Economists should be worried about birth rates
Don’t be so quick to dismiss the threat of an aging, declining population.
The Economist has recently published an article that criticizes Daron Acemoglu, a renowned economist and Nobel laureate. Acemoglu's work, while highly influential, has been met with some skepticism from other experts in the field. One such critic is the author of this account, who has been openly critical of Acemoglu's research for years.
The author acknowledges that Acemoglu's theoretical work is often useful, but argues that he has used his models to support populist policies that have failed in the past. The author cites several instances where they disagreed with Acemoglu, including his claim that America is more entrepreneurial than Sweden due to its weaker safety net, and his assertion that robots will destroy jobs.
Despite the author's criticisms, the article does not suggest that Acemoglu's research is entirely discredited. Instead, it highlights the broader issue of unreliability in much of academia and the need for more critical scrutiny of top authority figures in the field. The author argues that a smaller population due to low fertility rates could potentially lead to increased investment in labor-saving technology, which could boost productivity and offset the negative effects of population aging.
However, the author is skeptical about the general applicability of this mechanism and suggests that more research is needed to fully understand the implications of declining birth rates.
Written by urgent.news from Noahpinion's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
