Argue against " Impact of an aging population on the global Economy"
In "impact of an aging population on the global economy", author Jeremy J. Siegel opine s steep decline in the ratio of workers to retirees will crash the capital market in developed countries. And only capital ownership in developing countries as well as a healthy globalization can help developed countries solve this problem. I concede the decreasing rate of workers to retirees as a fact. However, I doubt the author's conclusion. And I state developed countries can maintain their capital market with the help of technology and exploiting developing countries.
To start with, author overlooked the effect caused by high technology. The decline in the ratio of workers to retirees wont be a problem, because high technology will increase the industry growth so that lack of goods should not be a problem to developed countries. Although the number will fall to about 2.5 workers per retiree. The high productivity will help less workers provide more supply to the whole retirement group and minimize the aging wave problem. Moreover, revolutionary invention still should be considered to benefit the developed country. For example, robot , being considered as the most revolutionary invention, is proceeding to be studied and applied. Scientists believe, as more and more research involve in artificial intelligence, robot will be originated eventually. And it will replace most of labour's work and work in a more effective and efficient way so that living off their wealth should not be a problem, because limited fortune can be exchanged to abundant supply.
The second fault author neglected is exploiting developing countries brings benefit to developed countries. It is the fact that companies in developed countries have being invested subsidiaries in developing countries in order to get higher profit by using cheaper labours. As larger and larger marker being explored, the developing countries and developing countries are no longer self-involved. Considering the assumption that there will be a rocketed increasing GDP in developing countries, developed countries still benefit so that the GDP would not shrink down dramatically as same as in author's prediction. Even the prediction is true in future, the exposeing market and high consumption in developing countries will promote the subsidiaries' business. Thus enough assets still can be sold into developing countries.
Even though all the assumption in this article are true,there still left the biggest doubt that author only analysis the forty years process when developing countries increase their market and trade with developed countries. However, after the year of 2005, when developing countries become developed countries, the decline ratio of workers to retiree still wont change. Based on author's information, when all countries stay in the same level, capital still cannot be sold out. This world still do not have enough workers to buy assets for their own age. So even the author's analysis about capital market is true, the globalization and depending on developing countries is not the solution.
To sum up, this argument does not give enough evidence to support to prove the reality, and some parts of it are questionable and need more information to testify its truth.
1 条评论:
You have done a good job of analysing this article further and expressing your opinions about flaws you perceive in Seigel's arguements.
I found your second point to be a bit unclear, but ithink I understood the gist of what you are saying. I also think that Seigel isn't taking fully into account the fact that there is still a huge amount of poverty in developing countries that will need to be addressed if these countries are to be relied on more by developed countries in the future.
发表评论