Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Taylor Dotson's avatar

Your argument may be fine, but I couldn't get past the common but ultimately inaccurate interpretation of Malthus that you begin with. Could someone who wrote the following be an advocate of population control?

"The happiness of a country does not depend, absolutely, upon its poverty or its riches, upon its youth or its age, upon its being thinly or fully inhabited, but upon the rapidity with which it is increasing, upon the degree in which the yearly increase of food approaches to the yearly increase of an unrestricted population."

Giorgi Kallis's book "Limits," even if you disagree with his argument about the environment, does a great job of extracting what Malthus was all about. He saw population as growing geometrically, if unchecked, but natural checks are plentiful. He opposed family planning, because he saw it as a "vice." He attacked ideas to "prevent breeding, or to something else as unnatural," because "to remove the difficulty in this way will, surely, in the opinion of most men, be to destroy that virtue and purity of manners." Those are the good reverend's own words.

Malthus opposed the poor laws not because it caused unchecked population increase but because it removed the misery that was the impetus for industriousness, and therefore reduced the potential for economic growth. Malthus's book is a celebration of inequality and attack on redistribution, not a paean to limits.

Expand full comment
William H's avatar

Really appreciate the post and your past writing, but may I rudely suggest an edit? I don't mean to be critical and it's a small change. I'm not sure if the word 'only' is communicating what you mean to say here: "Malthus countered that if supply of food is limited, then giving alms to the poor will ONLY drive up the price of food—a point of economics on which he was correct" (emphasis added).

Currently, it partially implies that the ONE effect of alms in a supply constrained model is to drive up the price of food, when that is not the case. It would also help the poor purchase food (even at the higher price and even if we assume 100% of their spending is on food). This is clear because we are giving alms to the poor in the model, not everyone. The conclusion might hold if, say, we have a model with homogenous consumers (equally rich) and who only purchase food (and the alms are printed into existence).

I normally wouldn't bring up such a small issue, but similar language gets made as political rhetoric to mislead people (although not necessarily intentionally). And, yes, I am aware of the dangers of subsidizing demand and the impact that has had in the healthcare, education, and mortgage markets to name a few.

Apologies for being critical (and if I've made a mistake)! Creation is far more valuable that criticism, of course.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts