Difference between revisions of "Robert Malthus"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Thomas Malthus''' (1766-1834) was a [[British]] economist and sociologist who promoted [[classical economics]] like [[Adam Smith]]. | '''Thomas Malthus''' (1766-1834) was a [[British]] economist and sociologist who promoted [[classical economics]] like [[Adam Smith]]. | ||
| − | But he was so pessimistic that the entire field of economics is called "the dismal science," where failure and collapse of the economy is supposed to be inevitable. Malthus insisted that population increases by the geometric ratio but the means of subsistence only increases by the arithmetic ratio, and thus population will | + | But he was so pessimistic that the entire field of economics is called "the dismal science," where failure and collapse of the economy is supposed to be inevitable. Malthus insisted that population increases by the geometric ratio but the means of subsistence only increases by the arithmetic ratio, and thus population will always be constrained by the food supply, with famine being a primary check to population growth. Malthus's model, however, was not supported by empirical data, primarily because he failed to account for technological growth in the production of food, as well as the [[income effect]] acting to slow down population growth. |
[[Category:Biographies]] | [[Category:Biographies]] | ||
[[Category:Economics]] | [[Category:Economics]] | ||
Revision as of 04:11, March 29, 2007
Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was a British economist and sociologist who promoted classical economics like Adam Smith.
But he was so pessimistic that the entire field of economics is called "the dismal science," where failure and collapse of the economy is supposed to be inevitable. Malthus insisted that population increases by the geometric ratio but the means of subsistence only increases by the arithmetic ratio, and thus population will always be constrained by the food supply, with famine being a primary check to population growth. Malthus's model, however, was not supported by empirical data, primarily because he failed to account for technological growth in the production of food, as well as the income effect acting to slow down population growth.