We need a left-wing version of the Club For Growth

[Lenape85]

Call it the "Club For Progress". It could be a champion for the FDR style of government, watching over Dems on such issues as social security, healthcare, labour, the environment, and education. If they start voting with Repukes to gut those programs, then we label them DINOs and work to primary them out.

[SharonAnn]

1. I'm up for it!

[Eric J in MN]

2. Is there any evidence that "The Club for Growth" has been effective? nt

nt

[housewolf]

4. They were effective

in getting Tom Daschle unseated from the senate!

[Eric J in MN]

5. I don't credit "The Club for Growth" with that.

Daschle ran tv ads of himself hugging Bush.

When a Democrat thinks he has to embrace Bush to win, there is already a problem.

[housewolf]

7. Well, THEY do...

They put tons of dollars into horrible anti-Daschle advertising and are strutting around counting that as one of their big wins this year. They put together a 527 that tartgetted some specific candidates and were pretty successful, there was only 1 or 2 that they didn't win.

[Muzzle Tough]

3. There already is one.

It's called the Club Of Rome.

In the 1970s, they published a very famous book called "Limits To Growth" which urged all the governments all over the world to limit economic acticity to the current level, and to prevent any new economic growth from happening. It sold quite a few copies. You can buy a used one at the amazon.com marketplace, ebay, and certain used book stores.

Here's their website:

http://www.clubofrome.org/

[hfojvt]

8. I was going to suggest them as a joke

I am surprised that they are still around. Unfortunately, "Limits to Growth" predicted alot of shortages which do not seem to have happened.

What about the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities?

http://www.cbpp.org/

[Muzzle Tough]

9. My response

The organization at your link seems to oppose every policy of the Bush administration, so they are A-OK!

I think Stephen Moore deliberately named the Club for Growth to sound like the Club of Rome, because the two groups advocate very different policies.

The reason those predictions from the Club of Rome that you mentioned didn't come true is because the predictions were based on faulty premises. Their computer model never took into account that prices would react to changing conditions, or that people would alter their behavior in response to changes in prices.

Also, they err in their view of human beings as being only consumers, when in reality, human beings are producers and consumers. For example, if we turn worthless sand into valuable computer chips, are we consuming, or producing? I would say we are producing, but the Club of Rome would say we are consuming.

I agree that the quantity of physical mass is limited. But I disagree that this mass limits our economic growth, especially with computer technology and the information age. Since information is now the most important resource, how can there be limits?

Now, human population cannot grow forever. There are limits there. But even these limits are subject to technology. With zero technology, the earth may be able to support a few hundred million people. But with clean, safe nuclear power, which can be used to desalinize water, create fertilizer, mine building materials, and provide electricity for homes and businesses, and with adopting modern agriculture in places that don't currently use it, like Africa and Bangladesh, I think the earth could support 20 billion people at a first world standard of living. But human population will likely peak at 9 billion around the year 2050, so I don't see a population problem.

Poor countries are not "overpopulated." Instead, they are "underdeveloped." For example, people say that China is "overpopulated." But this is not true. Instead, China is "underdeveloped." England, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland are all more densely populated than China, but no one ever says those countries are "overpopulated."

[hfojvt]

10. Have you read Heilbroner?

He says the major problem is how do deal with the rising temperatures.
As for population densities
Switzerland 456 .22% rate of increase
Deutschland 596 .02%
United Kingdom 626 .25
China 335 .83
India 800 1.71
Phillipines 671 2.09
Bangladesh 2,295 1.76
South Korea 1,221 1.01
Vietnam 599 1.43
United States 76 .87
Also, European countries had the benefit of sending hundreds of thousands of their "excess" people to America. Also I seem to recall someone making a fuss in the 1930s about needing "Lebensraum" so some people have called European countries "over-populated". There is no "developed" country which can sustain its lifestyle without mining the 3rd world for minerals and energy which are more important resources than information.

[Muzzle Tough]

11. No.

We can stop the global warming with more nuclear power.

Resources and minerals are important. But new technology helps there, too. The earth is full of rocks. Without technology, those rocks are useless. As we get more information and technology, we can put those rocks to better and better uses. There's no shortage of any mineral or metal.

We import things from other countries, but those other countries also import things from us. No one country has every resource that it needs.

Given enough technology, time, and development, every country in the world will become rich. Of course, once a country becomes rich, its birthrate almost always falls to below replacement level. Right now, every rich country, except for the U.S., has a birthrate that is below replacement level. Getting women educated and into the workforce also plays a huge role in that too.

[mhr]

6. If You Need Justification For Why Growth Should Slow

Watch this video by Al Bartlett.

Real Media Format
http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram

mp4 Format
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/Al_Bartlett-PeakOil.mp4

This is a short paper by the same gentleman.

http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_section2.htm

[0007]

16. Thank you thank you for that the Al Bartlett link

A very sobering discourse on world population and mathematics. Thank you.

[DinahMoeHum]

12. The words "Club For Growth" remind me of Edward Abbey's quote:

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."


:evilfrown:

[Lefty48197]

13. "The club for people who AREN'T idiots"

.

[msongs]

14. we can start by getting 55 million people "buying blue"....as in

all the kerry voters..............

Msongs
riverside CA

[LoZoccolo]

15. I'm not just the president of the Club for Growth...

...I'm also a customer!