The Fallacy of "Steady State Economics"

A recent letter to the Santa Cruz Sentinel Endless consumption or steady state economics? brought up the term "steady state economics", which is another attempt to re-brand collectivism as a controlled economy that would balance population with available resources;

Patricia Rayne's tongue-in-cheek letter Oct. 11 points out that current economic policy depends on ever-increasing consumption of goods and services. This requires over-population to produce labor and markets for economic expansion. The result is exponential population growth, over-crowding, famine, pollution, exhaustion of natural resources, global competition for remaining resources, climate disruption, species extinction, dangerous disparities between rich and poor.
However, there are other efficient economic models.
Ability to continue our rapacious consumption was doubted in 1798 by Malthus, later by John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes. Economists, including Herman Daly, Goergescu-Roegen, Boulding, Schumacher promote the model of limited economic growth known as "steady state economics." This posits stable or mildly fluctuating population and consumption of energy and materials. Birth rates equal death rates, population migration equals available resources, investment equals depreciation. Too complicated for a letter to the editor, this practical idea deserves examination and perhaps implementation in Santa Cruz, where constant expansion makes developers rich and diminishes quality of life.
— Grace Gerbrandt, Santa Cruz

 Once again, theories based on "steady state economics" requires a closed government controlled economy (the concept of a closed, state directed, quasi-private ownership, economy has it's roots in German fascism) under the umbrella of collectivism (the current terms for this is world governance via sustainable design or sustainable development), that historically implode (collective economies are notoriously inefficient) leaving millions destitute or worse. Karl Marx stated the Bourgeoisie class needed to be, " swept out of the way and made impossible". While he meant this figuratively, Stalin, Mao and Pot did not. The issue with the idea of government economic and population control is how well it fits into the Eugenics theme of eliminating the useless eaters as decided by the political elite. This theory was very popular by the likes of George Bernard Shaw, Teddy Roosevelt, Julian Huxley, Charles Darwin, HG Wells, Woodrow Wilson, George Orwell, Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes (co-founder of planned parenthood with Margaret Sanger).

With capitalism, the reason economic expansion does not requires over-population is because the nature of capitalism is to use the same resources to produce more and with greater efficiency; in other words, true open market capitalism (not the no-fascism we see growing today) does not need more consumers, it creates workers that have more money to continually consume more. OTOH, the current collectivist societies in the world are the worst polluters on the planet. We also know that education and consumerism results in lower population levels, while poverty increases population levels; this with the exception of US Hispanics ( primarily due to immigration), all other races in the US are not reproducing enough to maintain their numbers. It's interesting to note while blacks in the US live in greater poverty than any other race, they still don't reproduce enough to maintain their numbers. This is primarily due to half of all black pregnancies ending in abortions; it's almost as though "steady state economics" and Eugenics zealots (along with Planned Parenthood, whose founder was almost solely devoted to decimate black birth rates) planned it that way.

 FA Hayek's the Road to Serfdom compares capitalism to a planned economy, "The question is whether for this purpose it is better that the holder of coercive power should confine himself in general to creating conditions under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most successfully (free market capitalism); or whether a rational utilization of our resources requires central direction and organization of all our activities according to some consciously constructed “blueprint (government planned/controlled economy).” The key difference between the two, is the "law" of supply and demand is instinctual to those that value liberty (a free people have/need a free economy), while forced equality (ie collectivism), is the definition of tyranny, is unnatural and requires decades of brainwashing, class demonisation and revisionist history; but will still fail, as it is inevitable that as the size and power of government increases, corruption and oppression will increase, until it collapses under it's own weight and the people take their country back.

As we have seen, Obama is fully immersed in another concept of central planning, which is enforced government infallibility, "Facts and theories must thus become no less the object of an official doctrine than views about values. And the whole apparatus for spreading knowledge— the schools and the press, radio and motion picture—will be used exclusively to spread those views which, whether true or false, will strengthen the belief in the rightness of the decisions taken by the authority; and all information that might cause doubt or hesitation will be withheld." 

All this was written over 60 years ago, yet reading it is quite chilling.