I’d expand the scale to emphasize “multi-generational”, but otherwise would agree. I might also say “not anytime in the foreseeable future”, as predictions running out 50 years tend to be a bit silly: a lot can happen between now and then to change everything.

The only realistic way I can see them converging in a shorter span of time is through a meltdown in Italy.

(Allowing a very high 5% convergence rate, it takes 47 years for the two to converge. A moderately optimistic 2% rate puts it over 100 years.)

I parsed your complete sentence as (condition A AND condition A’) implies (conclusion). And then demonstrated that (condition A) quoted was “patently untrue” as you put it, the (conclusion) thus irrelevant. Straightforward logic.

It is within the context of deciding if Italy will shrink to India’s level, or if India will grow to Italy’s level that I found the statement meaningless.
…
let me state again (and more clearly) that I think that the quickest (i.e., most likely short term) way for the two to converge is through an Italian contraction, not an Indian expansion. A large, sudden decrease of GDP is much more likely than a sudden increase of comparable proportion. A 12-month Italian contraction of 10% would be highly unlikely, but not unprecedented. The corresponding 12-month Indian expansion of 20% would be entirely unprecedented and nearly impossible.

Italy’s GDP per capita is 10 times India’s GDP per capita. a one time 10% drop in Italy’s GDP per capita does not a convergence make.

I expect India can grow to converge with Italy, but on a generational time-scale, not a 12-month time scale.

You would think that…the statement ought to contain information useful in differentiating the two cases.

I’d be the first to admit that Italy’s GDP can shrink while its GDP/head can remain stable. That’s obvious. It is within the context of deciding if Italy will shrink to India’s level, or if India will grow to Italy’s level that I found the statement meaningless. That is also the context in which I initially read the statement of yours I was discussing.

If we’re going to go back around that bush a few more times (I’m not averse) then let me state again (and more clearly) that I think that the quickest (i.e., most likely short term) way for the two to converge is through an Italian contraction, not an Indian expansion. A large, sudden decrease of GDP is much more likely than a sudden increase of comparable proportion. A 12-month Italian contraction of 10% would be highly unlikely, but not unprecedented. The corresponding 12-month Indian expansion of 20% would be entirely unprecedented and nearly impossible.

I am not referring to the specific nature of either country for precedents, but to economic movements in large countries as a group. In general, growth is more likely than contraction. However, large contractions in a short time are much more likely than correspondingly large expansions in the same amount of time.

now why would I think that ?
Consider again that my argument was that Italy’s economy can shrink AND maintain a stable GDP per-capita ratio.

I’ve tried every way I can to contruct a set of symbolic logic and probability statements to extract differentiating information, and not one of them works.

if the change in GDP is roughly congruent to the change in population, the economic situation of the country will remain stable despite the decline in both the numerator (GDP) and denominator (Population) of the ratio.

Mathematically, for Italy, a shrinking population helps its GDP per capita ratio, for India a growing population hurts it.

I’m not being critical, but this is a really interesting statement that I had to read about five times before it stopped making sense in the context I was reading it in. I must be getting old (or at least stupid).

I assumed the statement addressed the relative probability of India growing to Italy’s GDP/capita standing, as opposed to Italy sinking to India’s level. The statement appeared to address that issue. It apparently made perfect sense in that role.

Look at the first proposition: “India will grow, and Italy remain constant.” But that cannot be the most likely outcome, because India’s task is the more difficult of the two.

The second proposition, “Italy will shrink to India’s level,” also cannot be the more likely outcome, because Italy’s task (remaining level) is the easier task.

I really must be getting old, because even once I saw that, I still couldn’t sort it out immediately.

The trick is simple: those two tasks (India growing and Italy remaining level) both apply only to the first proposition. The statement, while valid, says nothing to distinguish between the two propositions established by the context in which I read it.

You would think that since “Italy remaining stable (or growing)” is the logical compliment (converse case) of “Italy shrinking”, and that “India growing” is the logical compliment of “India stable (or shrinking)”, the statement ought to contain information useful in differentiating the two cases. It doesn’t. I’ve tried every way I can to contruct a set of symbolic logic and probability statements to extract differentiating information, and not one of them works.

I think that the evidence for this assertion is rather thin. Consensus is that pre-agrarian society; we were limited by our environment to an K-strategy/subsistence lifestyle. The population explosion that came with agriculture points to an r-strategy. Modern urban societies seem to produce K-strategists…mainly because we’ve made the cost of raising children so expensive that having more than a few is socio-economically risky.

I could be wrong, but I think that the social environments that we create for ourselves is usually contra-indicative of our true nature; we put barriers against what we would do naturally because we see long-term advantage in resisting our base nature.

e.g. miscegenist laws were put in place in many states in the U.S. not because interracial marriage was unnatural, but precisely because it is natural,…and the whites who put those laws into place rightly, if despicably, saw long-term social advantage in keeping non-whites down.

As to r-/K-strategies, I think that humans are mostly self-aware enough as individuals to choose their own reproductive strategy; but we tend to do so based on socio-economic expectations.

Back to India vs. Italy. I see India’s task (improving the economy for its large population) as more difficult than Italy’s task (maintaining its economy for a much smaller population).

One normally speaks of species as r- or K-strategists, not individuals. Though humans differ in their reproductive patterns, their differences pale to nothing compared with the reproductive patterns of r-strategist species.

It is telling that one often finds the r- and K-concepts applied to human populations by those trying to put a pseudoscientific gloss on racism, e.g. J.P Rushton. (NB I am not accusing Patrick in any way of doing this). As used of humans, ‘r- and K-strategy’ is at best a metaphor; and not, I think, a very helpful one.

http://avari.blogs.com/weblog/2004/02/to_eu_or_not_to_1.html

Why Turkey should not join the EU.

I have nothing more to add. Mr or Ms Taylor has said everything I would want to say, without my needing to say it. Hooray. Thank you.

“Italy as a whole has long been regarded as a bit fast and loose with accounting and general business practices compared to other European countries……You could switch causality and say that it is these practices that utlimately allowed the country’s finances to decay. That wouldn’t explain the demographics (unless the populace has become uncontrollably cynical), but it would explain the relatively high level of Italian public debt, which is exacerbating the demographic challenge. ”

I’m preparing something ‘light’ on all this for Monday, just to illustrate your thesis.

It was actually you [Patrick (G)] that wrote: “That said, that sort of economic activity would likely trigger a switch from a r-selected reproductive strategy to a K-selected strategy.”