Malthusian Economics and U.N. Agenda 21 are at the top of Obama's economic Priorities.
In 1972 the Club of Rome put out a blueprint for international action called "Limits to Growth" http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=326, a study based on computer models simulating unrestrained economic and population growth verses finite planetary resources. Working from a static vision of wealth Limits predicted doom as the world's population continued to rise and the planet's resources continued to dwindle. Limits was a landmark document, spawning the "sustainability" movement worldwide.
It really was nothing but a computerized version of Thomas Malthus, who predicted in "An essay on the principle of population" in 1798 that the world's population would rise precipitously and exhaust necessary resources for the maintenance of civilization. http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/demotrans/malbox.htm
The views of Malthus, or rather neo-Malthusiansim, have been extraordinarily influential ever since; they were the justification for eugenics and Hitler, and has likewise been at the core of radical environmentalism. So many of our modern economic policies stem from this view of scarcity.
(As an interesting aside, the Discovery Channel shooter James Lee was driven to his act by Malthus. http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/malthus_and_the_discovery_gunman/)
This static vision of population and resources has been criticized by many. For instance, economist Julian Simon had this to say:
"The most important economic effect of population size and growth is the contribution of additional people to our stock of useful knowledge. And this contribution is great enough in the long run to overcome all the costs of population growth."
The Club of Rome study was unquestionably neo-Malthusian and it had a profound impact on economic and social thinking.
According the Environmental Protection Agency:
"Sustainability is based on a simple principle: Everything that we need for our survival and well-being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment. Sustainability creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations."
The United Nations gives their definition from the RIO+20 Summit:
"The world’s population of 7 billion is likely to increase to 9 billion by 2050. The demand for diminishing natural resources is growing. Income gaps are widening. Sustainability calls for a decent standard of living for everyone today without compromising the needs of future generations."
Clearly Sustainability is a neo-Malthusian concept, one that assumes limited resources that must be parceled out among an ever-increasing population.
In this worldview of static economics the only way for civilization to survive is to balance population growth, standard of living, and obtainable natural resources. It is absolutely necessary for public policy to work to reduce the overall consumption of resources, to reduce wealth creation (since such creation uses resources), to restrict the usage of energy, of materials, of food and plant resources. How can America's consumption of beef be justified when it takes four pounds of grain to produce a one pound steak? Clearly that violates principles of sustainability. How can Americans drive around in their gas-guzzling cars while consuming the oil needed by future generations? How can Americans continue to run their air-conditioning and consume non-renewable electricity?
The ultimate purpose of sustainability is to dismantle industrial civilization and transfer wealth to those who are impoverished.
Which brings us to the point of this essay; the American economy has remained stagnant over the last five years and that is by design, not chance. The Obama Administration is implementing Sustainability by restricting American economic growth.
Economic growth has been stagnant since Mr. Obama took office as even Reuters concedes.
Is it a coincidence that Mr. Obama continues to talk about Global Warming? Is it a coincidence he resists Fracking or the Keystone Pipeline?
In fact, Mr. Obama has been diligently working to implement U.N. Agenda 21, an agreement designed to drastically change the relationships between nations and between the individual and the State.
Interestingly enough, Agenda 21 has been implemented all across the country. Here is a plan by the City of St. Louis. http://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/initiatives/...
This despite a ban on the implementation of it by the Missouri legislature.
And the Federal government has imposed Agenda 21 on Missouri's White River area via the White River Scenic Blueway. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/the_white_river_national_blueway_and_agenda_21
So it should come as no surprise to anyone that things have not improved under Obama; this Administration never intended them to do so. Sustainability means stagnation or, as they view it, balance. The whole idea of a "sustainable" economy is one that uses the same amount of resources for every child born and that balances births and deaths so we do not consume too much. Reducing the population and reducing how well those people live is a critical component of their neo-Malthusian dreams.
Contrary to how the Left thinks prosperity is not a zero-sum game. We do not have to slice our pie thinner for others to prosper. Fewer people are not the answer to prosperity, but rather a means to greater poverty.
Read more from Tim and friends at www.tbirdnow.mee.nu