An absurd jumble of self-contradictory statements.

Production is not made more efficient by putting it in the hands of central planning bureaucrats, you fool, especially not those who think that humans are a plague of pests.

A so-called green economy just means that everything people want more of will be made more expensive so as to provides taxes to pay for things that people want less of. That's why they need "policy" (= threats of force) to make it happen; otherwise there'd be no need for government to anything, would there?

"Sustainable" is just the new meangingless catchphrase meaning communist. The government will tell everyone else what to do or not do. It's a garbled mixture of the Christian concept of paradise (all economic problems of scarcity permanently banished in a morally superior wonder-stasis), and communism (government will rationalise scarcity better than the market ever could) - without ever saying how this is to be brought about, except by "policy".

But the even more stupid part of the article is the idea that, by restricting food production or giving more control of it into the hands of government, we're going to provide greater food security! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The socialists showed what happens last time they took over food production - tens of millions of people died of starvation. And that was when they *didn't* think how wonderful it would be if billions of people just somehow became dead, as the modern socialists do. How can central planning be in any better position this time around?

Those who approve this article are merely displaying their invincible ignorance and moral conceitedness to the point of dangerousness.

Jardine K. Jardine wrote: "Production is not made more efficient by putting it in the hands of central planning bureaucrats, you fool, especially not those who think that humans are a plague of pests."

Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

Both governments and corporations do economic planning. In fact the same planner may move back and forth between government and the corporate world.

To assume economic planning is somehow good when it is done by a corporation and bad when it is done by government is ideology not common sense.

The emphasis in corporations is the maximisation of profits. The emphasis in government is how to keep and retain power.

Neither emphasis is for the benefit of the general public. One of the mechanisms by which governments keep power and corporations maximise profits is to persuade the general public that corporate and government actions are in the interests of the general public. Public relations professionals who manipulate the public to accept government and corporate acts also move back and forth between the government and corporate worlds.

david f
The difference is that the retention of power by monopolists of power is not, of itself, any indication of a good for anyone but them; and there is plenty of reason and evidence that it's a being used to produce bads.

But it's not valid to assume, as you seem to, that the making of profits automatically proves a misallocation of resources. This idea comes ultimately from Marxist theory that, since all value is imputable back to the labour factors and only the labour factors of production, therefore profit self-evidently proves a rip-off of the working class as a class.

Marx was wrong but even if you believe he was right then it's not consistent to tolerate any profit at all, or any private ownership of the means of production at all, the result of which would be mass starvation and other major abuses.

Putting aside the making of profits by virtue of government interventions, the making of profits can only be done by the voluntary payments of the consumers. The consumers will only hand over the money if they evaluate the final product as better in satisfying their wants than the factors of production that went into making it, or anything else they could've bought with the money, obviously, else they'd buy those other things instead.

Therefore the value they get is self-evidently greater than the profits, and it is not valid to assume that profits self-evidently show a misallocation of resources. Profit, of itself, does not evidence a private or public bad at all.

Not only that, but without profits, the connection between the consumers and the producers further up the line of production would be severed. The result would be mass starvation.

It's not government planning that's stopping the population from starving, it's private ownership of the means of production. It's you who are blinded by ideology.

<< Therefore, Ludwig’s argument that the solution to poverty is to cut population is not compatible with the evidence >>

Rhian, the critical problem with your conclusion is that you have not considered the longer timeline. Yes, to date average poverty has been reduced somewhat while at the same time we’ve had massive population growth.

But that cannot continue. Sooner or later we will come up against the limits. We won’t be able to keep increasing supply to meet an ever-growing demand for food (and everything else that gives people a half-decent quality of life), especially with peak oil looming.

I wonder how much more of an improvement in quality of life we would have seen over the last two or three decades if we’d been able to implement significant family planning and other population-growth-reduction measures around the world.

Population growth has greatly reduced our ability to improve the lives of the world’s poor.

Aww gee Pericles, I haven’t got the balance quite right for your liking. A little more lobbying about global population control and a little less for a reduction to immigration in Oz, you reckon!

Well, old friend, it seems to me that whatever I did, you’d find something to be critical about, and you’d concentrate on that and be very sparing indeed with supportive comments! ( :>)

Of course I lobby more frequently on Oz immigration and pop growth, because it’s both closer to home and more often in the discussion arena on OLO than world population issues.

You wrote:

<< But at least I don't pretend to have an answer, unlike some people. >>

This is quite amazing! You’re a very intelligent and articulate fellow. So…. why don’t you have any answers, or at least some pretty good ideas of how to face these issues? Where’s the Pericles Solution?

You constant criticisms of those who are trying to put forward ideas and solutions to our enormously ominous problems falls flat if it is not backed up by positive alternative courses of action.

You quoted me:

<< "The most important thing can be done with the stroke of a pen, without any new laws being introduced – simply reduce immigration to about net zero." >>

Thanks for remembering this or putting in your folder titled ‘Great quotes from Ludwig’! I hope you’ve got heaps more, that you will bring to light in future posts!

Fact is that if we were to get our government to reduce immigration to about net zero, which could be done with the stroke of a pen, we’d have Australian pop growth just about dealt with, just like that, and well and truly be on the right path towards a stable population.

<< Yeah, that should do it. >>

Huh?? You aren’t suggesting that I’m trying to assert that a reduction in Oz immigration would be a cure for world population growth are you??

Are you??

Yes, I think you are.

How very strange!

( :>|

People like this author should have enough sense to stay out of print. While we do not know of their existence, & have no idea what these shadowy organisations are up to, they can continue to chip away at the foundations of our viable civilisation.

They have nothing to put into civilisation, they just want to control it. They obviously feel that to control it, they must first destroy it.

Once they burst forth with stuff like this article we can see the creeping scourge trying to destroy our lives.

It shouts out to anyone with even an atom of grey matter, get out of supporting NGOs & the UN, & get them out of our lives.

This article could not contain more bull dust, if we were to cram the entire annual production of the Oz heard into it.