Is the current state of the economy due to high population density?
The earth is divided by various countries and regions, not completely, and there is still Antarctica, which covers an area of tens of millions of square kilometers, and the ocean, which accounts for most of the earth, is not divided. Valuable and easily exploitable natural resources have been largely divided.
For countries or regions with a defined area, their natural resources should also be basically determined. At some point, the country or region should have a more certain total population, and at this time, there should also be a more certain per capita natural resource possession, and the corresponding total per capita natural resource value.
Suppose at some point, the value of a country's total natural resources per capita is a, and if it is a small country that has little impact on the world economic market, the world's natural resources do not change with the change in the population of that country. If the country's population were halved, the value of its natural resources per capita would double. If the country's population were to double, its per capita natural resource value would decrease by 50 per cent. This is the impact of a decrease or increase in population on the value of natural resources per capita. Depopulation can increase the value of natural resources per capita in this country, which is the benefit of reducing population.
There are pros and cons to depopulation. The disadvantage of population reduction is that it reduces the country's population size and population density benefits. The benefits of population size can be reflected in many ways, and for the same type of people, when the degree of economic development is the same, the war potential is directly proportional to the number of people. For example, Canada and the United States, which have similar population quality and economic development levels, have at least 10 times the difference in war potential between the two countries due to a 10-fold difference in population size.
The benefits shown by the size of the population in war are generally difficult to calculate. Compared with Canada, the United States can guarantee defense against possible threats from Canada by simply maintaining the same military strength as Canada. If so, the United States could save a lot of money on military spending. The United States has 1.46 million active-duty military personnel and Canada has more than 60,000 troops. If the U.S. also maintains the same number of troops as Canada, it can achieve the same level of security as Canada. It can reduce the military expenditure of 1.4 million people, saving more than 95% of military expenditure. In 2004, the total expenditure of the United States reached $462.1 billion, 95 percent of which was $439 billion. When the U.S. can be guaranteed to be as secure as Canada, it saves an average of $439 billion a year in military spending. How much can I buy with this money?100 million tons of oil is $45 billion (the market at the time of writing is $60 a barrel), and you can buy oil for 97.5 billion tons, more than the total annual oil consumption of the United States.
Why doesn't the United States build its own army on the military scale of Canada?The reason is that the United States, for the sake of greater gains, at least the Americans believe that it is better to spend an extra $439 billion on the military than not to spend the $439 billion. The U.S. self-perceived benefits are larger, and if converted into dollars, the self-perceived benefits are greater than $439 billion. For example, the United States can gain a greater sense of security, which is a spiritual gain. It is possible to realize many of its own ideals, such as repairing a certain country, which is also a kind of benefit. The reason why the United States is the most powerful country in the developed countries is that it is the most populous country in the developed countries, and the United States has the largest population scale among the developed countries.
The economies of scale of the population are reflected in the military, that is, they have the most powerful military power in the group of developed countries. It's not that other developed countries don't want to have such a large military force, it's that they don't have the ability to do so. Because, if you want to have a military force as strong as the United States, the per capita military burden is too great.
When the degree of social development is the same, the size of the market size is basically proportional to the size of the population. Among the developed countries, the United States has the largest population, and the United States has the largest market. Among developing countries, the market size of countries with a similar level of development to China also increases with the number of people. The reason why China is the largest country in the developing world is that China has the largest population among developing countries.
One of the reasons for the relatively slow development of Africa is that the domestic market of African countries is relatively small. The larger the market size, the more conducive it is to the development of the economy. The main reason is that the larger the market scale, the more fierce the market competition can be, which is conducive to exercising the viability of the enterprise and improving the economic benefits of the enterprise. Another reason is that the larger the market size, the more likely it is that the companies in the market will achieve economies of scale. For enterprises, generally speaking, every time the scale is doubled, the production cost of the unit product of the enterprise will be reduced by more than ten percentage points, which is called the scale efficiency of the enterprise. The national market also has economies of scale, and every time the market is doubled, the economic efficiency of the entire country can be increased somewhat, and there should be a few percentage points.
A prime example is the Marché du Film. At a similar level of economic development, the film market is completely proportional to the size of the population. The fundamental reason why the United States has an almost monopoly on the film industry of developed countries is that the United States has the largest population among developed countries, and the film market in the United States is also the largest among developed countries, which is the fundamental reason why American films are in a monopoly position. The United States can spend huge sums of money to make a movie. A country in Europe generally doesn't have this capacity because the film market is too small, and it costs money to shoot expensive films. For example, if an African country makes a film, the investment cannot be too large, otherwise it will lose money. The reason why Hong Kong films can prosper is absolutely related to the huge Chinese market. Due to the large Chinese population, films aimed at Chinese people are promising. I don't know if Outer Mongolia has its own movies, and if there is, I guess it will be difficult to make money. Those ethnic groups in the world with a small population generally do not have their own movies, and they can't even watch a movie that reflects their own nation.
When the size of the country is determined, the greater the number of people in the country, the greater the population density of the country. Population size is closely related to population density, and for a given country, an increase in population size means an increase in population density.
The population density benefit is exemplary in transportation, the higher the population density, the lower the per capita transportation cost, which can be inferred and statistical. A four-fold increase in population density (total population) could halve the per capita reduction in long-distance transport facilities (non-intra-urban and suburban transport facilities), which is a huge reduction in investment per capita, as in the case of Australia and Japan, where the length of long-distance transport facilities per capita varies greatly. Australia's rail mileage is slightly longer than Japan's, Australia's population is only one-seventh of Japan's, and Australia's per capita rail investment is basically seven times that of Japan. The situation is similar to that of railways. Since Japan's population density is 100 times that of Australia, Japan's population density shows great economic benefits.
Australia has 40,000 kilometers of railways, and according to the assumption that the length of railways per capita is the same, Japan should have 280,000 kilometers of railways, but in fact Japan has less than 30,000 kilometers of railways. Due to Japan's population density benefits, Japan can save 250,000 kilometers of railways. According to ten million per kilometer, it is worth 25 trillion yuan, or 312.5 billion U.S. dollars. 100 million tons of iron ore is worth $4.5 billion (** a few years ago, ** now** is already several times that), and $312.5 billion can buy 694.4 billion tonnes of iron ore. Japan imports an average of 200 million tons of iron ore per year, and $312.5 billion can allow Japan to import for 35 years. The money saved by Japan due to the economies of scale of its own population allows Japan to import large quantities of iron ore out of thin air. It can be calculated that the railway investment of 312.5 billion US dollars, at an annual interest rate of 10%, is 312$500 million. At an interest rate of 5% per year, that's $15.6 billion. You can buy iron ore for 3 per year4.7 billion tons. The savings in these railway investments in Japan are equivalent to getting all the iron ore it needs without spending money. This is only a calculation of one railway, and the degree of savings on roads should be similar to that of railways, which shows that the benefits of population density are huge. Although Japan does not have many natural resources, it can make up for the lack of natural resources through the benefits of its own population density.
Scientific and technological representation of population economies of scale. The size of the population has an important impact on the development of science and technology, which is mainly manifested in three aspects: First, the emergence of many science and technology is due to the market demand of the population size. For example, the emergence and popularization of trains requires a large population size. Trains are a thing that serves a large number of people, and only when there are many people can trains show their economies of scale and be popularized. Ships also require a certain population size. The popularization of modern technologies and industries such as mobile communications and television requires a large population market. Without a sufficient population, these industries cannot be developed and these technologies cannot be optimized. The industry of modern society is a large-scale industry, an industry in which a large number of people serve a large number of people. For example, a steel mill may require tens of thousands of workers. The population served by steel mills can reach tens of millions, or even tens of millions. The large population has brought possibilities for the development of many industries and technologies, and has brought a broad space for development.
Second, when other prerequisites are equal, the speed of development of science and technology is basically proportional to the number of people. The larger the population, the faster the development of science and technology. This is the main scientific and technological manifestation of the benefits of population scale. The reason why science and technology in the world have developed faster and faster in recent centuries is that the number of human beings is increasing and the number of talents produced by mankind is increasing. In fact, the growth of the population leads to the growth of the number of talents, which leads to the more rapid development of science and technology. When other things are equal, the number of human resources in the world is generally proportional to the number of people, and the speed of progress in the world's science and technology is directly proportional to the number of talents.
Third, when other prerequisites are equal, the value of science and technology is basically proportional to the number of people. The value of a scientist's achievements and inventors' inventions per unit of time is basically proportional to the number of people in the world. The value of the Internet is positively related to the number of people who use it.
An increase in the population of a country or region can increase the population size and density of the country or region. The increase in population size and population density can lead to the reduction of the per capita military burden, the improvement of market efficiency, the improvement of transportation efficiency, and the improvement of science and technology efficiency in this country or region, and the increase in population can bring these four major benefits.
The increase in the population of a country or region has also manifested itself in other aspects of the population size and population density benefits, including the political benefits of population scale, the population scale benefits of diplomacy, the population scale benefits of the entertainment industry, the population scale benefits of antiquities and other scarce goods, the population size and population density efficiency of the power industry, the population density benefits of mobile communications, the population scale benefits of agriculture, the population scale and population density benefits of commerce, and the population scale benefits of industry. Population density benefits of primary education, population density benefits of health systems, population size and population density benefits of natural resources**, population size and population density benefits of pollution control, population scale benefits of waste recycling, population scale benefits of tourism, and population scale benefits of foreign exchange rates.
In short, the efficiency or effectiveness of social operation is positively related to the size of the population, inversely to the poverty of natural resources per capita, and positively related to the degree of social development (scientific and technological level).
The scale efficiency of an enterprise will generally increase by a few percent or ten percent with the doubling of the scale of the enterprise (there may be a negative increase, which is relatively rare), and the total efficiency (benefit) of the operation of the society (the enterprise is also an integral part of the society) is similar to the operation efficiency of the enterprise, and will also increase with the increase in the number of people. Under normal circumstances, the doubling of the population of a society (country) can lead to a certain percentage increase in the efficiency (benefit) of social operation, and it is difficult to feel how large this percentage is for the time being. This percentage value will vary with the population of the country or the world, and will also change with the level of science and technology of human beings, and will not be fixed. The increase in the operational efficiency of the society is the increase in the income of the society, and the increase in the per capita income. If the efficiency of social operation is increased by 5%, it is also a 5% increase in per capita income (income).
A doubling of population size and population density can bring about a total benefit per capita (the sum of all benefits) of c (without taking into account the loss of per capita natural resource returns due to an increase in population size), and a doubling of population size will make about a total benefit per capita (the sum of all benefits) continue to increase c, and the total per capita income will increase by about 2c compared to the original (before the population size expansion). The total social benefit (total benefit) of a population size multiplication is equal to c multiplied by the total population. (c is equal to x% multiplied by the original GDP per capita, where x can be any number.) x is generally a number less than 10 and greater than zero. ）
Suppose the per capita value of a country's natural resources is a. A doubling of the country's population makes the value of natural resources per capita a 2, a doubling of the country's population and a 4 per capita, and so on, then a 8, a 16, and so on. (The premise is that this is a small country where changes have no or minimal impact on the world's natural resources**.) ）
If you put either A or C in US dollars. When the population of a country remains the same, the country has natural resource wealth per capita. After the doubling of the country's population, the per capita natural resource wealth became a 2. However, it will increase the per capita benefit of a population size with population density c. At this point, what will a 2+c be?Is it bigger than A, or is it smaller than A?After doubling the population of this country or region, what will be the A 4+C?Is it bigger than A 2 or smaller than A 2?
The difference between a value and a 2+c is determined by the actual situation. It depends on the size of A vs. C. What will be the range of values for the actual A and C?In general, both A and C are greater than zero.
Let's look at the range of values of a, first of all, a will inevitably be greater than zero. Second, there are huge differences in the size of A-values among countries and regions in the world. In fact, there is a huge difference in natural resources per capita. For some countries, the a-value is relatively large, and for most countries, the a-value is relatively small.
For per capita c. Countries or regions in the world with a similar degree of development have little difference, and the value c is relatively similar. This c-value has a lot to do with the degree of development of the country or region, and the higher the degree of development, the greater the c-value. The higher the degree of marketization in the international market, the smaller the C value. For the world now, there is a basically definite range of approximations. This range may change slightly with the changes in science and technology and the degree of marketization of the international market. This value c increases with increasing population density, and after the population density increases to a certain amount, the c value gradually decreases. If the population density continues to increase, the C-value will decrease to zero or even become negative. For our world, for the time being, almost all countries do not have a c-value that decreases with increasing population density. Because, in the vast majority of countries, the population density value has basically not exceeded the limit.
The question of whether A or (A 2+C) is bigger is related to the per capita natural resources of the country or region, and it is also related to the degree of development of the country. When A is greater than A 2+C, it means that the increase in the population of the country is not conducive to the improvement of per capita affluence, or the improvement of the happiness of the country.
When A is less than A 2+C, it means that the increase in the population of the country is conducive to the increase in the per capita affluence or the happiness of the country. At this time, the more people in the country, the better, and after the population density of the country reaches a certain amount, it will gradually become worse. (The above is an analysis assuming that the country has a small population and has less impact on the world.) If you have a large population and have a relatively large impact on the world, there are many factors to consider when conducting a similar analysis, which will be more troublesome. ）
In most countries or regions of the modern world, there are not many countries with a smaller population that is better. Countries with smaller populations are generally those with abundant natural resources per capita (countries with abundant natural resource value per capita), such as oil-exporting countries in the Gulf region. The smaller the population, the better the country, and the smaller the population, the better it is for the prosperity of its own people. From the perspective of affluence, countries with smaller populations are the ones that need to limit their own population growth the most. In fact, these countries have not limited their population growth for the time being.
The smaller the population density of countries with scarce natural resources per capita, the less conducive it is to their economic development. The higher the population density of these countries, the better it is for their economic development. For example, Japan and South Korea, two countries with poor natural resources, have a high degree of development. The higher the population density of these two countries, the more favorable it is to the increase in their per capita prosperity or happiness. At present, the population density of these two countries has not reached the limit value allowed by their own territory, and there is still room for growth in the population of these two countries.
China's situation is similar to that of South Korea and Japan, and on the whole, China's economic development has partly accounted for the benefits of a relatively large Chinese population, but the benefits are not as large as those of Japan and South Korea. The per capita natural resources of Japan and South Korea are less than those of Chinese, and the per capita natural resource value of Japan and South Korea is smaller, and the benefits of increasing population density are relatively large.
The facts of the world should also be based on the above, and there is no obvious relationship between population density and affluence in various countries. Among the developed countries, there are both countries with high population densities and countries with low population densities. That is, there are countries with abundant resources per capita, and there are countries with poor resources per capita.
There is also no clear relationship between population density and affluence among developing country groups. Among the poorest groups of countries, there are many countries with low population densities, and there are also countries with high population densities, and there is no specific linear relationship. Why is this the case?The explanation is as follows: First, the influence of the population density factor has two aspects, for some countries, a larger population density is conducive to their own economic development, and for another part of the country, a smaller population density is conducive to their own economic development. The economic effect of population density is inherently inconsistent and has the opposite effect, which is an important reason why the relationship between population density and national affluence cannot be found. Second, and perhaps more importantly, there are many factors that affect national affluence, and these influencing factors interfere with the relationship between population density and national affluence, making it difficult to manifest it. For example, the factors that affect the national affluence are also the factors of national talent, social system, and oil resources. These factors are very different from country to country, and the effect of economic performance is naturally different.
Although there is no international comparison between population density and affluence, the relationship between population density and affluence can be felt within countries. Because the value of the country's natural resources belongs to the people of the whole country, not to a certain place. The per capita value of natural resources should be the same for most countries, but the benefits for population density are not the same. For most countries, the greater the population density, the more population density benefits are enjoyed, and the population density benefits at this time are mainly reflected in the benefits of local transportation, and some of them are reflected in the population density benefits of the service industry. For example, the benefits of the telecommunications industry have a lot to do with the population density, the larger the population density, the lower the per capita cost of the telecommunications industry, and the relative cheaper it provides should be, at this time everyone will benefit from the high density of the population.
The social system within a country is generally the same, and the talent of the population within a country is generally similar. At least within countries, the differences in population endowments are generally smaller than the differences in population endowments between countries. These factors are also the reasons why the benefits of population density within a country can be demonstrated.
The four major benefits of population density and population size, military benefits, transportation benefits, market benefits, and scientific and technological benefits, within a country, places with large population density can enjoy more transportation benefits and market benefits in addition to not enjoying additional military and scientific and technological benefits. The telecommunication benefits mentioned above belong to one of the contents of market efficiency. Within a country, places with high population density, in general, are always relatively wealthy, which is universal in the world.
Cities are the wealthier places within a country, and the population density of cities is also the largest in any country. The principle of the existence of the city is also based on the traffic efficiency and market efficiency of the population density. In most developing countries, urban populations are richer than those in surrounding rural areas, which is due to the high density of urban populations and their greater economic benefits.
In developing countries, people are generally willing to live in cities, because of the high population density of cities, and the high efficiency of transportation and market per capita, so everyone can get more benefits under the same conditions.
The richest place in almost every country is the largest city or one of the largest cities in the country, which is also the result of population density and population scale benefits. On average, the larger the city, the greater its average population density. For example, if each city is 3,000 square kilometers or 5,000 square kilometers, large cities can get a larger average population density value, while small cities can get a smaller average value. On a large scale, Shanghai is probably the most densely populated place in Chinese mainland, and Shanghai has also become one of the richest places in Chinese. Urban agglomerations can also increase local population density, which can promote the relative affluence of local areas.