Nickname: Anti-Sprawl

Review: Now if only we could have 300 million or 400 million people without paving over countless square miles of this country with low-density ranch house developments and sprawling office campuses. That's where our most valuable and irreplaceable resources are -- what we eat, the trappings of our material wealth all come from our open spaces. We shouldn't pave over it.

Date reviewed: Dec 6, 2006 12:57 AM

Nickname: R.P.H

Review: Great article. Africa fell into great backwardness through its isolation from the rest of the world half a century before. But Europe, which continuously had a flow of people coming in and going out, thrived. With the flow of people come the flow of unique and peculiar knowledge. Isolation leads to death as it did to Africa and even to Russia before Peter the Great. America flourishes from the interaction of differing people and groups and the experience gained through such interactions. I agree with Mandel on this point.

Date reviewed: Oct 18, 2006 4:58 AM

Nickname: Richard

Review: Input all data into Excel, the population will reach 400 mega in 2040 and 500 mega in around 2069.

Date reviewed: Oct 18, 2006 4:40 AM

Nickname: DSL

Review: Way to tout the fact that the U.S. is becoming a Third World country. Lots of unskilled labor (not the influx of talent that you purport) and lots of children born to uneducated, poor parents. I live in Los Angeles, and most of the time you would not even recognize this as an American city. No surprise that they predict the 300 millionth American will be born here to a Mexican mother. Articles run in the paper every day about how grateful the immigrants are to the American people for paying for them to have babies. Just a travesty. Call it what it truly is instead of trying to spin this into a positive thing.

Date reviewed: Oct 17, 2006 6:54 PM

Nickname: Stanley Foo

Review: Twenty years ago, a professor of political science told me that the miracles of the East Asian dragons could not be repeated elsewhere because they had small populations that were easy to manage and develop, and I should take her course to understand why only socialism could help the Third World. I then told her that Costa Rica had as many people as Singapore, while Peru had as many people as Taiwan, and Chile had as many people as South Korea - and the Latin American countries had more land and resources. She then look annoyed and said she had other things to do, but I should still take her course to understand why socialism worked. History has, of course proven her wrong. Big populations do not prevent a country from developing. By contrast, big populations are not needed for economic dynamism - big China was down and out for most of the century, while little Singapore is still doing very well. Prosperity does not depend on population size; it depends on free markets.

Date reviewed: Oct 17, 2006 5:58 PM

Nickname: Both Sides

Review: Michael - Quite a pep talk for more people, having more babies, and immigration, when what we need is the opposite. You might have mentioned the negative effects of population: global warming, pollution, resource depletion, traffic, noise, housing shortages, habitat destruction and extinction of species, etc. What responsible person would write such an article?

Date reviewed: Sep 21, 2006 2:22 AM

Nickname: Girish

Review: Michael, I like your piece. However, I don't think that a large population accounts for a dynamic economy. Other key ingredients are the political and economic infrastructures that enable ownership of property and unleash the entreprenuerial spirit of the population. I am sure that you would agree that India and China did not become dynamic economies until the government implemented political and economic reforms.

Date reviewed: Sep 15, 2006 11:00 PM

Nickname: Bond investor

Review: Michael, pretty good piece thinking about how our population, regardless of its size, is dynamic. The size simply amplifies many of the other strengths. How about language as a unifying, competitive factor? (1) Is it any wonder that Anglophone countries, large and small, are better off, on average? While you obviously write for a U.S. audience, it may be interesting to think about what smaller countries have done to be more successful/competitive on the world stage. I think of the wise fiscal policy of the three Baltic states, or the rewards of successfully containing inflation and educating the poor in Botswana. There are neo-liberal failures too, such as former "miracle" Uruguay, which was hammered by its over reliance on poorly-governed Argentina.

Date reviewed: Sep 11, 2006 10:12 PM

Nickname: JR

Review: A large populatiion is definitely a resource to be exploited and well managed. Certainly, if young and innovative it can take an economy a long way. Unfortunately, the American youth of today are not the energetic thriving youths that their parents were. They are now far too complacent, which is the reason why the U.S. continues to lose ground in the world forum. The author is correct in stating that the energy and innovativeness on which the U.S. economy's future hope rests will be coming from present immigrants and their posterity. Without them the U.S.´ fall would materialize much sooner.

Date reviewed: Sep 9, 2006 8:12 PM

Nickname: Steve

Review: What a joke, 300 million population is a net negative for America and immigration, both legal and illegal, is out of control. We are no longer the country we were the past 50 years. We no longer have the ability to continue to absorb millions of immigrants. Enough is enough. Stop immigration now. Bush and the Republicans will pay a price in 2008 on this issue alone, because the Amercian public is fed up with immigration and amnesty for 20 million more illegals.

Date reviewed: Sep 9, 2006 4:43 AM