>This abstract does not seem too bad, except for the word "genetics,"
>which does not seem to be relevant to the model. The idea of inequality
>causing high birth rates and high birth rates causing poverty is fairly
>well accepted.
Well I read the paper, and its rather coy about the genetics. It says our human capital is the product of a genetic and a social draw, and the social mode of transmission is "memetic," following Dawkins. In his model, children are produced by parthenogenesis, to avoid the complications of adding mate selection and genetic combination to the model. Children derive no utility from consumption since their parents pay and choose for them, but they do generate utility for their parents. The paper is a marvel in that it exemplifies everything that makes neoclassical economics so demented.
I'm confused by the high birth rates causing poverty part. I thought poverty caused high birth rates.
Doug