Thank you very much for the response. If I could, could I ask one quick follow up? So, am I wrong in thinking that one of the chief reasons Malthus was wrong is that, as the Law of Association (as far as I understand it) shows, as populations increase and more people are brought into exchanges with one another, this in and of itself will lead to increased output per head, ceteris paribus? In other words, if mere increases in the number of people involved in exchange (i.e., population growth) is itself a source of wealth creation (excluding capital accumulation and technological innovation), then it can’t also be the source of wealth erosion? Am I missing something?
p.s., thank you for the reading suggestions, I did go back and read the chapter of Human Action, as well as other sections where he talks about Malthus more directly (and also read Rothbard’s MES on this as well), but I still had this question after reading them. Thank you very much, I really appreciate your time.