‘How can someone that makes such sense on economics be so wrong about population?’
An answer to a question on population
I have been receiving your media releases for a while now, first into my junk email. This remained the case for quite a long time, however I was always intrigued by your economist views, and always scanned or read your articles before deleting. Then I started reading your articles in full. I agree that LaRouche is correct. Infact as soon as Lehmans' fell I knew that the economy was about to tank and head into the abyss.
I note you did not succeed in winning a place in the last federal election, which is a shame.
May I offer my views on why I think you didn't succeed in getting votes. I certainly could not vote for you with good conscience on the current state of your media releases.
Firstly while the economic part of your argument is sound, it is all the other "stuff" that seems to be your downfall.
Firstly, populations do not double. According to mathematics, populations grow exponentially, like the ripples in a pond, algae on a dam, or virus' (disease—the flu). The earth is static and is not growing, and I noticed the heatwaves have been unbearable the last few years. Call it what you will, the facts remain. A good dose of philosophy, esotericism and wisdom would do you well. An avatar you are not.
I watched Dick Smith on the ABC/SBS in his argument about the population and he is correct. I have chosen not to have children. There can be a curb in the population by natural attrition. I made my decision over 30 years ago—my choice was not made via a conspiracy, lest I be the only one. My vote counts for something, and according to mathematical theory, in this case, more than one. My hope is that the human race can make a transition into a sustainable future.
As for your conspiracy theories, while they may or may not be true, you certainly won’t get any votes from the average punter who doesn’t want to be made to think or be pushed out of their comfort zone.
I have always thought about being involved more in politics but no political party, including yours, have a sound argument in everything they espouse. When voting, you have to vote for the best overall. Unfortunately, the seriousness of your party as seen by the average punter is about on par with the Sex Party. It's a joke right?
I wish you had more sound arguments, and it's a shame that some of your arguments are laughable for their lack of insight and wisdom. The only thing that has stopped me from ignoring you altogether is your stance on the economy. For that keep up the good work.
For the rest though, here are some words of wisdom. Pretend you are writing an article to be handed in as an assignment at University. Always provide quotes from credible people (citing the source) who back up any statements you may make, stay away from outlandish claims and here-say. Do your research. Recognise your bias', your values and beliefs, your education level, and ensure these do not interfere with the truth. If you are not absolutely sure about something, then err on the side of popular opinion, or say nothing, until proven otherwise.
If you could get the backing of some famous people, like Dick Smith, then your party could have a meteoric rise to fame. I would like to help you in this regard, if of course you are prepared to admit, that in some things, you might just be wrong?
Currently your emails are directed to my inbox, but I'm thinking about redirecting this into my junk emails. If I am thinking this, then so must 10,000 other people. I am hesitant, as I think that the economy is the crux of our existence, therefore your argument is so important, I have taken time out of my very busy day to write to you.
I hope you can do the same, and look forward to your reply in due course.
Thank you very much for taking the time to write. What you are expressing is a paradox: to paraphrase, 'how can someone that makes such sense on economics be so wrong about population?'
Obviously you made a big decision years ago, so you have a vested interest in this subject, which I understand. But my reply to you is that my understanding of economics is a result of my philosophy about human beings, and questions of population growth etc. I founded the CEC in 1988, because I knew that the economic policies we now call globalisation were destructive—to the people. They were anathema to the common good. I led the CEC to join Lyndon LaRouche in the early 90s, because I recognised from his work on economics, the truth that people are the economy. LaRouche's economics discovery, for which he has been recognised by the Ecological Academy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is that human population growth is the only true measure of economic growth. He devised the metric known as relative potential population density. If an economy is growing, the number of people it is capable of supporting, its potential population density, will increase.
The history of the world confirms that. Every species has a carrying capacity, an upper limit beyond which it cannot increase its numbers. That carrying capacity is determined by its function in the overall biosphere. However, there is one exception—human beings. It is just a fact of human history that although at any given level of technological capacity, human society has had a carrying capacity, our creative nature as human beings has always enabled us to discover scientific principles, develop new technologies which define new resources, and revolutionise our existence, not only at an increased carrying capacity, but at a higher standard of living.
That's the history of the world. It is a rigorous, scientific proof that human beings are unique. It also led to LaRouche's understanding that not only are humans the measure of economic growth, but human creativity is the driver of economic growth. Literally, the more people, the more wealth, because people are the wealth, by virtue of their minds.
Thus, we assess all economic policies from the standpoint of whether they benefit the people of a nation, or whether they exploit the people. And this enabled LaRouche to forecast the global economic crisis over a decade before it erupted.
The rest is simply an understanding of history. The mathematics you cite is from Thomas Malthus' Essay on Population. Don't separate an analysis of his mathematics from the political context in which he wrote it. He was on the payroll of the East India Company. The company was the British Empire, and thus sat at the pinnacle of an economic system that required mass poverty for cheap labour, which had to be expendable. One of the best insights into the population question came from the American economist Henry C. Carey, which was Abraham Lincoln's economics adviser, as well as the son of Matthew Carey, an Irish migrant to the U.S. Writing after the 1847 Potato Famine, Carey charged that "overpopulation" was a scam, a fraudulent argument that the East India Company invented, to have something on which to pass the blame for the destruction caused by their free trade policies. (In Ireland, over a million people starved, not because they didn't have enough food, but because the British decreed they could only eat potatoes, while all the beef, oats, wheat and other food Ireland produced was for export; i.e. free trade before people.)
I could go on, but I think I have made my point. Before you put our releases into your junk mail, I urge you to resolve the paradox.