Bizarre Paradox of the 20th Century

[Rorschach]

If I click on that will it be anything like Maxine McKew bizarre Labor failure?

[freediver]

Oh good grief... an economics student who has most likely half listened to his lecturer, if his half reading of my post is anything to go by, wants to present this nameless lecturer as source material. Really Freediver...

It is common knowledge.

Inflation does not influence whether there is too much or too little food eh? Lol... that's like saying that the costs of production do not affect how much or little production there is.

It is actually a fairly recent phenomenon that humans rely on a complex economy. Throughout most of their history humans relied pretty much entirely on their immediate surroundings for their basic needs. Issues like inflation are entirely a response to the more recent developments, not a cause.

Irrespective of that, you missed the word 'climate' and it's context as a trigger which prevented Malthus' population model from actualising in reality.

You will have to explain. For some reason people seem to get great joy out of knocking down Malthus' theories. They always seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as if our current life of luxury somehow disproves most of human history.

By the way... love the way you relied on Malthus in your initial claims, and now abandon him. WTF is that about?

You don't have to be 100% in agreeance or 100% in disagreeance with him. Humans spent much of their history living in the situation Malthus described. The fact that it is not 100% of our history does not destroy the value of Malthus' contribution or change the historical reality.

I will explain: for most of the history of marriage, marriage was a necessity, not a romantic luxury. But economics has allowed both men and women to live comfortably alone. In fact, more and more people in large cities around the world prefer to be single. Social conservatives decry the decay of marriage as an institution but applaud the economic changes that made it possible.

This sounds like an unnecessarily convoluted way of saying that you can support freedom at the same time as decrying what people choose to do with their freedom. The role of economics in this is fairly trivial. Your argument appears to rely on the strawman that social conservatives put economics first and are then forced into accepting social progressivism for economic reasons. You are creating homogenous groups out of disparate movements. Most of the free market capitalists I know of are also supporters of libertarianism.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

I wonder who Freediver is talking to?