statistics have made such great progress, and the comparison between the
population and the means of subsistence in a fixed period of time is no
longer based upon hypothesis, but upon concrete and certain data in a
science of observation it is no longer possible to give the name of law
to a theory like that of Malthus, which is a complete disagreement with
facts. As our century has been free from the wars, pestilences and
famines which have afflicted other ages, population has increased as it
never did before, and, nevertheless, the production of the means of
subsistence has far exceeded the increase of men."

And later on (p. 114) he says "Malthus's law explains nothing just as it
comprehends nothing. Bound by rigid formulas which are belied by history
and demography, it is incapable of explaining not only the mystery of
poverty, but the alternate reverses of human civilization."

Nitti's conclusions are based largely on the fact that while food
supplies have become abundant and cheap, birth-rates have steadily and
persistently declined.

No-one who has studied the economic and vital statistics of the last
half century can fail to be impressed with the change that has come over
the relative ratios of increase in population and food.

Bonar says (Malthus and his Work, p. 165), "The industrial progress of
the country (France) has been very great. Fifty years ago, the
production of wheat was only half of what it is to-day, of meat less
than half. In almost every crop, and every kind of food, France is
richer now than then, in the proportion of 2 to 1. In all the
conveniences of life (if food be the necessaries) the increased supply
is as 4 to 1, while foreign trade has become as 6 to 1."