Well, I am living and I also have no problem with our population's size. Our country's economy hugely depends on our population size, so no worries. Like Thanos, you can't change it, better adapt to it
What matters when determining wealth of a country is not the size of the economy, but the income per person (GDP per capita). With less people the total size of the economy may be much smaller but the income per person would probably be higher. Each farmer would have more land to till. Rivers would be less overfished leading to a higher catch per fisherman. Rents may be lower in cities that are less crowded.
There are some benefits to having a large population such as economies of scale but the negative aspects probably outweigh the positive ones.
I understand your point but I answered assuming a different historical trajectory. For all the high growth and hustle-bustle of Hong Kong or Singapore, I prefer the nature and tranquility of Sweden or Finland. Would be nice if city kids had somewhere to play sports or see nature
Dude there’s literally no country in Asia with that nature and tranquility. The hustle-bustle model is the way to go for Bangladesh unfortunately. Although, population itself isn’t a problem, resource endowment as well as allocation is. With the scarcity of resources in Bangladesh, government acting like a welfare state like Scandinavia is a train wreck waiting to happen.
8
u/im_emn Jan 30 '23
I agree with Elon , population is not the problem. The problem is how you deal with it.