I don't know... I'm always exceptionally suspicious of Malthusian economists. I have never heard of this guy, though his credentials are superficially "decent." He has an MBA from Duke and a PhD... In Toxicology, which makes him a "doctor," though not in economics (a little equivocal prefixing never hurt anybody, did it?).
Also, many of the Malthusian problems he addresses are actually being addressed, right now, by the current administration, such as peak oil, the decline of fish stocks, carbon levels in the atmosphere, etc. Many of the environmental issues, on a daily basis, are being solved, though not nearly fast enough, the RATE at which these catastrophes are occurring IS ACTUALLY slowing over time.
Also, how many people looking at this are going to dissect every thing he's saying? The Boskin Commission Report did as much to save us money as it did to forgive our budget deficits, yet his scant covering of such a complex change is sort of irritating.
In short, a lot of the stuff he's talking about is in the process of changing, it's being addressed, as we speak.
" * From 1996 to 2006, the share of GDP accounted for by the imputation for owner-occupied housing increased from 6.0 percent to 6.2 percent.
* From 1996 to 2006, the share of employer contributions for private health and life insurance grew from 3.2 percent of GDP to 4.2 percent of GDP.
* From 1996 to 2006, the share of all imputations in GDP grew from 13.8 percent to 14.8 percent.
* In 2006, imputed financial services represented 1.7 percent of GDP, the same as in 1996.
Without imputations, the GDP story is incomplete and can be misleading. For example, from 1998 to 2006, personal consumption expenditures for medical-care services, which are largely funded by government or employer-provided health insurance, grew from 10.5 percent to 12.0 percent of GDP, while the share of people engaged in production in the private health care and social assistance industry (that is, full-time equivalent employment plus the number of self-employed) grew from 9.4 percent to 10.8 percent of total employment. If there had been no imputations or redirections showing the growth coming from government and employment-provided health insurance, the growth in GDP for health services would not have been correctly aligned with the growth in employment."
I would not take this guy as gospel, but it's interesting to explore the thing he's talking about, and I'm sure he appreciates it.