Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (40656)	11/2/2003 3:28:42 AM
From: BubbaFred	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

I agree, the writer of that article had to use some generalities and uniform assumptions that may not apply to some countries or societies. Nevertheless I like to add the following thoughts to your comments: <<Some of those figures for future populations, such as 70 million for Afghanistan and 84 million for Yemen, seem to beg the question of how to feed such populations. Neither of these countries has noticeable oil resources. How would they buy food? Sell their cheap labour? >> I don't know much about Yemen. From what I have have read, Afghanistan has plenty of natural gas, great source for gemstones, enough fertile valleys for food crops, plenty of grazing land for raising goats and cattle, and enough infertile semi-arrid regions for growing opium poppies for export. If that's not adequate to support the needs of 70 million population, then the natural event would be civil strives and tribal warfares to reduce the population accordingly. They don't and probably will never have a benevolent leader(s) who can elevate the society. Just like the neighboring Pakistan, the "westernized" leaders (just the way the bushies conglomerates like them) are more concerned about their own individual wealth creation and own properties in Zurich, Paris, New York, Los Angeles, and London. The rest of the population can manage along, vis-a-vis Pakistan where 90% live in very subsistence level and are always ready to serve the other 10%, earning just enough for food, clothes, and a shack or a cot. The villagers also burn dried cowpies for heat in the winter and for cooking stoves. <<The world demand for manufactured products doesn't come close to using all of Chinese and Indian labour that's available, let alone the additional labour of many other countries. >> A high percentage of the labor is for meeting the needs of domestic economy. It's the high paying jobs that have bigger impact on the economy. Higher paying jobs mean more parties and leisure activities, and leave the menial chores to others. More jobs for maids, chauffers, gardeners, etc. The primary reason for job shift to China and India is the high level of education system that produce higher skilled population, in addition to the energy of the population. Thirty years ago John Templeton noted the high energy of China's population. Templeton said that the future potential depend not only on available wealth, but more importantly the energy of the people, i.e. society. More recently Jimmy Rogers got that same vibration. <<Moreover, world prices of food are sure to rise significantly because modern agriculture requires big energy inputs, and the dwindling of energy resources will blot out all the other factors in importance.>> Thirty years ago there were talks of food and fossil fuel shortage by the turn of the century. As it turns out these earthlings have managed to cope. Onward to the next 20-25 years, genetic engineering will make its big imprint in improving crop yields as well as bigger and higher quality cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, and ducks. This stem cells science is progressing to create replacement organ parts that will enable earthlings to live over 100 years, at least for those who can afford it. By the way, China's science is already at this stage but still at low probability of success. Muhammad Ali may yet regain his 100 miles per hour mouth if he is still around in 20 years. << That doesn't even consider the question of the availability of water for agriculture. Even the oil rich countries mentioned will become far less oil rich in a couple of decades, in a world in which the oil output has already reached its maximum. >> In 20 years, we would be less dependent on fossil fuel. I expect alternative energy sources and much improved development in hydrogen fuel cells, better technology to reduce energy loss in power transmission, and perhaps much better solar power technology. This is one primary reason for the bushies conglomerate to become so desperately wanting the Iraqi oil and have the ultimate control in sales and management of the oil. Management fees alone would be worth several hundred billions over 20 years. Certainly and without any doubt, it's the last opportunity to reap such easy money as the reward for invading Iraq. No need to wonder why Iraqi oil patch is off limits to others, including the provisional Iraqi council. No accountability required for stealing the most valuable natural resource and exterminate doubters and oppositions - business as usual samo, samo Saddamo. << The choice for poor countries is simple, will they maintain the populations close to the current level by starvation or by political measures such as in China? >> This is such a tough one to address. Ever wonder why so many poor countries stay poor? They seem to be the mode orchestrated by their respective leaderships and intended to keep 90 - 95% of the population remain hopelessly poor. This is one key difference with China where the leaderships (for the most part) are not corrupted to the extreme and whose life purpose is to guide the society to greater wealth and prosperity. Those Chinese leaders who have been wielding their high office statures and influence for extreme corruptions are likely to be punished in the coming years. I think multi-milliooaires can be tolerated and accepted, but not money god billionaires. So they better not even try to get close to becoming one.