World Population Awareness

Economics, Growth, Disparity of Wealth

Wealth inequality in America: what Americans think is their country's wealth inequality and what is the ideal wealth distribution in a capitalist society are far different from shocking reality. Click on the link to see the video.   9 Out of 10 Americans Are Completely Wrong About This Mind-Blowing Fact November 11, 2015, doclink

The expansion of our wealth is only possible so long as the oil supply continues to expand, says oil expert Dr. Colin Campbell. The financial and investment community is beginning to accept the reality of Peak Oil, which ends the First Half of the Age of Oil, during which banks created capital by lending more than they had on deposit, being confident that tomorrow's expansion, fueled by cheap oil-based energy, was adequate collateral for today's debt. Oil driven "economic growth" is absolutely necessary for individuals, businesses, and governments to pay off their debts.

Commentator John La Grou writes: ". . . debt service requires economic growth in proportion to the size of the debt. Today's industrialized debt is at its highest 'real dollar' value in human history. Personal debt, corporate debt, government debt - all are at or near historical highs, and growing at historically unparalleled rates. Hence, the level of economic growth required to sustain such debt is at an all time high."

People take out a loan with the expectation that there will be more money available in the future than there is now, not realizing that money is really just a symbol for oil, and there will not be more oil available in the future than there is now and they will have to default on their loan. If many individuals, businesses, or nations begin defaulting on their loans at roughly the same time - as they will once the economy begins to contract due to skyrocketing energy prices - the banks will be unable to make new loans without spiraling the economy into a hyperinflationary meltdown.

An overall "financial collapse" will further devastate our ability to implement alternative systems of energy since the capital needed to develop these alternatives will not be available. In June 2005, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), aka "the central banker's central bank", said that oil prices may well remain high for a prolonged period of time and that further rises may have more severe consequences than currently anticipated . . . Everyone needs to commit to some unpleasant compromises now, in order to avoid even more unpleasant alternatives in the future . . . The US current account deficit means that a further slide in the dollar was "almost inevitable", while the BIS sounded a warning that the deficit could yet lead to "a disorderly decline of the dollar, associated turmoil in other financial markets, and even recession."

Warren Buffet, the world's second richest man, recently warned of "mega-catastrophic risks" and "investment time bombs" currently threatening the global economy. High energy prices, destabilizing resource wars, less than inspiring leadership, a possible currency collapse, - all will add to that. It is not enough to focus solely on the price at the pump, more fuel-efficient forms of transportation, or alternative sources of energy.

A report commissioned by Cheney and released in April 2001 said: "The most significant difference between now and a decade ago is the extraordinarily rapid erosion of spare capacities at critical segments of energy chains. Today, shortfalls appear to be endemic. Among the most extraordinary of these losses of spare capacity is in the oil arena.

In May 2001, George W. Bush said: "What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America." A Bush energy advisor, energy investment banker Matthew Simmons - regarded by the energy and banking community for his nonpartisan, heavily documented, and virtually infallible research & analysis - said in an August 2003 interview with From the Wilderness publisher Michael Ruppert when asked about the impending natural gas crisis, responded: "I don't think there is one. The solution is to pray. Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it's a certainty." For more information on an excellent website, see (click on above headline link)   Economic Consequences of An Oil Shortage June 28, 2005, Life After the Oil Crash website doclink

Growth vs Steady State Economy

U.S.: The Economy Can't Grow Without Birth Control

October 29, 2017, New York Times   By: Bryce Covert

The Affordable Care Act's requirement that health insurance offer birth control without cost-sharing has resulted in an estimated 57.6 million American women getting contraception without a co-payment, saving $1.4 billion in 2013 alone.

But the Trump administration's new rules, effective immediately after the announcement, allow any employer to request that the government let it opt out based on religious or moral objections.

This month, Democrats introduced a bill that would undo the Trump administration's recent change to the ACA that would allow virtually any employer to deny its employees access to contraception without a co-payment, allowing the employer to opt out based on religious or moral objections.

Access to contraception is not only about women's health, it also profoundly affects the economy. The easier it is for women to obtain birth control, the more able they are to gain education and employment, which has been shown to be enormously important for the economy. Mr. Trump has promised economic growth at rates we haven't seen in decades. But his actions that would reduce access to contraception is at odds with that statement.

Before the A.C.A., 85% of health insurance plans at large companies offered contraceptive coverage, but most required at least a co-payment. Individual women paid about $250 a year.

The Trump administration says that women can still get inexpensive birth control, asserting that "many forms of contraception are available for around $50 a month." That is $600 a year, no small item in many people's budgets, particularly for low-wage workers. The cost of an intrauterine device, one of the most effective forms of contraception, is about the same as a month's minimum-wage pay.

High birth rates have historically lowered women's ability to get and keep paid work because holding down a job becomes a lot more difficult when it has to be balanced with pregnancies and raising children. That's particularly true if women aren't even in control of when they become pregnant.

In the late 1960s and early '70s women gained greater access to the pill, and they were able to delay marriage and childbirth and invest in careers through education, job training and staying in paid work.

This increased young women's labor force participation by 7%. Women with earlier access to the pill also made 8% more than their peers, and the pill was responsible for about a third of the decrease in the gender wage gap by 1990.

Half of women who use contraception say it is to complete education or to get and keep a job.

President Trump says he wants to grow the economy by 4% a year or more, something it hasn't done for any sustained amount of time over a decade. Consumer spending comprises about 70% of all economic growth, and women are responsible for a large portion of that spending. One clear way to spur economic growth is to entice more people to participate in it. The high growth rates during the Reagan years were linked in part to women continuing to enter the workplace. But women are already trickling out of the work force, and it could get worse with more unexpected pregnancies. doclink

Message from WOA: Something unexpected happened

ERROR: reason: template_merge /www/ not found .. could not open .. tc140