The Leftist ideology in one word: Malthusian. Does that about sum it up?

Question

They believe that the present level of consumption (thus production) is "unsustainable" though they've thought this for generations and consistently been proven wrong.

They believe that the present methods of production are unsustainable in the long run - but neo-classical economists don't disagree with that. It's just that the price mechanism has always rewarded those who invented new methods and told producers when they had to switch to those new methods, let's use these ones while they're still the most efficient.

They believe in a zero sum game - that if there's a growing income gap it must be that some group is losing out - even though the numbers clearly show otherwise and that, for the most part, the 'groups' aren't even permanent, the differences are between experienced and inexperienced workers.

The only reason I can think of to argue with the appropriateness of the term "Malthusian" to describe the Democrats is that, in the end, Malthus admitted he was wrong.

I think the comparison between the 1970s and today speaks for itself.

They have been proven wrong - they said the level of production and consumption 100 years ago was unsustainable, yet we produce a multiple of what we produced then. That proves them wrong.

The data re middle class / economic mobility:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229294/posts
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize/21cox.html
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1988/05/art1full.pdf
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html#winners
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/economy/millionaires/?cnn=yes
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1773.cfm

Dizz, Africa has more natural resources than we do - - its example shows that their methods are wrong and ours right! What Africa needs is a market economy!

Canctu if Nielson were correct then how is it that the world's middle class is growing so fast? Every year around the world tens of millions join the middle class, consume more because they produce more - how can it be then that a few years ago we'd reached our limits?

There are no limits. The idea that there is a finite capacity of the world's resources to provide a comfortable life for individuals has been proven wrong time and time again, simply by the sheer number of people joining the middle class and the rising living conditions that class enjoys.

Answer 1

Yea, and David Stockman was right I bet you would say!

Personally, I don't think you have a clue about which you speak! Voodoo economics 101!

And you so oversimplyfy something written over 150 years ago!

"At the time Malthus wrote, and for 150 years thereafter, most societies had populations at or beyond their agricultural limits. After World War II, the growth rate of the world's population accelerated rapidly, resulting in predictions by Paul R. Ehrlich and many others of an imminent Malthusian catastrophe. However, the so-called Green Revolution produced a contemporaneous exponential increase in the world's food supply, and the date of the predicted Malthusian collapse had been temporarily forestalled, until the peaking of agricultural production began to occur in the 1990s in several world regions.

Pimentel and Nielsen, working independently, found that the human population has passed the numerical point where all can live in comfort, and that we have entered a stage where many of the world's citizens and future generations are trapped in misery [2]. There is evidence that a catastrophe is underway as of at least the 1990s; for example, by the year 2000, children in developing countries were dying at the rate of approximately 11,000,000 per annum from strictly preventable diseases. [1] [2] This data suggests that by the standard of misery, the catastrophe is underway. The term 'misery' can generally be construed as: high infant mortality, low standards of sanitation, malnutrition, inadequate drinking water, new and widespread diseases (e.g. HIV), war, political unrest.

Regarding famines, data demonstrates the world's food production has peaked in some of the very regions where food is needed the most. For example in South Asia, approximately half of the land has been degraded such that it no longer has the capacity for food production. [2] In China there has been a 27% irreversible loss of land for agriculture, and continues to lose arable land at the rate of 2,500 square kilometres per year. [3] In Madagascar, at least 30% of the land previously regarded as arable is irreversibly barren. On the other hand, recent data shows the number of overweight people in the world now outnumbers the number of malnourished, and the rising tide of obesity continues to expand in both rich and poor countries"

Some don't share your view!

Answer 2

Proven wrong? Was Malthus wrong? Ask the Africans that question. Just logical thinking leads you to conclude that the human population can't keep growing forever and, at the same time, expect that we will be able to feed everyone. When we reach that point is the question. We may be at it now.

Answer 3

"They believe that the present level of consumption (thus production) is "unsustainable" though they've thought this for generations and consistently been proven wrong"

"They believe that the present methods of production are unsustainable in the long run - but neo-classical economists don't disagree with that."

Lol, I love it when 'conservatives' use gibberish and unsubstantiated claims.

It's almost as funny as when they claimed that 'everyone thought Iraq had WMD's.'

Answer 4

OOh we learned a new word. The problem is that progress and progressives are words more associated with the left and the Democrats. History shows that time and again.

Neocons are more malcontent, malignant, malpracticing their jobs if you want words that start with mal.