[jveritas]

You are wrong.

Some dumb economists have been predicitng this gloom and doom scenario for the lat 30 years and our standard of living are getting better and better and better, and our economy is growing and growing, and growing

[redgolum]

Hope you are right. I am not an economist, but history is a hobby of mine. Debtor nations do not fair well in the long term. Eventually the bills come do, or they default. The US has had one heck of a run, but it can't go forever.

With good growth and sound management, we can out grow the deficit. The problem is the Gov and the people are outspending their income at an increasing rate.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

and our standard of living are getting better and better and better, and our economy is growing and growing, and growing

and so is our consumer debt.

[Bald Eagle777]

I think Thomas Malthus is a key example of a “dumb economist.” An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1798
http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/malthus/popu.txt

Thomas Malthus was born in Dorking (England) in 1766. Dorking is a rather appropriate place of birth for this guy, in my opinion and I get a chuckle just thinking about it. Maybe Malthus was the first “dork.”

Malthusian theory goes something like this: "population increases in a geometric ratio, while the means of subsistence increases in an arithmetic ratio." (I have provided this via a sample link below, yet this is “general knowledge” regardless)

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Malthus.htm

Holding that tenet, one must disavow God's sovereign ability to provide for an expanding human population. On the other hand, Libertarian economists have pointed out that there is clearly enough arable land and resources to support the human population several times over. Advances in agricultural management and technology in the 20th Century I believe tend to discredit Malthusian theory. I believe Mr. Malthus was generally wrong in his key pre-theoretical assumptions.

Complications and "other factors" do arise however, even given the opinion by many that the good earth can support “sustainable development.” As we see, civil wars, civil unrest and so on hardly create ideal local conditions for man to focus on tilling the soil. Land ownership and management are other attendant issues. Ending turmoil and civil wars throughout the globe and getting demilitarized rebel personnel (or amoral murderous “government” troops) into farming would be a boost to world agricultural output.

There is no point in farming if someone is shooting at you and wants to take your land or exterminate all the people in your tribe. For example, in the Sudan, I don’t foresee them concentrating on farming anytime soon. Darfur is a mess, the UN is not the solution, and farming is the last thing on their minds, but this has nothing to with the error of Malthus’ math. Interesting read anywhoo.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050125/REPOSITORY/501250359/1224