I have always thought that Malthus and Marx suffered from "bad press" in the economic community.
Both Malthus and Marx were serious economists, and their works are still worth reading.
The problem was that Malthus and Marx both saw the world as "flat"...and thus prone to straight line collapses.
Whereas, Smith and Ricardo saw the world as more prone to equilibrium...sort of more "lumpy" perhaps, or cyclical...with numerous stopping points and "invisible hands" along the way.
But now, the rise of China could validate the old Malthusian notion that there are limits to growth that even new technology can't prevent...
Land and agricultural production, which was the doomsday limit to Malthus,...could be revived as oil and gas production today.
There does seem to be strict limits on how much oil and gas the world can produce...at least at this time.
So, as the Chinese "middle class" grows...to the delight of people like Tom Friedman of the NYTimes...barriers are hit. Things go haywire.
And bad things start to happen. If more and more Chinese buy cars...we may all may be "priced out of the market" for gasoline! Growth then becomes self limiting...or Malthusian in its nature.
In short, there is a competition for resources that drives the price up so high that fewer and fewer people can afford it...
What Tom Friedman and his type should be asking is: CAN WE AFFORD A CHINESE MIDDLE CLASS under current conditions...
And if not, are we not approaching a NEO-MALTHUSIAN CRISIS that is as yet unnoticed by the markets?
Was Multhus right, but just two hundred years early in his predictions of doom?
