UK's population growth highest in EU

[SevenRivers]

The UK went bust in 1976 and is now "skint" to the tune of £1.1 trillion. Happily that's a problem for the 800m born last year and not me or you. Unhappily they will need to build more infrastructure for themselves, so the debt will rise, so they'll need to have more people, etc.

 

Which brings us back to Ponzi schemes ...

 

Ponzi scheme, that sounds like a fancy solution to all our problems. We should go with the ponzi scheme, it's bound to turn out well, we hope.

[LeMaquis]

1,000,000,000 people each spending £1,000, GDP will be £1,000,000,000,000

1,000,000 people each spending £1,000,000, GDP will be £1,000,000,000,000

 

So two countries both with the same GDP, which country would you prefere to live in, I would go for the one with the smallest popuation because the people are wealthier.

 

You can see that GDP is not a very good measure for the wealth of the population.

 

You've got the wrong end of the stick again. GDP is about creating wealth, not spending or distribution. Your analysis is too simplistic anyway. You have to take prices into consideration. £1,000,000 in country two might buy you less than £1,000 in country one.

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2013 at 23:05 ----------

 

If the banks hadn't lent money that shouldn't have been lent, there wouldn't have been a growing economy to crash.

 

Well that's alright then. It's alright to cause a crash if you created the previous boom. At least you've come round to my way of thinking. Now go and get a job with Lehman Brothers because I'm off to bed.

[Parvo]

More babies were born in the UK in 2011-12 than any year since 1972, the Office for National Statistics says.

 

In all, 813,200 UK births were recorded in the year, said the ONS, contributing to population growth that was, in absolute terms, the highest in the EU.

 

Is this a wonderful thing that will provide plenty of workers and taxpayers for the future in order to provide funds for an aging population?

 

Or, is it a drain on finite resources, irresponsible breeding on an already overpopulated planet and a threat to our countryside and environment?

 

 

back to the original point....................

 

too many people worldwide....we are due for a collapse...

Only selflessness, commonsense, tolerance, unified action and a serious decrease in the population will save humanity....

 

or quite simple humanity is b*ggered

[angos]

You've got the wrong end of the stick again. GDP is about creating wealth, not spending or distribution. Your analysis is too simplistic anyway. You have to take prices into consideration. £1,000,000 in country two might buy you less than £1,000 in country one.

 

I made it simplistic because you are finding it difficult to understand that a smaller population can be much wealthier than a larger population even though the larger population as a larger GDP.

GDP doesn’t measure personal wealth, it measure the combined wealth of everyone, so a larger population can have a larger GDP despite everyone being poorer.

 

Everyone in the UK can become poorer even with a growing GDP.

[ghost rider]

Eh? I quoted China's expansion and need to redistribute. You point out yourself that China is doing the right thing and then warn about North Korea which is a dying economy. If you have read this thread you'll have seen I'm the one arguing in favour of open borders, freedom of movement and economic growth and you ask if I support North Korea which is known for none of those.

 

How do you redistribute without using communist ideals and how would it work.Would it not encourage people not to work as hard and damage economic growth and restrict technology advancements if they receive handouts.

[Mecky]

But people talk about the global population. I guess people only talk about the UK population and try to narrow the margins when it suits them.

[SevenRivers]

I made it simplistic because you are finding it difficult to understand that a smaller population can be much wealthier than a larger population even though the larger population as a larger GDP.

GDP doesn’t measure personal wealth, it measure the combined wealth of everyone, so a larger population can have a larger GDP despite everyone being poorer.

 

Everyone in the UK can become poorer even with a growing GDP.

 

It doesn't even do that, GDP is output (productivity), which is nothing like a measure of wealth.

 

A country could have a high GDP with most of the wealth created by a small percent of the population, but what would be the point if all that wealth creation goes on welfare payments (wealth redistribution) to the rest of the unproductive population just to ensure they can put food on the table to survive, that's not making the country better off.

 

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2013 at 07:06 ----------

 

Correctamundo. There have been several reports warning about power issues, and this is the first time in a long time our smaller rivers haven't started the summer already low. It's going to happen again though - climate change and all that.

 

Back to the ponzi scheme....lets just build more polluting power stations, and energy heavy desalination plants, but we need people to build them, so lets import the workers to build the infrastructure that the infrastructure is needed to service.

[Ridgeway84]

What utter crap. Have you seen house prices in Westminster, Islington, Hackney, Hampstead, Notting Hill, etc? Do you think it's all factory workers who live there? Loads of formerly working class parts of London have been gentrified to the point that house prices have rocketed over the years. Over eight million people live in London and you think all the wealth is created by commuters from the Home Counties? Ridiculous.

 

So a million, probably less yuppies remain. The rest are as I stated above. Most lower middle class types, the majority of society, those you might see in 'The Office' don't. They don't qualify for, nor would want council housing and can't afford to buy so live in places like Hemel Hempstead. Look at the Channel 4 programme 'How To Get a Council House'.

[angos]

It doesn't even do that, GDP is output (productivity), which is nothing like a measure of wealth.

 

Agreed, so a growing population can increase its output and GDP without anyone getting wealthier, people could even get poorer at a time when GDP is growing.

 

Between 2000 and 2008 the personal wealth of millions doubled because of the housing bubble, this increased GDP but only really gave people the ability to borrow more money, which ultimately made them poorer.

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2013 at 07:28 ----------

 

So a million, probably less yuppies remain. The rest are as I stated above. Most lower middle class types, the majority of society, those you might see in 'The Office' don't. They don't qualify for, nor would want council housing and can't afford to buy so live in places like Hemel Hempstead. Look at the Channel 4 programme 'How To Get a Council House'.

 

There's also the growing trend for foreign investors buying property in London as a means to hide or save money.

[Mecky]

Why do people keep going on about GDP when it is a poor indicator of a person's wealth. Why do people need to know a person'r wealth anyway?