SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
John Medaille <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:08:07 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
I think that in modern economics you are more likely to find a 
literature on children as public "bads", going back to Malthus at 
least, or before that as far back as Tertullian. The Chinese 
especially have taken this view to heart with the one-child policy. 
This means, of course, that they must have a high savings rate, since 
they cannot expect one grandchild to support four grandparents.

We in the West have a similar problem, although we are just beginning 
to recognize it. As I tell my students, "In just a few years, y'all 
are gonna owe me a lot of money, so be sure to get good jobs."

Oh, wait. That's not working either.

John Medaille

ATOM RSS1 RSS2