In the last 40 years, there have been several recessions. Given the short term memory of most Americans, they (and you) may have forgotten them. Or maybe claim that they were not as bad as the current one. Really?:dts:

But the recession caused by the Savings And Loans Scandel brought great hardship to many. So did the other recessions.

All the experts seem to agree that the current recession is far and away the worst since the great depression of the 1930s.You are the first person I have seen dispute this.

 

[MugenOne]

World’s population and economy is like a rainforest. If a forest doesn’t rejuvanate itself, then it is a dying forest.

 

[John21652]

World’s population and economy is like a rainforest. If a forest doesn’t rejuvanate itself, then it is a dying forest.

That may be true, but what’s it got to do with the global recession?

 

[Darryl1958]

That may be true, but what’s it got to do with the global recession?

Markets are anticipatory.