On Wednesday 30 May 2007 15:47, MB Software Solutions General Account wrote: > Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: > > Control of overpopulation does not mean no new babies. <g> If there we > > no new babies, humans would go extent within a few generations. Control > > of overpopulation mean a limit on the number of babies to maintain > > current level, or where need a gradual reduction in population. > > > > The U.S. is the most fully developed country in the world, and with > > computers, new scientific discoveries, automation, mass production, etc, > > the U.S. would have little trouble sustaining a no population growth or > > reduction in population, while still caring for an increasingly aged > > population until thing were leveled out again. This would be a problem > > for other countries that are not as fully developed as the U.S., though. > > Let me first say that the "baby-boomer" generation has many great, good > souls/people. When they all die off from old age (10-20 years?), will > the economy surge as we won't need to pay for them any more?
Hi Michael! I would guess that whoever is in charge when that happens will take credit and claim all the extra money as his/her personal bonus. -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
