InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 834
Posts 120143
Boards Moderated 17
Alias Born 09/05/2002

Re: wow_happens28 post# 4800

Wednesday, 04/25/2012 9:13:39 AM

Wednesday, April 25, 2012 9:13:39 AM

Post# of 29487

Tell me the answer to the question of the fallacy in the China article and then I'll tell you what mine is, lol.

The fallacy in the article in #msg-74753896, IMO, is that China’s fertility rate must permanently remain at a very low level even if the government’s 1-child policy (which has numerous loopholes) is formally rescinded. From the same article:

Because very low fertility can become self-reinforcing, with children of one-child families wanting only one child themselves, China now probably faces a long period of ultra-low fertility, regardless of what happens to its one-child policy.

This sounds like hand-waving by someone desperately trying to make a point without support from any credible data. Moreover, since articles in The Economist are not bylined, readers can’t even ascertain who came up with this bizarre notion.

“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”

Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.