If Canada elects Ms. Heather McPherson as Prime Minister could she STOP TRUMP.....

Would Prime Minister Heather McPherson be the best Canadian P. M. to Stop Trump?

  • Yes, P. M. Heather McPherson could likely STOP TRUMP from luring Albertans into independence!

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • No, only P. M. Mark Carney can Stop Trump!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I believe that P. M. Pierre Poilievre would be able to get along with Trump better than P. M. Carney

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • Total voters
    2
I didn't hear about this but it doesn't seem probable...no matter what or who is command.

Of what I heard the majority of Canadians are happy being Candianas.

Of the five million or so Albertans P. M. Justin Trudeau and P. M. Mark Carney, seem to have offended them at a whole new level. If Canadians elect P. M. Mark Carney to another term the USA might just have herself another state that has been paying the bills for the Ottawa Swamp for many decades.
 
He had a war to fight, who was Canada fighting in the mid-1970s?

Why didn't the US keep printing greenbacks after the Civil War instead of eventually
making them convertible into gold?

Good question. Here is the best answer on that that I saw so far. Basically the owners of Big Central Banks did not like what President Lincoln did and so they punished all Americans for the actions of President Lincoln.


[Alain Pilote] :

braham Lincoln is assassinated
Lincoln.jpg
Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860, under the promise of abolishing the slavery of the blacks. Eleven southern States, favourable to the human slavery of the black race, then decided to secede from the Union, to withdraw from the United States of America: that was the beginning of the Civil War (1861–1865). Lincoln, being short of money to finance the North's war effort, went to the bankers of New York, who agreed to lend him money at interest rates varying from 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln refused, knowing perfectly well that this was usury and that it would lead the United States to ruin. But his money problem was still not settled!
His friend in Chicago, Colonel Dick Taylor, came to his rescue and put the solution to him:
“Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes, and pay your soldiers with them, and go ahead and win your war with them also.”
This is what Lincoln did, and he won the war: between 1862 and 1863, in full conformity with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln caused $450 million of debt-free Greenbacks to be issued, to conduct the Civil War. (These Treasury notes were called “Greenbacks” by the people because they were printed with green ink on the back.)
Lincoln called these Greenbacks “the greatest blessing the American people have ever had.” A blessing for all, except for the bankers, since it was putting an end to their racket, to the stealing of the nation's credit and issuing interest-bearing money. So they did everything possible to destroy these Greenbacks and sabotage Lincoln's work. Lord Goschen, spokesman of the Financiers, wrote in the London Times (Quote taken from Who Rules America by C. K. Howe, and reproduced in Lincoln Money Martyred by Dr. R. E. Search):
“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. That Government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” (The monarchy of the money lenders.)
First, in order to cast discredit on the Greenbacks, the bankers persuaded Congress to vote, in February of 1862, the “Exception Clause”, which said that the Greenbacks could not be used to pay the interest on the national debt, nor to pay taxes, excises, or import duties. Then, in 1863, having financed the election of enough Senators and Representatives, the bankers got the Congress to revoke the Greenback Law in 1863, and enact in its place the National Banking Act. (Money was then to be issued interest-bearing by privately-owned banks.)
This Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes. Lincoln heatedly protested, but his most urgent objective was to win the war and save the Union, which obliged him to put off till after the war the veto he was planning against this Act and the action he was to take against the bankers. Lincoln nevertheless declared:
“I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. And of the two, the bankers are my greatest foe.”
Lincoln was re-elected President in 1864, and he made it quite clear that he would attack the power of the bankers, once the war was over. The war ended on April 9, 1865, but Lincoln was assassinated five days later, on April 14. A tremendous restriction of credit followed, organized by the banks: the currency in circulation in the country, which was, in 1866, $1,907 million, representing $50.46 for each American citizen, had been reduced to $605 million in 1876, representing $14.60 per capita. The result: in ten years, 56,446 business failures, representing a loss of $2 billion. And as if this was not enough, the bankers reduced the per capita currency in circulation to $6.67 in 1887!



Big Banking people know how to play rough to get their way.
 
Stop Trump?
There are people in the US who have far more wherewithal and who have made lives out of stopping Trump. None have succeeded.
Do you realistically expect a Canadian to pull it off?
 
Stop Trump?
There are people in the US who have far more wherewithal and who have made lives out of stopping Trump. None have succeeded.
Do you realistically expect a Canadian to pull it off?

Personally I am concerned that President Trump is correct that China would eat up Canada much like China ate up South American and African and Asian nations. But because M. P. Heather McPherson is from Alberta she is in a special position to know what should ethically be done by Ottawa to NOT drive the residents of Alberta into leaving Canada and joining the USA. [Frankly under the previous administrations China was making serious progress toward gobbling up much of the USA]!

In order to become national leader of the NDP M. P. McPherson has to come up with some sort of plan that she can market all across Canada. This basic idea might give her something to work with?

if P. M. Mark Carney reduces the number of Liberal Party Members of Parliament down to lower levels than what happened under Michael Ignatieff then whoever leads the NDP is likely to become influential in Ottawa.



Will P. M. Mark Carney leave the Liberals with fewer M. P's than Mr. Ignatieff did?




 
Last edited:
Good question. Here is the best answer on that that I saw so far. Basically the owners of Big Central Banks did not like what President Lincoln did and so they punished all Americans for the actions of President Lincoln.





Big Banking people know how to play rough to get their way.

Basically the owners of Big Central Banks did not like what President Lincoln did and so they punished all Americans for the actions of President Lincoln.

Which big central banks?
 
Basically the owners of Big Central Banks did not like what President Lincoln did and so they punished all Americans for the actions of President Lincoln.

Which big central banks?

The ones centered in London, England led the charge against President Lincoln and against America.

[Melvin Sickler] :

During the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back.


Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote:

"... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had -- their own paper money to pay their own debts..."

Lincoln printed 400 million dollars worth of Greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created, a debt-free and interest-free money to finance the War. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for war.


Shortly after that happened, "The London Times" printed the following: "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. That govern-ment must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

In retaliation

After this was published in "The London Times", the British Government, which was controlled by the London and other European Bankers, moved to support the Confederate South, hoping to defeat Lincoln and the Union, and destroy this government which they said had to be destroyed.

The Czar of Russia sent a portion of the Russian navy to the United States with orders that its admiral would operate under the command of Abraham Lincoln. These ships of the Russian navy then became a threat to the ships of the British navy which had intended to break the blockade and help the South.

The North won the War, and the Union was preserved. America remained as one nation.

Of course, the Bankers were not going to give in that easy, for they were determined to put an end to Lincoln's interest-free, debt-free Greenbacks. He was assassinated by an agent of the Bankers shortly after the War ended.

Thereafter, Congress revoked the Green-back Law and enacted, in its place, the National Banking Act. The national banks were to be privately owned and the national bank notes they issued were to be interest bearing. The Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes.

In 1972, the United States Treasury Department was asked to compute the amount of interest that would have been paid if that 400 million dollars would have been borrowed at interest instead of being issued by Abraham Lincoln. They did some computations, and a few weeks later, the United States Treasury Department said the United States Government saved 4 billion dollars in interest because Lincoln had created his own money.

The Federal Reserve Act

There were changes in the money and banking laws for the next fifty years. Finally, in 1913, the Bankers were able to get their Federal Reserve Act passed through Congress which replaced the National Banking Act that had earlier replaced the Greenback Law. If the Government would have continued the policy of Abraham Lincoln, the warnings given in "The London Times" would have come to pass. America would be a debt-free nation, the most prosperous in the world. And the brains and the wealth of the world would have come to America.

But with this Federal Reserve Act being passed, Congress gave up Its power to create its own money that it was given in the United States Constitution, and gave this power over to private Bankers who called themselves the Federal Reserve. The Bankers had achieved their ultimate goal, for now the United States operated under a central bank that was privately owned. They now had the power to run the country by controlling the creation of the money, and were free to charge the interest they so desired.

As Mayer Anselm Rothschild once said: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws..."

John F. Kennedy


Kennedy

No United States president since Abraham Lincoln dared to go against the system and create his own money, as many of these so-called elected presidents were actually only instruments or puppets of the Bankers. That is until President John F. Kennedy came into office.
On June 4th, 1963, President Kennedy signed a presidential document, called Exec-utive Order 11110, which further amended Executive Order 10289 of September 19th, 1951. This gave Kennedy, as President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an Interest and debt-free money. He had printed United States Notes, completely ignoring the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve.

Our records show that Kennedy issued $4,292,893,825 of cash money. It was obvious that Kennedy was out to under-mine the Federal Reserve System of the United States.

But it was only a few months later, In November of 1963, that the world received the shocking news of President Kennedy's assassination. President Kennedy must have had It in mind to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and return back to the United States Congress the power to create its own money.

It is interesting to note that, only one day after Kennedy's assassination, all the United States notes, which Kennedy had issued, were called out of circulation. Was this through an executive order of the newly installed president, Lyndon B. Johnson? Was President Johnson afraid of the Bankers? Or was he one of their instruments? At any rate, all of the money President Kennedy had created was destroyed. And not a word was said to the American people.


 
He had a war to fight, who was Canada fighting in the mid-1970s?

Why didn't the US keep printing greenbacks after the Civil War instead of eventually
making them convertible into gold?

Neo-Malthusian thinkers who are also billionaires are in a continual war against ninety nine point nine percent of the population. They seem to feel that it is their duty to depopulate the world so they gave the script to "Innovating to zero" to Bill Gates to read for them. That made Bill Gates the Poster Boy for the Neo-Malthusians who believe that the world must be depopulated.

Neo-Malthusianism is the advocacy of human population planning to ensure resources and environmental integrities for current and future human populations as well as for other species.<a href="Malthusianism - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a> In Britain the term "Malthusian" can also refer more specifically to arguments made in favour of family planning, hence organizations such as the Malthusian League.<a href="Malthusianism - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>8<span>]</span></a> Neo-Malthusians differ from Malthus's theories mainly in their support for the use of birth control. Malthus, a devout Christian, believed that "self-control" (i.e., abstinence) was preferable to artificial birth control. He also worried that the effect of contraceptive use would be too powerful in curbing growth; it was commonly believed in the 18th century (including by Malthus) that a steadily growing population remained a necessary factor in the continuing "progress of society", generally. Modern neo-Malthusians are generally more concerned than Malthus with environmental degradation and catastrophic famine than with poverty.

 
The ones centered in London, England led the charge against President Lincoln and against America.

After this was published in "The London Times", the British Government, which was controlled by the London and other European Bankers, moved to support the Confederate South,

The British were neutral.

Thereafter, Congress revoked the Green-back Law and enacted, in its place, the National Banking Act. The national banks were to be privately owned and the national bank notes they issued were to be interest bearing.

Bank notes have never been interest bearing.

Who is the moron who wrote this BS?

On June 4th, 1963, President Kennedy signed a presidential document, called Executive Order 11110, which further amended Executive Order 10289 of September 19th, 1951. This gave Kennedy, as President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an Interest and debt-free money.

He gave the Federal Reserve the power to print $2 and $1 bills and started phasing out the silver standard.

It is interesting to note that, only one day after Kennedy's assassination, all the United States notes, which Kennedy had issued, were called out of circulation.

United States notes were printed until 1969 and issued until 1971.
They weren't "called out of circulation".
 
Neo-Malthusian thinkers who are also billionaires are in a continual war against ninety nine point nine percent of the population. They seem to feel that it is their duty to depopulate the world so they gave the script to "Innovating to zero" to Bill Gates to read for them. That made Bill Gates the Poster Boy for the Neo-Malthusians who believe that the world must be depopulated.

Morons who write and believe this BS are morons.
 
The ones centered in London, England led the charge against President Lincoln and against America.

In 1972, the United States Treasury Department was asked to compute the amount of interest that would have been paid if that 400 million dollars would have been borrowed at interest instead of being issued by Abraham Lincoln. They did some computations, and a few weeks later, the United States Treasury Department said the United States Government saved 4 billion dollars in interest because Lincoln had created his own money.

They were never asked this silly question.
 
In 1972, the United States Treasury Department was asked to compute the amount of interest that would have been paid if that 400 million dollars would have been borrowed at interest instead of being issued by Abraham Lincoln. They did some computations, and a few weeks later, the United States Treasury Department said the United States Government saved 4 billion dollars in interest because Lincoln had created his own money.

They were never asked this silly question.

I believe that they were asked this question and it is not at all silly.

I think that is one of the most logical questions that any sincere aspiring elected official should be asking. once they understand the background to this topic.


[Alain Pilote]

The Fed: The most gigantic trust
lindb.jpg
Charles A. Lindbergh
Finally, on December 23, 1913, the U.S. Congress voted in the Federal Reserve Act, which took away from Congress the power to create money, and which handed over this power to the Federal Reserve Corporation. One of the rare Congressmen who had understood all the issue at stake in this Act, Representative Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. (Rep-Minnesota), father of the famous aviator, said:
“This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Wilson) signs this bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

The education of the people

What allowed the bankers to finally obtain the complete monopoly of the control of credit in the United States? The ignorance among the population of the money question. John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, in 1787:
“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in the Constitution, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.”
Lincoln's Secretary of Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, stated publicly, shortly after the passage of the National Banking Act, in 1863:
“My agency in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act was the greatest financial mistake of my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country. It should be repealed, but before that can be accomplished, the people will be arrayed on one side, and the banks on the other, in a contest such as we have never seen before in this country.”
Automobile manufacturer Henry Ford said:
“If the people of the nation understood our banking and monetary system, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
The education of the people, that's the solution! It is precisely the method advocated by the “Michael” Journal: to build a force in the people through education, so that the sovereign government of each nation will have the courage to stand up to the bankers and issue its own money, as President Lincoln did. If only all those in favour of an honest money system understood their responsibilities for spreading the “Michael” Journal! Social Credit, which would establish an economy where everything is organized to serve the human person, is precisely aiming to develop personal responsibility, to create responsible people. Each mind won over to Social Credit is an advance. Each person formed by Social Credit is a force, and each force acquired is a step towards the victory. And for the last sixty years, how many forces have been acquired!… If all of them were active, it is really before tomorrow morning that we would obtain the implementation of the Social Credit proposals!
As Louis Even wrote in 1960:
“The obstacle is neither the financier, nor the politician, nor any avowed enemy. The obstacle lies in the passivity of too many Social Crediters who hope for the coming of the triumph of the Cause, but who leave it up to others to promote it.”
In short, it is our refusal to take on our responsibilities that delays the implementation of Social Credit, of an honest money system. “Much will be asked of the man to whom much has been given” (Luke 12:48). Examine your consciences, dear Social Crediters; personal conversion, one more go, and let us take on our responsibilities: the victory has never been so close! Our responsibility is to make Social Credit known to others, by having them subscribe to the “Michael” Journal, the only publication that makes this brilliant solution known.



President Trump's call to "Audit the Fed" in 2015 or 2016 is one of the only ways to begin what needs to happen next. This topic is especially relevant considering what is likely to happen as Artificial Intelligence and robotics cause a surge in unemployment and under employment over the coming decades.
 
I believe that they were asked this question and it is not at all silly.

I think that is one of the most logical questions that any sincere aspiring elected official should be asking. once they understand the background to this topic.



President Trump's call to "Audit the Fed" in 2015 or 2016 is one of the only ways to begin what needs to happen next. This topic is especially relevant considering what is likely to happen as Artificial Intelligence and robotics cause a surge in unemployment and under employment over the coming decades.


I believe that they were asked this question and it is not at all silly.

You have a real source, or just kooky sources?

I think that is one of the most logical questions that any sincere aspiring elected official should be asking. once they understand the background to this topic.

Borrow or high inflation, you decide.
 
I believe that they were asked this question and it is not at all silly.

You have a real source, or just kooky sources?

I think that is one of the most logical questions that any sincere aspiring elected official should be asking. once they understand the background to this topic.

Borrow or high inflation, you decide.

Those three economists have been employed at universities here in Canada for decades. They are an excellent source of information on a topic that they needed to combine their efforts to put out this information because if any one of them had acted alone the Ottawa Swamp would have went after them and destroyed them, one way or another!

Just google the names:
1. Economist Harold Chorney
2. Economist John Hotson
3. Economist Mario Seccarreccia
and voila you will get an excellent explanation for a colossal error that was made by Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau back in 1974 that in my opinion, was likely directed even more so at the economy of the USA than the vastly smaller Canadian economy.

The problem was that some off the scale intelligent people in Switzerland in the Banking Sector knew that a "Hockey Stick Shaped Graph" would soon be in effect SO..... they needed their guy, Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau to set in motion a similar "Hockey Stick Shaped Graph" for the economy of Canada. If P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau had NOT made that colossal error then economists in the USA, would have been wondering WHY is the national debt of Canada NOT SPIRALLING OUT OF CONTROL LIKE THE NATIONAL DEBT OF THE USA IS???????


Very intelligent people in Switzerland knew that the following graph would happen for the national debt of the USA:


us-public-debt-graphic.jpg



So they are faced with a dilemma based on the extremely intelligent 1938 to 1974 Bank of Canada policy SO.... they needed to convince Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau to make a colossal error?

How could they possibly accomplish that I wonder??????

canada-public-debt.jpg



IF convincing Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau to do this little silly error for them was done through any variation of blackmail or less than ethical pressure, then this aspect of Canadian history should be looked at very closely?
 
Those three economists have been employed at universities here in Canada for decades. They are an excellent source of information on a topic that they needed to combine their efforts to put out this information because if any one of them had acted alone the Ottawa Swamp would have went after them and destroyed them, one way or another!

Just google the names:
1. Economist Harold Chorney
2. Economist John Hotson
3. Economist Mario Seccarreccia
and voila you will get an excellent explanation for a colossal error that was made by Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau back in 1974 that in my opinion, was likely directed even more so at the economy of the USA than the vastly smaller Canadian economy.

The problem was that some off the scale intelligent people in Switzerland in the Banking Sector knew that a "Hockey Stick Shaped Graph" would soon be in effect SO..... they needed their guy, Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau to set in motion a similar "Hockey Stick Shaped Graph" for the economy of Canada. If P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau had NOT made that colossal error then economists in the USA, would have been wondering WHY is the national debt of Canada NOT SPIRALLING OUT OF CONTROL LIKE THE NATIONAL DEBT OF THE USA IS???????


Very intelligent people in Switzerland knew that the following graph would happen for the national debt of the USA:


us-public-debt-graphic.jpg



So they are faced with a dilemma based on the extremely intelligent 1938 to 1974 Bank of Canada policy SO.... they needed to convince Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau to make a colossal error?

How could they possibly accomplish that I wonder??????

canada-public-debt.jpg



IF convincing Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau to do this little silly error for them was done through any variation of blackmail or less than ethical pressure, then this aspect of Canadian history should be looked at very closely?

So they are faced with a dilemma based on the extremely intelligent 1938 to 1974 Bank of Canada policy SO.... they needed to convince Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau to make a colossal error?

Preventing hyperinflation and a collapse of the Canadian currency wasn't actually a colossal error.

Overspending and running up a massive debt, that was a colossal error.

Did Harold Chorney, John Hotson and Mario Seccarreccia provide support for the claim that 95% (or whatever number you posted) of the money supply and government borrowing from 1938-1974 was created by the Canadian central bank?

Or was that just another silly conspiracy claim?
 
So they are faced with a dilemma based on the extremely intelligent 1938 to 1974 Bank of Canada policy SO.... they needed to convince Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau to make a colossal error?

Preventing hyperinflation and a collapse of the Canadian currency wasn't actually a colossal error.

Overspending and running up a massive debt, that was a colossal error.

Did Harold Chorney, John Hotson and Mario Seccarreccia provide support for the claim that 95% (or whatever number you posted) of the money supply and government borrowing from 1938-1974 was created by the Canadian central bank?

Or was that just another silly conspiracy claim?

In a way you are correct, many well informed people fear what would happen if elected officials began to control central bank policy. For good reason there is a fear that elected officials, if they ever began to use Central Banking Policy like President Abraham Lincoln did, they would get into banking policies that would make a significant percentage of people wealthy BUT.... the down side could be the destruction of the environment due to us humans being too productive.

Neo-Malthusian Economic Philosophy is not an entirely invalid theory. There are some very intelligent people who probably passed the script for "Innovating to Zero" to Mr. Bill Gates.

Here is another related discussion that you may enjoy getting into. This is on the "History" forum.


 
15th post
In a way you are correct, many well informed people fear what would happen if elected officials began to control central bank policy. For good reason there is a fear that elected officials, if they ever began to use Central Banking Policy like President Abraham Lincoln did, they would get into banking policies that would make a significant percentage of people wealthy BUT.... the down side could be the destruction of the environment due to us humans being too productive.

Neo-Malthusian Economic Philosophy is not an entirely invalid theory. There are some very intelligent people who probably passed the script for "Innovating to Zero" to Mr. Bill Gates.

Here is another related discussion that you may enjoy getting into. This is on the "History" forum.



In a way you are correct, many well informed people fear what would happen if elected officials began to control central bank policy. For good reason there is a fear that elected officials, if they ever began to use Central Banking Policy like President Abraham Lincoln did,


Yes, well informed people fear high inflation.
 
In a way you are correct, many well informed people fear what would happen if elected officials began to control central bank policy. For good reason there is a fear that elected officials, if they ever began to use Central Banking Policy like President Abraham Lincoln did,

Yes, well informed people fear high inflation.

But it is not merely high inflation that is feared. "Neo-Malthusian Economic Philosophers" favour depopulation and it could be much more difficult to depopulate people who are significantly wealthier.

Neo-Malthusianism is a modern, 19th-20th century extension of Thomas Malthus’s population theories, advocating for artificial contraception, family planning, and education to curb rapid population growth. Unlike original Malthusianism, which focused on food shortages, this approach highlights the environmental, economic, and social dangers of overpopulation, including ecological collapse and resource exhaustion.

Key Aspects of Neo-Malthusianism
  • Core Philosophy: Proponents argue that population growth, if unchecked, will outstrip natural resources (such as oil, water, and minerals) and lead to environmental degradation.
  • Preventive Measures:
    Unlike Malthus, who suggested "moral restraint," Neo-Malthusians advocate for proactive measures, including access to contraception, education, and, in some cases, government-led population control initiatives
    .
    • Environmental Impact: The ideology is closely linked with the concept that high population density combined with high consumption patterns causes significant ecological damage.
    • Origin: The term was coined in 1877 by Dr. Samuel Van Horton to describe the shift towards advocating for artificial means of limiting population.




Criticisms and Contrast
  • Discredited Theory: Critics argue that agricultural advancements and technological innovation have consistently outpaced population growth, disproving the inevitability of a Malthusian catastrophe.
  • Anti-Poor/Human Rights Concerns: Many critics find the approach to be pessimistic or Malthusian policies (such as forced sterilization) to be unethical.
  • Alternative Views: Some, like economist Julian Simon, argue that humans are "ultimate resources" who create solutions rather than just consume resources
 
But it is not merely high inflation that is feared. "Neo-Malthusian Economic Philosophers" favour depopulation and it could be much more difficult to depopulate people who are significantly wealthier.

High inflation doesn't make people significantly wealthier.
 
High inflation doesn't make people significantly wealthier.

Technically that statement is very true but the situation in the USA and Canada in 2026 is vastly different from what happened during the Weimar Republic of Germany. England, France and other nations had crippled the economy of Germany with War Reparations Payments but the productive infrastructure of Germany had been pretty much wrecked so German could not produce consumer goods during the time of the Weimar Republic that could keep up with the value of the German Marks that they were printing.

In a way England, France and other nations set the stage for Adolf Hitler.

In my opinion the lecture "Innovating to zero" by Bill Gates corresponds with the book "Mein Kampf" on many levels. Both Hitler and Bill Gates seem to be significantly Neo-Malthusian in their approach to Economic Philosophy.


Thomas Robert Malthus FRS (/ˈmælθəs/; 13/14 February 1766 – 29 December 1834)<a href="Thomas Robert Malthus - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> was an English economist, cleric, and scholar influential in the fields of political economy and demography.<a href="Thomas Robert Malthus - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a>

In his 1798 book An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus observed that an increase in a nation's food production improved the well-being of the population, but the improvement was temporary because it led to population growth, which in turn restored the original per capita production level. In other words, humans had a propensity to use abundance for population growth rather than for maintaining a high standard of living, a view and stance that has become known as the "Malthusian trap" or the "Malthusian spectre". Populations had a tendency to grow until the lower class suffered hardship, want, and greater susceptibility to war, famine, and disease, a pessimistic view that is sometimes referred to as a Malthusian catastrophe. Malthus wrote in opposition to the popular view in 18th-century Europe that saw society as improving and in principle as perfectible.<a href="Thomas Robert Malthus - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>



 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom