Generally, these policies were successful in preventing heavy unemployment like that experienced in the 1930s, but unfortunately they tended to give rise to the phenomenon known as `stop-go'. That is, in periods of high unemployment, the government would expand aggregate demand: this would reduce the unemployment but at the same time tend to create inflationary pressure so that eventually the government would have to reduce aggregate demand again. Thus, all 'go' periods tended to be followed by 'stop' periods and it became difficult to achieve long-term economic growth. Possibly the main problem is that the Keynesian model is only short term and, in the short run, it is not always easy to predict the effects of policy changes, and the management of the economy, therefore, may become very erratic. A second limitation of the Keynesian model is that it fails to take adequately into account the problem of inflation.
Malthus said that the rate of population growth was much higher than the increase in food capacity needed for human nutrition, which inevitably creates a crisis. Malthus, who exemplifies the population growth in the United States, in particular, has suggested that if the population is released, the population will increase one time every twenty-five years. According to this, the balance between the population and the foodstuffs is deteriorating and the difference between population growth and sources must be
Malthus’ theory of population published in his essay, The Principle of Population (1798), is a theory that foretold that population growth would surpass the rate of food production leading to conflict. Malthus in his theory said that food supply grows at an arithmetic progression rate; 1, 2, 3, while the rate of population growth would take
During this period, it accounted for 25.7 percent of the total population, up from 18.7 percent in the previous decade. As of 2010, the nonresident population become 1,305,011 out of a total population of 5,076,732. According to the 2010 census, about 14.3 percent of the 3,771,721 residents of Singapore are PRs. Between 2005 and 2009, the PR population grew an average of 8.4 percent per year .It was much faster than the comparatively modest 0.9 percent average growth observed for Singapore citizens. This trend seemed to come to a rather abrupt finish in 2010, however, when the annualized growth of PRs fell to 1.5 percent while that of Singapore citizens held steady at 0.9 percent.
Seen as gradually improving signs, both the countries are seen increasing values of Disposable incomes from the year of 2010. This can be owed to two factors- rising personal incomes and consumer confidence and reducing taxes. “Personal incomes rose 0.2 percent last month, just half the gain in July. It was the weakest income performance since a 0.1 percent drop in February. Wages and salaries, the biggest income category, were up just 0.1 percent after two months of 0.5 percent increases.
Records show that in 1900, the ratio of the average income of the five richest countries in the world to the 5-10 poorest countries was about 9:1. One hundred years later, that ratio is 100:1 (www.weareoneamerica.org/root-causes-migration-fact-sheet). These inequalities among countries coupled with limited opportunities for employment that provides adequate incomes to cater for families has stimulated increased migration from developing to developed nations. It was reported that between 2000 and 2005, the developed economies of the world welcomed an estimated 2.6 million migrants annually from the developing nations (https://www.weareoneamerica.org). The relative ease of global mobility allows people to migrate to far places globally.
In turn, as individual income, savings, and investment rise, more resources become available that can boost productivity. Problem: How the rapid growth rate of population globally impact on the environment? Discuss the challenges for sustainable development. Problem statement: The growing population is one of the rising global challenge and has direct impact on sustainability development. Today, the planet had already overloaded because of growing population and there is no doubt that human is the only contributor for environmental imbalances.
The number of hours worked in a week has increased in the United States by about half a percent each year with 1,716 hours in 1967 and 1,878 hours in the year 2000 according to Juliet Schor the Author of The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure (2008). This increase, she claims, is due to the rise in weekly work hours and an increase in the number of days spent working each year (2008). Schor also discussed how an increase in productivity should lead to less work week hours, however, the opposite effect is seen. Instead of increased productivity causing a reduction in the hours of the average worker, it instead the hours related to an increased economy and demand. While this economic growth has certainly benefited the lives of many, the author discusses how a reduction in work week hours would give people more time to interact with their family and communities as well as “making up for our chronic national sleep deficit” (2008).
Focusing on the death rate, McNeill mentions that one of the reasons for population growths is that the improvement in transportation and communication contributes to endemic diseases; hence, less varies of them (222). Even though many failures in the medical development occurred during the period of time, the introduction of smallpox vaccines was a major improvement. Additionally, established sanitations appeared to protect the people from smallpox and water borne diseases, such as typhoid and cholera, and therefore reduced the death rate (Owen, 52). However, even though it is often mentioned as one of the main reasons, one could argue that its late appearance contradicts to the claim that it contributed to the population growth (Owen,
A Quick Look At 21st Century Poverty Since the 1960’s, government programs have considerably lowered the number of households living in poverty, giving families access to necessities such as food and healthcare. The number of families living below the poverty line fell 6.2-percent between 1959 and 2014, and incomes doubled, rising from $17,292 to $30,176 annually between 1970 and 2014. In 1970, the growing economy combined with government programs slashed the poverty rate in half. Massive growth of the U.S. economy also fueled this improvement. Despite this early success, the poverty rate rose again over time due to various crises, such as the oil crisis of 1999 and the recession of 2014.