4 ms·

Although I lean libertarian I don't see how you can control monetary policy without also needing to control population size. Lots of awkward ethical questions n

Although I lean libertarian I don't see how you can control monetary policy without also needing to control population size. Lots of awkward ethical questions nobody wants to talk about here.

eru 10y ago
I don't get it? Just print money? (Or more formal, do QE?)
- internaut 10y ago
  What I mean is that there must exist an elemental relationship (min-max limits) between population size and the depth of the division of labour (how complex production can become). Pairing population to production optimally is a synchronization problem. Cybernetics I suppose, not usually how economists think. Economic growth and recession could be modulated if there were enough people when we needed them, and there were not, when we did not. Recessions won't go away but they wouldn't be compounded by demographic issues. Currently this is solved in a haphazard way e.g. using illegal immigration of people like fruit pickers (deporting them when inconvenient) or by green belt zoning and class siloing. That can't be efficient. It couldn't possibly make humans happier. Most actually adopted solutions appear to be quite damaging to humans. How much of this is consciously orchestrated is also hard to ascertain. I suspect it is mostly Scott Alexander's Moloch at work. Every central banker ought to read that poetry because it's quite recognizable. Since it is unethical to force children to exist (Ceausescu) and also wrong to murder people or prevent them having offspring when demographic issues arise, we need a plausible solution to allow for a world in which people have a realistic chance of having sustenance and purpose in their lives. Most people really don't like this topic! It is understandable. We prefer not to think of ourselves as elements of production and supply. Of course we are, we're just a special case of it. All of the problems are ultimately rectified by markets, or failing them, mother Nature. You know what they say about Nature being a mother. My point is that we don't necessarily need to let it get to market corrections if we think ahead. Suppose you were a Communist official in charge of the One Child policy who anticipated the female infanticide rate. You'd have solved for a good deal of human suffering decades later on with perhaps an afternoon's work. Right place, right time. Monetary policy tools work on a similar lever principal to this which is a large part of the reason I'm talking about them in the same vein. I'm not confident I know what to do, only that it is a factor. And now; tell me how I'm wrong!
  - pm90 10y ago
    You seem to be trying to say a lot of things without making it clear exactly what the main point is. From what I gather, its that one can control a very exacting control over the market by having a very exacting control over division of labor. Which sounds a lot like communism, which you use in an example. Is that what you're trying to say?
    - internaut 10y ago
      Think of Malthus. He described how human populations could overshoot the food supply because the growth rate in humans was exponential but the growth rate for food production was linear. Famines then follow a predictable cycle. My hypothesis is that in the economy the growth rate in humans does not relate directly to economic growth. There could exist a religion that promotes large families for example; that's why I said mother nature would ultimately take care of business if things got out of hand. Sometimes we need more humans but there is a lag time before they appear. Sometimes we need less humans but they stick around absorbing dwindling resources and leaving their children with higher prices later. Both of these outcomes sabotage future growth prospects. How this relates to economics is that central bankers use interest rates changes in an attempt to produce stable growing economies. As I understand it the mechanism is a kind of lever, by modifying the trajectory of money supply you can slightly influence the larger flow. Central banks then spend their time compiling statistics to anticipate the future. If one can do that with money then you can do it with humans too by finely tuning the probability of them being able to give birth. Then as long as you can anticipate the amount of workers required you can provide that many at the correct time. Demographic hiccups become a thing of the past. I leave a lot unsaid here. Evidently controlling one part of the economy causes you to require as you say 'very exacting control' over other parts. As you can see there is nothing controversial here. I want to point out that the actions of governments tend to support a belief (that they believe) in something of this sort and that changing human production rates is some kind of corollary to changing interest rates. After all the humans use the money. They're the ones incorporating information into prices with their decisions. This whole topic has the feeling of an 'Ugh field' about it. I understand if I'm downvoted into oblivion but it's an important idea. If I'm totally wrong then great, tell me how.

Although I lean libertarian I don't see how you can control monetary policy without also needing to control population size. Lots of awkward ethical questions nobody wants to talk about here.

eru 10y ago

I don't get it? Just print money? (Or more formal, do QE?)

internaut 10y ago
What I mean is that there must exist an elemental relationship (min-max limits) between population size and the depth of the division of labour (how complex production can become). Pairing population to production optimally is a synchronization problem. Cybernetics I suppose, not usually how economists think. Economic growth and recession could be modulated if there were enough people when we needed them, and there were not, when we did not. Recessions won't go away but they wouldn't be compounded by demographic issues. Currently this is solved in a haphazard way e.g. using illegal immigration of people like fruit pickers (deporting them when inconvenient) or by green belt zoning and class siloing. That can't be efficient. It couldn't possibly make humans happier. Most actually adopted solutions appear to be quite damaging to humans. How much of this is consciously orchestrated is also hard to ascertain. I suspect it is mostly Scott Alexander's Moloch at work. Every central banker ought to read that poetry because it's quite recognizable. Since it is unethical to force children to exist (Ceausescu) and also wrong to murder people or prevent them having offspring when demographic issues arise, we need a plausible solution to allow for a world in which people have a realistic chance of having sustenance and purpose in their lives. Most people really don't like this topic! It is understandable. We prefer not to think of ourselves as elements of production and supply. Of course we are, we're just a special case of it. All of the problems are ultimately rectified by markets, or failing them, mother Nature. You know what they say about Nature being a mother. My point is that we don't necessarily need to let it get to market corrections if we think ahead. Suppose you were a Communist official in charge of the One Child policy who anticipated the female infanticide rate. You'd have solved for a good deal of human suffering decades later on with perhaps an afternoon's work. Right place, right time. Monetary policy tools work on a similar lever principal to this which is a large part of the reason I'm talking about them in the same vein. I'm not confident I know what to do, only that it is a factor. And now; tell me how I'm wrong!
- pm90 10y ago
  You seem to be trying to say a lot of things without making it clear exactly what the main point is. From what I gather, its that one can control a very exacting control over the market by having a very exacting control over division of labor. Which sounds a lot like communism, which you use in an example. Is that what you're trying to say?
  - internaut 10y ago
    Think of Malthus. He described how human populations could overshoot the food supply because the growth rate in humans was exponential but the growth rate for food production was linear. Famines then follow a predictable cycle. My hypothesis is that in the economy the growth rate in humans does not relate directly to economic growth. There could exist a religion that promotes large families for example; that's why I said mother nature would ultimately take care of business if things got out of hand. Sometimes we need more humans but there is a lag time before they appear. Sometimes we need less humans but they stick around absorbing dwindling resources and leaving their children with higher prices later. Both of these outcomes sabotage future growth prospects. How this relates to economics is that central bankers use interest rates changes in an attempt to produce stable growing economies. As I understand it the mechanism is a kind of lever, by modifying the trajectory of money supply you can slightly influence the larger flow. Central banks then spend their time compiling statistics to anticipate the future. If one can do that with money then you can do it with humans too by finely tuning the probability of them being able to give birth. Then as long as you can anticipate the amount of workers required you can provide that many at the correct time. Demographic hiccups become a thing of the past. I leave a lot unsaid here. Evidently controlling one part of the economy causes you to require as you say 'very exacting control' over other parts. As you can see there is nothing controversial here. I want to point out that the actions of governments tend to support a belief (that they believe) in something of this sort and that changing human production rates is some kind of corollary to changing interest rates. After all the humans use the money. They're the ones incorporating information into prices with their decisions. This whole topic has the feeling of an 'Ugh field' about it. I understand if I'm downvoted into oblivion but it's an important idea. If I'm totally wrong then great, tell me how.