Here is a post which might be worth reading
http://bponews.blogspot.com/2006/10/in-defense-of-swaminomics.html

Now, my humble six cents:
1. Poor people have a sad living, but not a sad life in general – humans adjust to conditions and dont commit suicide en masse. Extremely important distinction. So let us not jump in and curtail the civil rights of procreation of parents saying that bequeathing poverty is morally unjustifiable.

2. Now the possible negative economic externalities for society. Hmmmmmm…. since the children of the Indian agricultural poor GET little de facto state services (and since a lot of us would stand for limited de jure help except for disability benefits, primary education vouchers, health insurance financing and the like) then where is the negative externality? If there is some externality, which I am missing use moderate taxation (positive and negative) strategies for incentives.

3. Water and other resources you point out is what is the main problem (Higher population density is by itself not a problem, right). While an increased demand of stuff is not technically an externality, but pollution might be one. Aesthetics seems to be one with you. Well, we can and are buying resources in the world market and news – even India’s population is stabilizing ! If Simon is “right” and Malthus was “left”, I am right-of-center.

4. The transition then is the ugly problem, you say. Sure – just like ugly poverty has been in the world for millenia. The government should further invest in small family awareness campaigns, and maybe subsidize condoms, pills and the like. That is all, besides some tax incentives as I have mentioned earlier.

5. Now to your discounting of long-term economic and strategic benefits. Firstly, to hell with Keynes. I am certainly hoping to live for more than 25 years. Even the US-Canada and intra-EU trade is not the same as say intra-Japan trade, so for many decades the nation will remain the biggest free trade unit. Here is where India and China will get efficiencies of scale which will reflect in per-capita figures. Sure we have to further deregulate our internal economies but let us not fudge two issues here.

6. The second long term benefit which you dismiss is the geopolitical angle. Larger absolute GDPs and larger efficiencies for “crowded” countries. But still one army. Still one negotiating team. Think about it.

In short, population has to be controlled. Just like poverty. But just like communism isnt the second problem’s answer, arresting, disqualifying or heavily charging farmers, politicians or journalists with more than say 2 children isnt the answer either. It just brings in more bureaucracy and is downright immoral in my opinion.

Try to explain small family benefits. Distribute condoms. Privatize education. Some labor will immigrate resulting perhaps in remittances and peace lobbies. Discuss and debate. But viciuosly attack an established columnist for obviously trying to make a point (correct or incorrect) with some entertainment-added-value for the lay man?

Not expected from one of my favorite bloggers.

A layman question: aren’t Aiyar’s views on population merely reflections of Julian Simon’s? (i searched your blog and saw that you’ve referred to him once).

Maybe all columnists/editors think alike , but the editor of American Economic Review seemed to suggest the same thing – quoted here

Or is the above a debate fit for a different economic setting/context? It just doesn’t make intuitive sense though – that you can multiply all you want.

Maybe all columnists/editors think alike , but the editor of American Economic Review seemed to suggest the same thing – quoted
here

Or is the above a debate fit for a different economic setting/context?
It just doesn’t make intuitive sense though – that you can multiply all you want.

If someone says, 2+2=4, we ignore it because it is correct and there is nothing new in that. But when someone says 2+2=5, without substantiating it properly, we get annoyed. But the aim of such persons is to be in the limelight always, regardless of the reason.

The hypocrisy of such half-baked, educated idiots irritates me like anything.

In reality very little was known about the proles. It was not necessary to know much. So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. … Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbours, films, football, beer, and above all, gambling, filled up the horizon of their minds.

No sarcasm or hypocrisy please.

Everyday we see news people deprecating each other in personal, professional, political and religious dimensions.

There is a scientific evidence that this is doing an irreparable harm to the welfare of our children and our future generations.

“To live in society, people have to have an inner mechanism that regulates their behaviour. Rejection defeats the purpose of this, and people become impulsive and self-destructive. You have to use self-control to analyse a problem in an IQ test, for example – and instead, you behave impulsively.”

Source – New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2051

“There’s no such thing as Intrinsic Motivation.”

Source – Ohio State University http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm

We can prevent this from happening by publicly putting off broadcasting such news and analysis.

I propose a 50 year moratorium on individuals and institutions publicly denouncing or demoralizing somebody in electronic and print medium.

I request the authors and editors of all electronic and print medium companies including the blogs to publicly endorse the proposal.

Kudos for nailing what can only be called as a shallow rhetoric.

If I may be so bold, do write about SEZs
and what you think about it.

Regards

Swmanithan Aiyar is married to a Muslim. Unconfirmed reports say that he converted. If these reports are true, it is possible that his reasons for approval of Lalu-size (ie, XXXL) families aren’t merely “economic”, but theological as well.

I stopped reading Swaminomics ever since I found better avenues for entertainment, such as playing “book cricket” with my 7-year old. (Open a random page in a big book. The second digit of the page number is your score. If it’s 7 or 8, it’s counted as 0. If it’s 9, you’ve lost a wicket.)

[1]

IF SLAVES IN US PROCREATED LIKE CRAZY? /Why the F are the 12% of US population

[2]
JUST HOW DOES MR. BUSH PROMOTE A LALU LIKE POP GROWTH…
IN FACT HE HAS 2 DAUGHTERS ONLY?…
so how is this compared when it silly comparisons to his “intelligence” are brought in the picture?

[3]

And Dont Forget that MUSLIMS in india
have higher birth rate than hindu’s

I still am a citizen of india and dont have any offsprings, and beleive me when i say
I am past the age…I turned 30 last week.
I have been very careful and honest upfront
of my involvement with any one which involved showint them the maha shakti.

[4]

And Unlike some of your other commentators on this blog i wont say its industrialized food production.

[5]

Back to GWB explain Just how is this related to lallus love of his lund’s ejactulation?

There is a tragedy of the commons issue here, but the traditional commons problem is about keeping down the number of sheep and cattle, so is a little easier in moral terms than keeping down the number of people… And the evidence on per capita income growth and population growth isn’t all that decisive –as noted, the demographic transition probably gives you a lift, but before and after that, you are on your own. Well, on your own apart from a big, largely happy, population…