Why is Capitalism et al, a bad thing?

[Profit]

Having watched the Why is Socialism et al, a bad thing? thread offer little substance and digress to an argument over healthcare (no disrespect to those posting on healthcare) I thought I would flip the discussion. To start us off I thought I would repost something I wrote a few days ago in the Socialism thread that was subsequently ignored for the most part.


I don’t think that there is much debate concerning a capitalistic socioeconomic system’s ability in developing natural resources and material production. Up to this point in human history ‘capitalism’ has proven itself to be without equal in turning out tremendous amounts of goods. Those who argue in favor of such a system over socialism point to its ability to increase the material well being of individuals regardless of their class, a rising tide lifts all boats. ‘Capitalism’ however, is quickly showing itself to be unsustainable. In order to survive and increase capital, companies/industries have to continuously invent new wants within the consumer marketplace. Consumers have to keep consuming in order for the system to continue to function. Not only does overall consumption have to keep increasing but population levels must rise accordingly. You have to have a steadily expanding supply of workers to produce and provide increasing levels of goods and services. Thus you have the average consumption per person increasing at the same time that you have the total number of consumers increasing as well. The problem with such a system is that resources are finite. Already humans consume more natural resources annually than the earth can replace in one year.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Essentially we are eating into our natural resource ‘savings’. (This is not just energy resources mind you so please do not yell ‘but what about tar sands and coal!’ We are talking about soil, water, fisheries etc) This is simply not sustainable.

The United States, the poster boy of 'capitalism' for many of you, makes up about 4.5% of the world’s population yet consumes nearly 30% of the world’s annual output of natural resources. In the last two decades we have witnessed the economic rise of China and India (historically the two dominant economies in the world). If they continue to develop along capitalistic lines we will simply eat through our ‘savings’ at an even quicker rate. 'Capitalism', in the long run, is not a sustainable socioeconomic system.

[firebee]

Haha, I thought this thread needed to exist and you beat me to it.

Why does a capitalist system necessarily have to expand infinitely? Why can't the approach be used to allocate a particular amount of scarce resources?

I'd suggest that the problem here is actually the tragedy of the commons and that if use of the "commons" of air, water, et cetera is properly represented by some monetary value then the system will trend toward a stable solution that does not violate the constraints of natural resources. With regard to resources that are intrinsically finite, the cost to acquire these resources will naturally increase as they become more scarce, making other alternatives (such as making a viable product out of alternate energy systems) will become more viable and will eventually be adopted.

Where's the catch?

[Profit]

Haha, I thought this thread needed to exist and you beat me to it.

Why does a capitalist system necessarily have to expand infinitely? Why can't the approach be used to allocate a particular amount of scarce resources?


Capitalistic systems have to keep expanding. Without the expectation of growth, there will be no investment and thus there will be no return on investment. The amount of goods available will fall, as it is no longer profitable to produce. Unemployment increases and since no one has money to purchase goods and services, the economy collapses.

Or in terms of individual companies that make tv’s, if they don’t keep making better tv’s how are they going to continue making money? The marketplace has to continue to create new wants so that consumers will continue to buy more goods. Otherwise there is zero growth.

[phej]

Capitalistic systems have to keep expanding. Without the expectation of growth, there will be no investment and thus there will be no return on investment. The amount of goods available will fall, as it is no longer profitable to produce. Unemployment increases and since no one has money to purchase goods and services, the economy collapses.

Or in terms of individual companies that make tv’s, if they don’t keep making better tv’s how are they going to continue making money? The marketplace has to continue to create new wants so that consumers will continue to buy more goods. Otherwise there is zero growth.

Why are you assuming that all businesses need to go up and down at the same time? What is true for one business is not true for the whole economy. (Fallacy of division (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?). Companies come and go all the time. For example, in transportation, we have seen the rise and fall of railroads. Now, when these failing companies decide to ask the government for help, that's usually problem when the government consents. But, that's not capitalism.

[Profit]

Why are you assuming that all businesses need to go up and down at the same time? What is true for one business is not true for the whole economy. (Fallacy of division (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?). Companies come and go all the time. For example, in transportation, we have seen the rise and fall of railroads. Now, when these failing companies decide to ask the government for help, that's usually problem when the government consents. But, that's not capitalism.

Did you actually read the entire post? I said systems in the first part of my post, as in whatever happens to individual businesses the system as a whole has to keep expanding. The second part of my post was just an example of why individual businesses providing consumer goods have to keep expanding in order to survive.

[phej]

Did you actually read the entire post? I said systems in the first part of my post, as in whatever happens to individual businesses the system as a whole has to keep expanding. The second part of my post was just an example of why individual businesses providing consumer goods have to keep expanding in order to survive.

I did.

I don't understand the logic why capitalism needs growth as a system. I can see there being individual industries and businesses growing, but I can also see other industries and businesses dwindling in a capitalist system. Money follows profitable businesses, but there's also diminishing returns which acts as negative feedback. Overall, there's growth, but I wouldn't attribute economic growth to the economic or political system in place. I'd be more apt to attribute that to technological growth, which enables the growth.

[polaroid]

Capitalism is an excellent system--to a point. Regulations, such as forcing food companies to put the ingredients on the packaging or forcing car companies to build cars to a minimum level of standardized safety, are vital. And, of course, some things just don't work in private industry without lots and lots and lots of regulation, like health insurance.

[Warrior]

Capitalism is an excellent system--to a point. Regulations, such as forcing food companies to put the ingredients on the packaging or forcing car companies to build cars to a minimum level of standardized safety, are vital. And, of course, some things just don't work in private industry without lots and lots and lots of regulation, like health insurance.

Yes and no. I took your response to mean the government has to force those things, which is not necessarily the case. If there is a real demand for labeling ingredients, those companies that respond to that demand will gain a larger market share, those that don't will not. Health insurance seems to work just fine. By all accounts, about 85% of Americans are satisfied with their health insurance. I can't think of too many other general products that have that high of a level of satisfaction. Most of the items that stand to provide real improvements to health insurance involve deregulation - like making prices transparent and allowing companies to offer insurance across state lines.

[firebee]

By all accounts, about 85% of Americans are satisfied with their health insurance. I can't think of too many other general products that have that high of a level of satisfaction.

Nine out of ten gangbang participants report satisfaction.

/is bad

And 46.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Overall satisfaction rates (however they might be arrived at) indicate little to nothing about the problems experienced by the dissatisfied customers (small network? recission? death ninja teams sent out after covered diabetics?) and whether those problems represent a significant impairment to our nation's ability to keep meat fresh.

[hubcap]

A Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,001 adults in June that found that 83 percent were either "somewhat" or "very" satisfied with the care they receive and 81 percent felt the same way about their insurance.

Doesn't seem made up on the spot does it?

[themuzicman]

Having watched the Why is Socialism et al, a bad thing? thread offer little substance and digress to an argument over healthcare (no disrespect to those posting on healthcare) I thought I would flip the discussion. To start us off I thought I would repost something I wrote a few days ago in the Socialism thread that was subsequently ignored for the most part.

err.. ok

I don’t think that there is much debate concerning a capitalistic socioeconomic system’s ability in developing natural resources and material production. Up to this point in human history ‘capitalism’ has proven itself to be without equal in turning out tremendous amounts of goods. Those who argue in favor of such a system over socialism point to its ability to increase the material well being of individuals regardless of their class, a rising tide lifts all boats. ‘Capitalism’ however, is quickly showing itself to be unsustainable. In order to survive and increase capital, companies/industries have to continuously invent new wants within the consumer marketplace. Consumers have to keep consuming in order for the system to continue to function. Not only does overall consumption have to keep increasing but population levels must rise accordingly.

Actually, this is incorrect. No population growth is necessary for capitalism to sustain itself.

You have to have a steadily expanding supply of workers to produce and provide increasing levels of goods and services. Thus you have the average consumption per person increasing at the same time that you have the total number of consumers increasing as well.

Umm... you've ignored productivity gains from new technology.

The problem with such a system is that resources are finite. Already humans consume more natural resources annually than the earth can replace in one year.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Essentially we are eating into our natural resource ‘savings’. (This is not just energy resources mind you so please do not yell ‘but what about tar sands and coal!’ We are talking about soil, water, fisheries etc) This is simply not sustainable.

The United States, the poster boy of 'capitalism' for many of you, makes up about 4.5% of the world’s population yet consumes nearly 30% of the world’s annual output of natural resources. In the last two decades we have witnessed the economic rise of China and India (historically the two dominant economies in the world). If they continue to develop along capitalistic lines we will simply eat through our ‘savings’ at an even quicker rate. 'Capitalism', in the long run, is not a sustainable socioeconomic system.

What you ignore about capitalism is that it naturally responds to changes in supply and demand. As some resources become more scarce, other technologies will become fiscally viable and businesses and individuals will shift to take advantage of these other technologies. Many of them already exist, but arent' yet fiscally viable.

(Just for grins and giggles... what's percent of world GDP does the US produce?)

[MaleVolentworld]

The Skeptical Environmentalist book answers the scare stories of organisations such as WWF. So I recommend a read of it.

[lurk]

(Just for grins and giggles... what's percent of world GDP does the US produce?)

Looks like 20 - 23%, depending upon the method of calculation.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Causa Mortis]

The three key problems as I see them are:

1. The tragedy of the commons, which Firebee has adequately addressed.

This is easily solved through pigovian taxation and by increasing property rights. That externalities remain a serious problem in the US is a political issue, not a problem of economic theory.

2. Subjectively undue concentrations of wealth. Although I think incentives for production are a healthy thing, and I do believe that work should generally be rewarded, I do not think that one's economic talent should determine whether one lives or dies or whether or not one or one's children have the opportunity to get an education.

This is solved in Europe through very progressive taxation on the wealthy.

3. Creative destruction is largely what explains the superior efficiency of capitalism over planned systems. It generates new ideas, develops more efficient uses of capital and labor, and generally moves resources from inefficient users to efficient ones.

The problem is that it plainly sucks to be in the middle it. Unemployment compensation and welfare are interesting resolutions, but both are somehow unsatisfying.

[Tristan]

Why does a capitalist system necessarily have to expand infinitely? Why can't the approach be used to allocate a particular amount of scarce resources?
Very difficult assumptions here... I agree with muzicman: nothing about capitalism, in theory, is specifically premised on growth. Not in its functionality.

Capitalism has a major tendency to lead to growth, however. Growth occurs when labor and capital are allocated to highly-productive uses. When labor and capital are redistributed for security or sustainability, I'm not saying it's bad, but it accordingly denies the growth that would have arisen from production. Routine might be more important than whether growth or sustainability are better. The US, acclimatized to perpetual, steady growth, will be hit hard by sustainability measures. Switzerland wouldn't have any problems with them.

[Profit]

I did.

I don't understand the logic why capitalism needs growth as a system. I can see there being individual industries and businesses growing, but I can also see other industries and businesses dwindling in a capitalist system. Money follows profitable businesses, but there's also diminishing returns which acts as negative feedback. Overall, there's growth, but I wouldn't attribute economic growth to the economic or political system in place. I'd be more apt to attribute that to technological growth, which enables the growth.

err.. ok


Umm... you've ignored productivity gains from new technology.

What you ignore about capitalism is that it naturally responds to changes in supply and demand. As some resources become more scarce, other technologies will become fiscally viable and businesses and individuals will shift to take advantage of these other technologies. Many of them already exist, but arent' yet fiscally viable.



I'm not ignoring productivity gaines from new technology or the fact that in terms of energy new technologies will come online in the future. I'm focusing on consumption and the fact that if the current capitalistic socioeconomic system is to continue overall consumption will have to rise. Again, already humans consumer more resources annually than the earth can replace in one year. As China and India develop their standard of living will increase, their populations will consume more goods and the values of their labor will rise. As resources become more scarce their costs will rise and profit margins will fall.

Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[SShack]

3. Creative destruction is largely what explains the superior efficiency of capitalism over planned systems. It generates new ideas, develops more efficient uses of capital and labor, and generally moves resources from inefficient users to efficient ones.

The problem is that it plainly sucks to be in the middle it. Unemployment compensation and welfare are interesting resolutions, but both are somehow unsatisfying.

Oh man it does. Speaking as a print journalist and libertarian supporter of capitalism, it really, really, really sucks to be in the middle of it.

Corporate institutions have their own sense of intertia, same as government organizations. Once a system is put into place, it's so hard to change the culture. I believe I read this morning that the union for the Chicago Sun-Times rejected a pay cut, which may well shut the paper down. Maybe they'll come around when they realize they don't have much choice.

[Profit]

Capitalism has to keep expanding. Say you have one region of the world that develops a capitalistic society. After awhile the standard of living rises to the point where the cost of labor begins to cut into the profit margin of businesses producing consumer goods. What do businesses do? They expand into less developed regions of the world where the cost of labor is lower. But after a while the new regions that have been incorporated into the capitalistic system see their standard of living rise and suddenly the cost of labor begins to cut into profit margins. So now the systems has to expand further to encompass an even larger percentage of the world in order to take advantage of lower labor costs.





Profit added to this post, 18 minutes and 37 seconds later...

Very difficult assumptions here... I agree with muzicman: nothing about capitalism, in theory, is specifically premised on growth. Not in its functionality.

Capitalism has a major tendency to lead to growth, however. Growth occurs when labor and capital are allocated to highly-productive uses. When labor and capital are redistributed for security or sustainability, I'm not saying it's bad, but it accordingly denies the growth that would have arisen from production. Routine might be more important than whether growth or sustainability are better. The US, acclimatized to perpetual, steady growth, will be hit hard by sustainability measures. Switzerland wouldn't have any problems with them.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

From UNSUSTAINABLE GROWTH, UNSUSTAINABLE CAPITALISM by Petter Naess

Although disagreeing with Marx on a number of other issues, mainstream economic theory agrees on the necessity for economic growth if a capitalist economic system is to maintain its stability. Some economists still deny that a capitalist economy must necessarily expand. The English philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill claimed that capitalism can evolve into a balanced, steady state. This position is shared by some influential contemporary growth-critics within the ‘ecological economy’ tradition, e.g. Herman Daly & John B. Cobb. According to the latter, markets are well suited to ensure an efficient allocation of resources, but not for deciding either the volume of the economy or the distribution of wealth between groups and individuals. The issues of volume and distribution should therefore not be decided by market mechanisms but should be subject to political regulation.

However, if capitalism were really to adapt to a zero-growth situation, this would depend on powerful pressure from public authorities. For example, regulations would be required in order to prevent each single agent within the domestic economy from striving for profits so high that their sum resulted in growth in the total economy of the nation. Moreover, the authorities would need to prevent foreign investments from causing unforeseen growth in the national economy. The latter would require a high degree of protectionism. It is open to discussion whether such an economy could be characterized as capitalist in the traditional sense. In particular, this may be questioned if the authorities, in addition to regulating the size of the economy, also had to intervene with subsidies, taxes and legal regulations in order to promote social distributional goals to a significantly greater extent than today, as would be needed in order to prevent the non-growth situation from creating mass unemployment, poverty and substantially increased social marginalisation.

[lurk]

Subjectively undue concentrations of wealth. Although I think incentives for production are a healthy thing, and I do believe that work should generally be rewarded, I do not think that one's economic talent should determine whether one lives or dies or whether or not one or one's children have the opportunity to get an education.

This is solved in Europe through very progressive taxation on the wealthy.

This strikes me as simple envy. The concentrations of wealth constitute capital that is most often used productively - even if it's to buy Rolls Royce's. The individuals that own such wealth have it invested in companies that employ people. Of course the uses that the rightful owners would choose are doubtless different from those of the central planners, who would most likely use it to get reelected or give it to their buddies.

I'm as disgusted as anyone at the salaries of professional athletes and wall street CEOs, for example. But I don't think that gives me the right to legislate that their wealth should be confiscated.

[Profit]

This strikes me as simple envy. The concentrations of wealth constitute capital that is most often used productively - even if it's to buy Rolls Royce's. The individuals that own such wealth have it invested in companies that employ people. Of course the uses that the rightful owners would choose are doubtless different from those of the central planners, who would most likely use it to get reelected or give it to their buddies.

I'm as disgusted as anyone at the salaries of professional athletes and wall street CEOs, for example. But I don't think that gives me the right to legislate that their wealth should be confiscated.

You can disagree on tax policies but to say that wanting individuals in a society to have access to basic health care and a quality education is not envy. Educated healthy workers are more productive, something that business owners in an advanced industrial society need.

[hubcap]

You can disagree on tax policies but to say that wanting individuals in a society to have access to basic health care and a quality education is not envy. Educated healthy workers are more productive, something that business owners in an advanced industrial society need.
In the first place I don't know ANYONE who wants to deny healthcare or education to anyone. In the second place noone can claim that quality education isn't available to everyone at no expense ..... other than to the American taxpayer.

We all want everyone to have these things. We just don't agree on how to provide them.

As far as productive workers. Give me anyone who will come to work everyday and simply work. Do you know how many people simply don't think it is necessary to come to work every day?

[lurk]

You can disagree on tax policies but to say that wanting individuals in a society to have access to basic health care and a quality education is not envy. Educated healthy workers are more productive, something that business owners in an advanced industrial society need.

It would be nice if everyone could get free healthcare, but as Margaret Thatcher said "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money." The unfunded liability for Medicare (Parts A, B & D) over the next 70 years is estimated at $85.6 trillion. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)) That's not the cost of the program - that's just the part that nobody yet knows how they'll pay for. Extend coverage to the rest of the nation and guess what happens?

I've never looked at Medicare closely enough to determine what percentage of the costs go for administration, but I have an example from the mid-70's that may shed some light. At that time they were housing Vietnamese boat people in tents at Manzanar, in California's Owens Valley. I was listening to a news report that at one point stated the number of people involved, and then a while later said what the costs were for a year. A little arithmetic told me that it was costing taxpayers $50,000 per person to keep these people in tents for a year. That's roughly twice what my annual salary was at that time. I seriously doubt that the government's vigorish will have decreased in the past 30 years. So I would guess that the people who are supposed to benefit will lucky to see 50 cents on the dollar.

Meanwhile, I don't hear anybody advocating that healthcare should be withheld from people in need. Regarding the comment about healthy workers, I note that we somehow managed to get through the industrial revolution with out a universal healthcare entitlement.

[phej]

Capitalism has to keep expanding. Say you have one region of the world that develops a capitalistic society. After awhile the standard of living rises to the point where the cost of labor begins to cut into the profit margin of businesses producing consumer goods. What do businesses do? They expand into less developed regions of the world where the cost of labor is lower. But after a while the new regions that have been incorporated into the capitalistic system see their standard of living rise and suddenly the cost of labor begins to cut into profit margins. So now the systems has to expand further to encompass an even larger percentage of the world in order to take advantage of lower labor costs.

So you're arguing that raising standards of living is not a good thing?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
However, if capitalism were really to adapt to a zero-growth situation, this would depend on powerful pressure from public authorities. For example, regulations would be required in order to prevent each single agent within the domestic economy from striving for profits so high that their sum resulted in growth in the total economy of the nation. Moreover, the authorities would need to prevent foreign investments from causing unforeseen growth in the national economy. The latter would require a high degree of protectionism. It is open to discussion whether such an economy could be characterized as capitalist in the traditional sense. In particular, this may be questioned if the authorities, in addition to regulating the size of the economy, also had to intervene with subsidies, taxes and legal regulations in order to promote social distributional goals to a significantly greater extent than today, as would be needed in order to prevent the non-growth situation from creating mass unemployment, poverty and substantially increased social marginalisation.

According to the above quote, you're talking about a system where there was "pure" capitalism and then as growth rates started to approach zero, the "capitalists" asked for government help and then got it. If you're central argument is that government intervention in the economy is bad because of the above, then, well I'll agree with you.

But you can't call this system "capitalism." Although "crony capitalism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)" may work.

So I guess, please define capitalism?

[Profit]

So you're arguing that raising standards of living is not a good thing?



Wow. No I was pointing out why a capitalistic system has to keep expanding. The problem is that as more and more people achieve a higher standard of living labor costs and resource consumption increase. As the supply of resources dwindle cost rise and profit falls.

According to the above quote, you're talking about a system where there was "pure" capitalism and then as growth rates started to approach zero, the "capitalists" asked for government help and then got it. If you're central argument is that government intervention in the economy is bad because of the above, then, well I'll agree with you.

But you can't call this system "capitalism."

Actually I was responding to the idea that somehow a capitalistic system could achieve zero growth in order to prevent resource depletion. Bottom line is that growth in essential for the stability of a capitalistic system. In order to have a zero growth economy you would need heavy regulation (from the gov't) and at that point it would no longer be a capitalistic system.





Profit added to this post, 4 minutes and 58 seconds later...

In the second place noone can claim that quality education isn't available to everyone at no expense ..... other than to the American taxpayer.


Really? Having gone through one of the least funded school systems in my state and worked in the DC public school system I would have to disagree.

[phej]

Wow. No I was pointing out why a capitalistic system has to keep expanding. The problem is that as more and more people achieve a higher standard of living labor costs and resource consumption increase. As the supply of resources dwindle cost rise and profit falls.

Actually I was responding to the idea that somehow a capitalistic system could achieve zero growth in order to prevent resource depletion. Bottom line is that growth in essential for the stability of a capitalistic system. In order to have a zero growth economy you would need heavy regulation (from the gov't) and at that point it would no longer be a capitalistic system.

So if you're primary beef is resource depletion, then talk about that instead of saying that Capitalism or some other economic system is bad. Resource depletion is mostly independent of social, economic, or political system. We can't even guess at what resources such as oil is actually available or not because the amount in reserves is too dependent on how much it costs to mine it (so the price of oil, which is a reflection of scarcity, and interest rates influence each other).

Just fyi, Ehrlich lost his bet with Simon about the price of a set of resources that Ehrlich chose:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thomas Malthus has been proven wrong about the population going awry (his choice for food growth was linear, not exponential which is what the historical trend looks like.)

Paul Ehrlich wrote this in the Population Bomb:
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...

He was proven wrong by the original Green Revolution of the late Norman Borlaug.

[Profit]

So if you're primary beef is resource depletion, then talk about that instead of saying that Capitalism or some other economic system is bad. Resource depletion is mostly independent of social, economic, or political system. We can't even guess at what resources such as oil is actually available or not because the amount in reserves is too dependent on how much it costs to mine it (so the price of oil, which is a reflection of scarcity, and interest rates influence each other).

I have no 'beef'. I am not arguing for socialism or any other ism, I'm just trying to have a rational discussion concerning capitalism and its negative aspects. I have simply pointed out that capitalism is centered on increasing capital, you do this by providing goods/services to people for them to consume. Consumer consumption is what drives capitalism. Everything revolves around creating new wants and providing for them.

Julian L. Simon and Paul Ehrlich made their bet in 1980. One thing I have stressed in my argument is the rise of China and India, if they continue to develop along capitalistic lines our consumption of resources, again already eating into our resource 'savings', will at some point be unsustainable.



Thomas Malthus has been proven wrong about the population going awry (his choice for food growth was linear, not exponential which is what the historical trend looks like.)

Paul Ehrlich wrote this in the Population Bomb:


He was proven wrong by the original Green Revolution of the late Norman Borlaug.

In terms of agriculture:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

- 1.5 billion additional people will be on the planet by 2020, almost all in poorer developing countries;
- the natural fertility of agricultural soils is generally declining; and
- it is increasingly difficult to find productive new land to expand the agricultural base.
- Competition for water will further magnify constraints to food production. While inputs and new technologies may succeed in offsetting these declining conditions for the foreseeable future, the challenge of meeting human needs may grow ever more difficult over longer periods of time.

Also, agriculture is dependent on chemical fertilizers. By as soon as 2030 we may see world demand outstrip the supply phosphate available.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for all plants and animals. It is also one of the three key components (together with nitrogen and potassium) of fertilizers, and so is crucial for the world’s food supply system. With continued population growth, improving diets and rising global demand for food and biofuels, the need for phosphate fertilizers to improve crop production will only increase.
A failure to curb the extravagant use of fertilizers will lead to an unsustainable outtake of natural phosphorus which will send ripples of unease into the global food production sector. As these reserves decline, the impacts will be immense, including falling farm output, higher food prices, growing food insecurity and escalating social and economic challenges for which the world is unprepared.
Within a few decades, global economic development could be constrained not just by supplies of oil, but by the availability of phosphorus. Based on the data that are available, it is clear that alarm bells should be ringing, they warn.

[phej]

As for phosphate reserves, there's one state that claims it has access to 300 years of phosphate, Florida:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The usgs has some data about mineral reserves, but I'm too lazy to sift through all of it:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

phosphate production (millions of tons)

2007 - 156,000
2008 - 167,000

reserves (economically extractable today)

15,000,000

reserve base (economically extractable assuming some kinds of technological trends)

47,000,000

Seems like it's last a long time (90 - 281 years at current rate of production.)

According to the usgs report, there is no active recycling programs for phosphate. I imagine that if it became too expensive to mine, we would recycle it from our garbage, extract it from rendering plants, or extract it from chicken pooh.

As for China or India becoming wealthy, the net effect is that prices will simply go up for goods and services. In any economic system (socialist or capitalist), this will serve as a natural feedback mechanism to limit growth.

In principle, any political or economic system can experience growth in wealth and consumption. What makes capitalism so special that it will lead to our death spiral?

[Profit]

As for phosphate reserves, there's one state that claims it has access to 300 years of phosphate, Florida:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The usgs has some data about mineral reserves, but I'm too lazy to sift through all of it:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

phosphate production (millions of tons)

2007 - 156,000
2008 - 167,000

reserves (economically extractable today)

15,000,000

reserve base (economically extractable assuming some kinds of technological trends)

47,000,000

Seems like it's last a long time (90 - 281 years at current rate of production.)

According to the usgs report, there is no active recycling programs for phosphate. I imagine that if it became too expensive to mine, we would recycle it from our garbage, extract it from rendering plants, or extract it from chicken pooh.

As for China or India becoming wealthy, the net effect is that prices will simply go up for goods and services. In any economic system (socialist or capitalist), this will serve as a natural feedback mechanism to limit growth.

In principle, any political or economic system can experience growth in wealth and consumption. What makes capitalism so special that it will lead to our death spiral?

The key here is that cost will increase as extracting lesser grade phosphorus will become more difficult......there goes that profit margin.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Modern agricultural systems are dependent on continual inputs of phosphorus fertilizers processed from phosphate rock. Yet phosphate rock, like oil, is a non-renewable resource that takes 10-15 million years to cycle naturally. While all farmers need access to phosphorus, just 5 countries control around 90% of the world’s remaining phosphate rock reserves, including China, the US and Morocco (which also controls Western Sahara’s reserves). Studies suggest current high-grade reserves will be depleted within 50-100 years. Further, peak phosphorus could occur by 2030. While the exact timing might be disputed, it is widely accepted that the quality of phosphate rock is decreasing and costs increasing. In mid 2008 the price of phosphate rock reached a peak 800% higher than early 2007

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Phosphate extraction will peak around 2030, after which time demand will exceed supply.2 Economically recoverable reserves of phosphate rock (those that can be profitably extracted using existing technologies) are currently estimated at 15 billion tonnes, and about 167 million tonnes are extracted per year. According to the US Geological Survey, at the current rate of extraction, which is increasing by 2% per year, phosphate reserves will last about 50 years, but at 3% per year, they will last less than 45 years. In 2008, however, the amount extracted increased by a record 7%, driven mainly by China, where output rose by 10%, and the US and Morocco by 4% over 2007.3 Even if so-called base reserves (those that are not economically recoverable at present) are exploited, these would be depleted within 75 years if the rate of extraction were to rise to 3% per year. The cost of processing these low-grade base and offshore reserves would also be enormous, raising the cost of producing food, making this commodity the main determinant of global economic development.


I am simply pointing out a negative aspect of capitalism, the inefficient use and depletion of resources for short term economic growth, I am not talking about an end of the world death spiral so please don't put words in my mouth.

[Causa Mortis]

This strikes me as simple envy. The concentrations of wealth constitute capital that is most often used productively - even if it's to buy Rolls Royce's. The individuals that own such wealth have it invested in companies that employ people. Of course the uses that the rightful owners would choose are doubtless different from those of the central planners, who would most likely use it to get reelected or give it to their buddies.

I'm as disgusted as anyone at the salaries of professional athletes and wall street CEOs, for example. But I don't think that gives me the right to legislate that their wealth should be confiscated.

The marginal utility of another 100,000 in consumption for a wealthy individual is far, far less than the marginal utility of, say, a heart surgery for a poor person, or a college education for the children of the poor.

Additionally, this notion of "rightful owners" is a social construct. The value of your labor is in great part determined by interacting with other's capital, other's labor, the accumulated technology of a society, and the social system. Its the result of the marginal productivity of your labor, but your labor isn't worth much in isolation.

I prefer to avoid emotional comments like "envy" and theft. Society decides, one way or another, how to distribute resources. No way around it.

[lurk]

The marginal utility of another 100,000 in consumption for a wealthy individual is far, far less than the marginal utility of, say, a heart surgery for a poor person, or a college education for the children of the poor.

Unless the guy getting the heart surgery is Jeffry Dahmer and the $100k is invested in a biotech firm that discovers a cure for cancer. The point is you have no basis for making that value judgement.

Additionally, this notion of "rightful owners" is a social construct. The value of your labor is in great part determined by interacting with other's capital, other's labor, the accumulated technology of a society, and the social system. Its the result of the marginal productivity of your labor, but your labor isn't worth much in isolation.

So if I and my co-worker earn the same amount of money over the course of years but I save mine and he spends his on whiskey & wimmin, then he is entitled to a share of my savings? Bulls**t! But we're wasting time here, going back over ground covered with hubcap.

[firebee]

You know, I have this little bug buzzing around my head concerning the environmental effects of various political systems that I thought I might share with y'all...

One of the things that my librulcommie (not at all practicing engineer ever because it was a bunch of Marxists that taught me information systems theory and economic decision analysis) undergrad professors fed me was something akin to the following: The folks in charge of planning in the Soviet Union were good at coming up with grand ideologically-correct schemes, bad at anything resembling practical implementation or testing a scheme for feasibility, and highly paranoid. They were particularly mistrustful of engineers, partly because members of that august profession had a way of telling them things that they did not want to hear.

This is not a good combination -- both on a macro scale since misbegotten projects were attempted and promptly met with not just environmental but human disaster and also on a micro scale because overly mouthy engineers had a way of getting shot.

Here is a description of the thing. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Given this, how is environmental devastation a greater risk in a capitalist economy versus a socialist one?

[Causa Mortis]

Unless the guy getting the heart surgery is Jeffry Dahmer and the $100k is invested in a biotech firm that discovers a cure for cancer. The point is you have no basis for making that value judgement.


I have plenty of basis for making that value judgement. Consumption is subject to diminishing marginal utility. Your 14th beer makes you a lot less marginally happy than your 2nd or 3rd.

Going from 2,000,000 to 2,100,000 isn't going to make you substantially more happy. Giving a heart surgery to an uninsured patient, or putting someone thorugh college is going to be generally subject to far higher levels of utility than ever more frivolous levels of consumption.


So if I and my co-worker earn the same amount of money over the course of years but I save mine and he spends his on whiskey & wimmin, then he is entitled to a share of my savings? Bulls**t!

Straw man. That doesn't even begin to approximate my argument.

[phej]

I am simply pointing out a negative aspect of capitalism, the inefficient use and depletion of resources for short term economic growth, I am not talking about an end of the world death spiral so please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm was a little tired, please excuse my hyperbole.

Given this, how is environmental devastation a greater risk in a capitalist economy versus a socialist one?

Profit, firebee asked my question in a much better way. But, I would extend the question to compare a capitalist economy with any other economic system (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Profit]

I'm was a little tired, please excuse my hyperbole.
I was tired as well, no worries.



Profit, firebee asked my question in a much better way. But, I would extend the question to compare a capitalist economy with any other economic system (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

“These two big countries, China and India, they’re finally acting like capitalists and you got to understand capitalism, my friends, is about conspicuous consumption.” - Jim Cramer

Obviously all economic systems, and individuals, have to consume resources in order to function. In capitalism though conspicuous consumption is a central part of society and vital to the overall health of the economy. Again, industry creates new wants and fills them while individuals equate happiness with money and the consumption of consumer goods (ever seen a kid in a toy store). The end result is an ever expanding consumption of resources that actually do very little to improve the lives of the consumer (conspicuous consumption not consumption of basic goods ie food and shelter). This has been manageable in the past but I think we are beginning to see the point where this becomes unsustainable.

Socialism for example (and I am not saying that socialism doesn't have its downsides as well just comparing the two in terms of resource use) is not driven by conspicuous consumption but rather maintaining a minimum standard of living for the population. A socialist economy is also less focused on growth, it only needs to expand if the population grows where as growth is central to capitalism. Finally, because the economy is more or less controlled resources can be more easily managed in a socialist system.





Profit added to this post, 2 minutes and 21 seconds later...




So if I and my co-worker earn the same amount of money over the course of years but I save mine and he spends his on whiskey & wimmin, then he is entitled to a share of my savings? Bulls**t! But we're wasting time here, going back over ground covered with hubcap.

But if enough individuals don't spend their money on on whiskey and don't buy the latest and biggest gadgets that they don't really need then the companies that make these goods do not see their sales increase meaning that value of their stocks go down and the individuals that invested in those stocks see the value of their investments decrease. Capitalistic systems need their lower and middle classes to spend their income - not invest it. If everyone saves their money the system starts to break down.

[hubcap]

But if enough individuals don't spend their money on on whiskey and don't buy the latest and biggest gadgets that they don't really need then the companies that make these goods do not see their sales increase meaning that value of their stocks go down and the individuals that invested in those stocks see the value of their investments decrease. Capitalistic systems need their lower and middle classes to spend their income - not invest it. If everyone saves their money the system starts to break down.

Savings just creates a temporary slowdown as consumers postpone purchases.

[phej]

“These two big countries, China and India, they’re finally acting like capitalists and you got to understand capitalism, my friends, is about conspicuous consumption.” - Jim Cramer

Obviously all economic systems, and individuals, have to consume resources in order to function. In capitalism though conspicuous consumption is a central part of society and vital to the overall health of the economy. Again, industry creates new wants and fills them while individuals equate happiness with money and the consumption of consumer goods (ever seen a kid in a toy store). The end result is an ever expanding consumption of resources that actually do very little to improve the lives of the consumer (conspicuous consumption not consumption of basic goods ie food and shelter). This has been manageable in the past but I think we are beginning to see the point where this becomes unsustainable.

Conspicuous consumption, I would argue is not a function of an economic system, but cultural factors. Yes, they're closely related because increased wealth makes it easier for conspicuous consumption to exist.

Socialism for example (and I am not saying that socialism doesn't have its downsides as well just comparing the two in terms of resource use) is not driven by conspicuous consumption but rather maintaining a minimum standard of living for the population. A socialist economy is also less focused on growth, it only needs to expand if the population grows where as growth is central to capitalism. Finally, because the economy is more or less controlled resources can be more easily managed in a socialist system.

How would explain the socialist economies in Europe? Their standards of living are extremely high in comparison to India or China. According to some measures, these countries have a higher standard of living than the U.S. Or would you bin Sweden as an example of a capitalist nation?

[yoginimama]

The issue re capitalism is not, imho, whether resources are sustainable. Time and again, it's looked like we were up against absolute limits which turned out not to be the case. This might be the time our luck finally runs out--but it might not.

To me, the issue with capitalism is greed. Somebody, somewhere, has to lose in order for others to win under (unfettered) capitalism. It robs Peter to pay Paul. Take "vulture funds:"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

From the article:

"In the mid-1990s, a Republican businessman called Paul Singer invented a new type of hedge fund, quickly dubbed a “vulture fund.” They buy debts racked up years ago by the poorest countries on earth, almost always when they were run by kleptocratic dictators, before most of the current population was born. They buy it for small sums – as little as 10 percent of its paper value – from the original holder and then take the poor country to court in Britain or the US to demand 100 percent of the debt is repaid immediately, plus interest built up over years, and court costs."

This means countries can't spend money on medicines, roads, schools because they have to pay an investor.

More from the article:

"An hour’s drive from Kinshasa, the capital of Congo, I found an orphanage filled with emaciated children. Hundreds sat in dank rooms, rocking silently back and forward. The orphanage had a staff of one: an elderly French woman. Since six million people have died in the war in Congo, these are the lucky ones: at least they have a roof. The vulture funds demanded $100m from this country."

That is why capitalism et al is a bad thing. That...and slavery, sweatshops, the "dark satanic mills," downsizing, outsourcing, "consumer-directed healthcare."

Capitalism *can* be a good force for generating wealth, but only under the strictures of a mixed economy with a strong public sector. It needs to spend its days strapped to the wall with a couple of dominatrices standing by. "Vice lop't and bound," as Mandeville put it in "Fable of the Bees." Let capitalism off the chain, however, and Bad Things Happen. Like vulture funds.

[hubcap]

To me, the issue with capitalism is greed. Somebody, somewhere, has to lose in order for others to win under (unfettered) capitalism. It robs Peter to pay Paul.

This is patently false and once again you are using emotive terms to shore up your argument.

Capitalism is NOT a zero sum game. Trading commodites is, but not capitalism.

If I pay you $10 / hr to perform a task and you create goods that I turn around and sell for a profit, we both gain.

Who lost?

[phej]

This is patently false and once again you are using emotive terms to shore up your argument.

Capitalism is NOT a zero sum game. Trading commodites is, but not capitalism.

If I pay you $10 / hr to perform a task and you create goods that I turn around and sell for a profit, we both gain.

Who lost?

This is off-topic, but you should go study Marxism. Not that I agree with the underlying philosophy, but a Marxist will claim that the worker was exploited because he has no choice in the matter if he works for you or not. He has no choice because the bourgeoisie own the methods of production.

[yoginimama]

If capitalism is not a zero-sum game, how come you think "wealth redistribution" is?

Using your example--if I take 10% of my income *and your income to create and maintain a sweet sewer system or free health care system or door-to-door free public transportation system, "we both gain. Who lost?"

You may say "But I didn't want the transportation system so you took my money by force, because I voted against the measure and I lost."

1) Those are the rules of a republic. You lost the vote. Calling the result "theft" or "coercion" implies that you don't believe the legislative process is valid. Which implies you don't agree with democracy as a legitimate form of government. Which is a whole other can of worms.

2) Whether you wanted the transportation system or not, you have to admit that it's bringing customers and workers right to your doorstep who might not previously have had access to you. Look, they're buying your stuff, applying for jobs with you, and then stopping in at the cafe next door for lunch! The money you and your fellow business owners are making from this should cover what was "taken" from you for the bus system.

[themuzicman]

* You can't take my money and your money and make a free health care system. You've already taken money to pay for it, so it cannot be free.

[hubcap]

If capitalism is not a zero-sum game, how come you think "wealth redistribution" is?
Here is one reason - The bureacracy takes a huge chunk of the money for administration.

Using your example--if I take 10% of my income *and your income to create and maintain a sweet sewer system or free health care system or door-to-door free public transportation system, "we both gain. Who lost?"
If I'm paying for the service via taxation it isn't free.

You may say "But I didn't want the transportation system so you took my money by force, because I voted against the measure and I lost."

1) Those are the rules of a republic. You lost the vote. Calling the result "theft" or "coercion" implies that you don't believe the legislative process is valid. Which implies you don't agree with democracy as a legitimate form of government. Which is a whole other can of worms.
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic and the rights of the individual are protected via the Constitution. The majority do not have the legitimate authority to usurp the rights of the individual. Don't take my word for it........look it up.

2) Whether you wanted the transportation system or not, you have to admit that it's bringing customers and workers right to your doorstep who might not previously have had access to you. Look, they're buying your stuff, applying for jobs with you, and then stopping in at the cafe next door for lunch! The money you and your fellow business owners are making from this should cover what was "taken" from you for the bus system.
What makes you think customers wouldn't have shown up anyway? If I have a good product there will be a demand for the product. If I have a poor product no amount of taxation will cause people to show up and buy it.

[Silverity]

I read most of your posts and I'm not going to pretend I know anywhere near as much as you folks do but here are my humble issues with capitalism:

1. Capitalism treats everything as a commodity. Not everything is a commodity! Health and water are NOT things to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. They are life essentials. If you look at the data, private for-profit healthcare costs more, is of lower quality, and results in more deaths. That's ridiculous.

2. Capitalism involves hoarding wealth. Now, I know Americans are all about the "I do things for me and only for me, screw my neighbour" type attitude but we're all jammed together through global trade.

Through agreements like TRIPS, companies can hoard wealth through monopolies, they can pump out a product designed to break in a few months, make people buy more, and hey! They contribute to consumerism and make capital--sounds great.

Have you read about genetically engineered seeds yet? Seeds that won't reproduce? Have you read that farmers all over India are starving and committing suicide because their crops only last one season, and if that season fails, there's no food? Buy other seeds? What other seeds? Trade with your neighbour? That's illegal now.

So in the process of hoarding wealth and making seeds that require farmers to buy more every year, yes, a company does very well. But people are starving. We're already in a food crisis, we've already lost genetic diversity amongst most of our cash crops, pushing our food supply to the limit for the sake of money is not a wise move.

It's not just seeds of course, industrial waste and water rights are large issues as well. Point is, treating everything like a commodity, designing products to fail, this is not a good system. We have a finite number of resources and the basic necessities of life should not be distributed on a free market designed for rich countries and individuals.

And if you're going to reply and want a response, might want to send me a message because I'll probably forget I posted here. I usually try and stay 50 feet away from these types of discussion =P

[yoginimama]

Big Box stores don't remotely take for granted that people will somehow magically show up at their doors. They build huge parking lots in suburban areas, making them irresistibly easy to reach. Maybe I should have said "build you and your small businessmen a strip mall with a huge parking lot." Oh, and maybe I should have thrown in a fund for television advertising.

It strikes me as incredibly naive, in this day and age, to say something like "If I have a good product there will be a demand for the product." You can't really believe that. Again--do you think the suburban locations, huge parking lots, and ubiquitous advertising of our big box retailers is somehow an accident? Like they were born that way? To say nothing of the promotional displays of the major corporate products *in the stores.

That's all a deliberately crafted and highly expensive tilting of the playing field. *Those* are the factors which make people buy things. They've heard about it a zillion times on TV, they've driven by the big box which sells it a zillion times a week, the parking lot is big and convenient, and once they get in the store, there are signs pointing to the products and salespeople in their faces saying "Can I help you find something??" The big boxes are BUYING our purchases. As strange as that sounds.

There is no competition, not really--just theater. There is no individualism the way you define it--just fantasies. What you think is "yours," isn't. Collective power--the rest of us banding together to get what none of us could get on our own (higher wages, better benefits, safer streets, a fighting chance for small businesses)--is the only way to realize individual dreams.

#

Taxation without apportionment, which a lot of people here are calling "theft" and "coercion" and "usurping rights," is granted to Congress by the Sixteenth Amendment.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ion

Like it or not, the government gets to tax us. And nowhere does it say "Yeah, but not for the purposes of universal health care." It gets to tax us, period. That's the entry fee for living in the United States. It's not even such a big deal. Several states in the Union are considered tax havens!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[hubcap]

It strikes me as incredibly naive, in this day and age, to say something like "If I have a good product there will be a demand for the product." You can't really believe that. Again--do you think the suburban locations, huge parking lots, and ubiquitous advertising of our big box retailers is somehow an accident? Like they were born that way? To say nothing of the promotional displays of the major corporate products *in the stores.
Not naive, an oversimplification perhaps, but not naive. More correctly stated would be: If I have a good product that is in demand, at a competitive price, readily available.........then people will buy it.

There is no competition, not really--just theater. There is no individualism the way you define it--just fantasies. What you think is "yours," isn't. Collective power--the rest of us banding together to get what none of us could get on our own (higher wages, better benefits, safer streets, a fighting chance for small businesses)--is the only way to realize individual dreams.
What do you think that I think is mine? As far as the "collective" thing..........again its all a matter of degree. I have already stated that I am not opposed to ALL social projects. If you think you are going to get higher wages and better benefits by being in a collective I would suggest you talk to some of the folks over at General Motors to see what collectivism has resulted in there.

Taxation without apportionment, which a lot of people here are calling "theft" and "coercion" and "usurping rights," is granted to Congress by the Sixteenth Amendment.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ion

Like it or not, the government gets to tax us. And nowhere does it say "Yeah, but not for the purposes of universal health care." It gets to tax us, period. That's the entry fee for living in the United States. It's not even such a big deal. Several states in the Union are considered tax havens!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I have never argued that the government doesn't get to levy taxes. Your notion that taxation is an entry fee is philosophically incorrect. If it were true then everyone would pay taxes. Almost half the people in the country pay ZERO income taxes. From an economist's standpoint those folks are referred to as "free riders". They get all the benefits the citizens of this nation enjoy without paying a dime. That's is one of the fundamental problems of socialism...........it destroys incentive.

Half the people in this country are paying for their benefits plus the other half's benefits as well. How is that rational?

[Warrior]

I read most of your posts and I'm not going to pretend I know anywhere near as much as you folks do but here are my humble issues with capitalism:

1. Capitalism treats everything as a commodity. Not everything is a commodity! Health and water are NOT things to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. They are life essentials. If you look at the data, private for-profit healthcare costs more, is of lower quality, and results in more deaths. That's ridiculous.

2. Capitalism involves hoarding wealth. Now, I know Americans are all about the "I do things for me and only for me, screw my neighbour" type attitude but we're all jammed together through global trade.



This is absurd. Not everything is treated as a commodity. Go into any store and for just about anything you can think to look for there are a variety of choices based on quality, price, and other factors. Health care is not a commodity now. I've spent the last couple months shopping around at various plans and looking into the advantages of cancelling my health insurance. There are a lot of options available because it is for-profit. A socialized health care would be a commodity - the same level of care no matter where you go. Just think of how great that will be - absolutely no hope of being able to do better.

I don't know anyone that does things for themselves with that attitude. Many people give to churches, charitable organizations, and other groups. In fact, the more we head toward socialism, the less giving there is. Completely understandable - who wants to help anyone in a socialist system? That means you have more than someone else and hence you become the target for those think we should all have the same.

[Profit]

Conspicuous consumption, I would argue is not a function of an economic system, but cultural factors. Yes, they're closely related because increased wealth makes it easier for conspicuous consumption to exist.

From To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

With significant improvement of living standards and the emergence of the middle class in the 20th century, the term conspicuous consumption is now broadly applied to individuals and households with expendable incomes whose consumption patterns are prompted by the utility of goods to show their status rather than any intrinsic utility of such goods. In the 1920s, economists such as Paul Nystrom theorized that lifestyle changes brought on by the industrial age were inducing a "philosophy of futility" in the masses, which would increase fashionable consumption. Thus, the concept of conspicuous consumption has been discussed in the context of addictive or narcissistic behaviors induced by consumerism, the desire for immediate gratification, and hedonic expectations.

I don't think you can separate cultural from economics. Capitalism, for example, is developed in Western Europe for specific cultural reasons. It really takes off when middle and lower classes begin to have disposable income and are able to buy non essential goods, something that has a tremendous impact on culture.



How would explain the socialist economies in Europe? Their standards of living are extremely high in comparison to India or China. According to some measures, these countries have a higher standard of living than the U.S. Or would you bin Sweden as an example of a capitalist nation?

“While the EF of the average African or Asian consumer was less than 1.4 hectares per person in 1999, the average Western European’s footprint was about 5.0 hectares, and the average North American’s was about 9.6 hectares,” says the WWF.

Seeing how many western european countries with high standards of living are actually examples of mixed economies it would prove my point about socialist economies consuming less resources compared to capitalist economies.





Profit added to this post, 6 minutes and 46 seconds later...

This is absurd. Not everything is treated as a commodity. Go into any store and for just about anything you can think to look for there are a variety of choices based on quality, price, and other factors. Health care is not a commodity now. I've spent the last couple months shopping around at various plans and looking into the advantages of cancelling my health insurance. There are a lot of options available because it is for-profit. A socialized health care would be a commodity - the same level of care no matter where you go. Just think of how great that will be - absolutely no hope of being able to do better.

I don't know anyone that does things for themselves with that attitude. Many people give to churches, charitable organizations, and other groups. In fact, the more we head toward socialism, the less giving there is. Completely understandable - who wants to help anyone in a socialist system? That means you have more than someone else and hence you become the target for those think we should all have the same.

"In classical political economy a commodity is any good or service produced by human labour and offered as a product for general sale on the market. Some other priced goods are also treated as commodities, e.g. human labor-power, works of art and natural resources, even although they may not be produced specifically for the market, or be non-reproducible goods."

So you think because you can choose between 30 different types of toothpaste at CVS that toothpaste isn't a commodity? Health insurance is a commodity, it is a service that is bought and sold in a marketplace.

As for your second part, care to back any of that up?

[phej]

With significant improvement of living standards and the emergence of the middle class in the 20th century, the term conspicuous consumption is now broadly applied to individuals and households with expendable incomes whose consumption patterns are prompted by the utility of goods to show their status rather than any intrinsic utility of such goods. In the 1920s, economists such as Paul Nystrom theorized that lifestyle changes brought on by the industrial age were inducing a "philosophy of futility" in the masses, which would increase fashionable consumption. Thus, the concept of conspicuous consumption has been discussed in the context of addictive or narcissistic behaviors induced by consumerism, the desire for immediate gratification, and hedonic expectations.

I don't think you can separate cultural from economics. Capitalism, for example, is developed in Western Europe for specific cultural reasons.

Such as?

It really takes off when middle and lower classes begin to have disposable income and are able to buy non essential goods, something that has a tremendous impact on culture.

Couldn't you boil this into, "Members of society X are wealthy. Because they're wealthy, they make their lives more comfortable and buy more stuff?" How is this a function of an economic system? A socialist economy could grow in the same way. Besides, why do you or I get to judge what a "non-essential good" is?

“While the EF of the average African or Asian consumer was less than 1.4 hectares per person in 1999, the average Western European’s footprint was about 5.0 hectares, and the average North American’s was about 9.6 hectares,” says the WWF.

Seeing how many western european countries with high standards of living are actually examples of mixed economies it would prove my point about socialist economies consuming less resources compared to capitalist economies.

What in the world is an EF? I'll assume it means "ecological footprint." I really can't argue with the numbers because I don't know what it's measuring, but wouldn't measures of energy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) intensity (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (energy consumed per gdp) and energy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) per capita (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ) be more apt as a proxy for resource consumption? It takes energy to produce all of the goods and services in an economy. I was expecting the United States to be very wasteful, but it seems as though we're somewhere close to the world average on a per-capita basis in terms of intensity. But because of relative wealth of the nation, the U.S is king in absolute energy consumption, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and fairly high in the per-capita energy consumption. (Although I really wonder what Qatar and Iceland are doing with all of the energy per capita...)

"In classical political economy a commodity is any good or service produced by human labour and offered as a product for general sale on the market. Some other priced goods are also treated as commodities, e.g. human labor-power, works of art and natural resources, even although they may not be produced specifically for the market, or be non-reproducible goods."

Citation please? It looks like the both of you are using different definitions of commodity. For Warrior, a commodity is a fungible good. For you, a commodity is any good.

[Profit]

Such as?

Couldn't you boil this into, "Members of society X are wealthy. Because they're wealthy, they make their lives more comfortable and buy more stuff?" How is this a function of an economic system? A socialist economy could grow in the same way. Besides, why do you or I get to judge what a "non-essential good" is?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
As a way of thinking, capitalism involves the following:

Capitalism as a way of thinking is fundamentally individualistic, that is, that the individual is the center of capitalist endeavor. This idea draws on all the Enlightenment concepts of individuality: that all individuals are different, that society is composed of individuals who pursue their own interests, that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests (this, in capitalism, is called "economic freedom"), and that, in a democratic sense, individuals pursuing their own interests will guarantee the interests of society as a whole.

Capitalism as a way of thinking is fundamentally based on the Enlightenment idea of progress; the large-scale social goal of unregulated capitalism is to produce wealth, that is, to make the national economy wealthier and more affluent than it normally would be. Therefore, in a concept derived whole-cloth from the idea of progress, the entire structure of capitalism as a way of thinking is built on the idea of "economic growth." This economic growth has no prescribed end; the purpose is for nations to grow steadily wealthier.

Economics, the analysis of the production and distribution of goods, has to be abstracted out of other areas of knowledge. In other words, capitalism as a way of thinking divorces the production and distribution of goods from other concerns, such as politics, religion, ethics, etc., and treats production and distribution as independent human endeavors. In this view, the fundamental purpose and meaning of human life is productive labor.

The economic world view treats the economy as if it were mechanical, that is, subject to certain predictable laws. This means that economic behavior can be rationally calculated , and these rational calculations are always future-directed . So, the mechanistic view of the economy leads to an exclusively teleological world picture; capitalism as a manipulation of the "machine" of the economy is always directed to the future and intentionally regards the past as of no concern. This, in part, is one of the fundamental origins of modernity, the sense that the cultural present is discontinuous with the past.

The fundamental unit of meaning in capitalist and economic thought is the object , that is, capitalism relies on the creation of a consumer culture, a large segment of the population that is not producing most of what it is consuming. Since capitalism, like mercantilism, is fundamentally based on distributing goods—moving goods from one place to another—consumers have no social relation to the people who produce the goods they consume. In non-capitalist societies, such as tribal societies, people have real social relations to the producers of the goods they consume. But when people no longer have social relations with others who make the objects they consume, that means that the only relation they have is with the object itself. So part of capitalism as a way of thinking is that people become "consumers," that is, they define themselves by the objects they purchase rather than the objects they produce.





Profit added to this post, 18 minutes and 7 seconds later...





What in the world is an EF? I'll assume it means "ecological footprint." I really can't argue with the numbers because I don't know what it's measuring, but wouldn't measures of energy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) intensity (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (energy consumed per gdp) and energy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) per capita (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ) be more apt as a proxy for resource consumption? It takes energy to produce all of the goods and services in an economy. I was expecting the United States to be very wasteful, but it seems as though we're somewhere close to the world average on a per-capita basis in terms of intensity. But because of relative wealth of the nation, the U.S is king in absolute energy consumption, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and fairly high in the per-capita energy consumption. (Although I really wonder what Qatar and Iceland are doing with all of the energy per capita...)



Yes EF means ecological footprint. This is not the same as energy consumption but obviously energy consumption factors into it. I'm not sure what your point is. Either the US has the largest EF or it consumes the most energy? Either way it is consuming an ever increasing amount of the world's resources.

[phej]

Profit, you want to say this:

Capitalism -> Economic Growth -> Resource Depletion.

I don't agree that it would be capitalism, because it can be any other economic system. Instead it ought to look like this:

Successful nation -> Economic Growth -> Resource Depletion (maybe).

[Profit]

Profit, you want to say this:

Capitalism -> Economic Growth -> Resource Depletion.

I don't agree that it would be capitalism, because it can be any other economic system. Instead it ought to look like this:

Successful nation -> Economic Growth -> Resource Depletion (maybe).

No what I am saying is this:

Capitalism -> Economic Growth based on Increasing Consumer Consumption -> Resource Depletion


From Death by Consumption
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Addressing the power of capital to organize the production process for its own private ends enables us to consider sources of ecologically damaging consumption that have little to do with the predispositions of ordinary consumers. For instance, the built-in obsolescence of many modern products is not a reflection of the will of the "sovereign consumer," but rather of the producer's self-interested drive to maintain and increase commercial profit. The issues here, as Renner recognizes, go beyond simple product design, directing us to the ecological effects of the entire production process. As he suggests, it is a common mistake to think that "consumption" merely takes place at the point of final use; indeed, the majority (up to 70 per cent by some estimates) of the materials that are destroyed or displaced by today's capitalist economy are incorporated into the production process and discarded as waste long before the "consumer" decides to buy a finished product. (101–2) How many swooning newlyweds, for instance, are aware of the fact that (as the authors of Chapter 1 point out) "roughly 3 tons of toxic mining waste are produced in mining the amount of gold needed in a single wedding ring?" (16) It should be remembered that such "hidden flows," which largely account for the inflated levels of per capita resource consumption and waste that environmentalists report, emerge from a privately-controlled production process that operates beyond the knowledge, influence, or explicit approval of ordinary consumers."

[Ray9]

Capitalism certainly can deplete resources but it also creates new technologies that can be used to renew or replace depleted resources. No other system of economics provides the incentives neccessary to create new technologies so although capitalism is not perfect, it has a built in self-correcting feature that all other systems lack.

[Profit]

No other system of economics provides the incentives neccessary to create new technologies so although capitalism is not perfect, it has a built in self-correcting feature that all other systems lack.

You're going to have to back this statement up.

[phej]

No what I am saying is this:

Capitalism -> Economic Growth based on Increasing Consumer Consumption -> Resource Depletion

Ok, but replace "Capitalism" with any other economic system enumerated from here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):
American School, Anarchism, Anarcho-capitalism, Anarcho-communism, Autarky, Barter economy, Buddhist Economy, Capitalism, Colonialism, Communism, Coordinatorism, Corporatism, Corporate capitalism, Digital Economy, Distributism, Dirigisme, Fascist socialization, Feudalism, Green economy, Hydraulic despotism, Inclusive Democracy, Information economy, Internet Economy, Islamic economics, Japanese System, Knowledge economy, Libertarian communism, Libertarian socialism, Market economy, Market socialism, Marxian economics, Mercantilism, Mixed economy, Mutualism, National Socialism, Natural economy, Neo-colonialism, Network Economy, Nordic model, Non-property system, Parecon, Participatory economy, Planned economy, Progressive Utilization Theory, Resource based economy, Self-management, Social market economy, Socialism, Socialist market economy, Syndicalism, Subsistence economy, Traditional economy, Virtual economy,


And show how capitalism ends up consuming more resources than the other ones. Of course this list is by no means complete. By saying that Capitalism leads to more Resource Consumption, you're neglecting to say in comparison to what. I can only assume that you mean in comparison to all other economic systems.

By energy consumption per capita (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ), there are nine nations that consume more energy than the U.S.: Qatar, Iceland, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Luxembourg, Netherlands Antilles, Kuwait, Trinidad and Tobago, Canada. (Ranked in descending rank). By your measure of choice, ecological footprint (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), there is one nation that's worse than the United States: the United Arab Emirates (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Although according to the WWF, ecological remainder looks like it's a better measure of resource depletion. The nations that are worse than the U.S are Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, and Spain (in descending rank)

As for gdp growth rates, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(real)_growth_rate) the U.S. ranks number 67. (Cuba is ranked higher than the U.S.)

[Profit]

And show how capitalism ends up consuming more resources than the other ones. Of course this list is by no means complete. By saying that Capitalism leads to more Resource Consumption, you're neglecting to say in comparison to what. I can only assume that you mean in comparison to all other economic systems.

Quick question:
How does one increase capital in a capitalistic socioeconomic system?

[phej]

Quick question:
How does one increase capital in a capitalistic socioeconomic system?

You increase capital by increasing wealth usually through technological means. Now, why couldn't any other socioeconomic system do the same thing?

[Stickman]

You increase capital by increasing wealth usually through technological means. Now, why couldn't any other socioeconomic system do the same thing?

Plenty of other civilizations have slowly progressed in wealth and technology before the inception of capitalism.

I will concede that capitalism does it faster though.

[Profit]

As for gdp growth rates, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(real)_growth_rate) the U.S. ranks number 67. (Cuba is ranked higher than the U.S.)

The US is one of the most developed countries in the world therefore its overall growth rate will be slower when compared to less developed countries (that are actually developing).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





Profit added to this post, 1 minutes and 43 seconds later...

You increase capital by increasing wealth usually through technological means. Now, why couldn't any other socioeconomic system do the same thing?

You are being very vague.

If you have say 50,000 and you want to increase this amount what are your options in a capitalistic socioeconomic system?

[Stickman]

If you have say 50,000 and you want to increase this amount what are your options in a capitalistic socioeconomic system?

Investment in capital markets (ie. stocks, derivatives, bonds, venture capital), or seed money for starting your own business.

[Profit]

By energy consumption per capita (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ), there are nine nations that consume more energy than the U.S.: Qatar, Iceland, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Luxembourg, Netherlands Antilles, Kuwait, Trinidad and Tobago, Canada. (Ranked in descending rank). By your measure of choice, ecological footprint (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), there is one nation that's worse than the United States: the United Arab Emirates (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Although according to the WWF, ecological remainder looks like it's a better measure of resource depletion. The nations that are worse than the U.S are Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, and Spain (in descending rank)



I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?

Sorry this data is a little old but if you look at how Qatar consumes energy the vast majority is in industry. What does Qatar produce....oil and natural gas....what does it do with it.....sells it to developed countries..... Sounds like capitalism to me.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





Profit added to this post, 2 minutes and 9 seconds later...

Investment in capital markets (ie. stocks, derivatives, bonds, venture capital), or seed money for starting your own business.

Thank you...and what is the point of starting a business?

Or, why does the value of stock in a company increase (hopefully)?

[Stickman]

Thank you...and what is the point of starting a business?

Or, why does the value of stock in a company increase (hopefully)?

There are plenty of reasons for starting a business. It depends on the person really.

The pricing of a stock is actually a rather complicated business which I could possibly construct a wall-of-text that could be seen from space. If I could boil it down to two words I would say it's because of supply and demand.

[beano]

Capitalism is not a bad system, it is efficient and provided that it is regulated by a good government then it is the best approach for developing an economy and the lives of people in that economy. The so called communist countries are already moving towards capitalism although in a pretty well controlled way and you can see the growth they have enjoyed in the past 10 years.

Resources depletion is not a problem of capitalism in terms of it's system. In fact capitalist countries tend to protect resources better because they have far less interest in stripping resources than say a kindom/dictatorship/communist country, for who the money goes directly into their own pocket, and therefore more likely overlook the implications.

But being an efficient growth system capitalism has led to a need for using resources in a very heavy way. As the world has globalised in the last few years then we can see an exponential growth in resource use.

Mankind has great way of not recognising the future and for feeling that things can only get better. History tells us that all civilisations stagnate and then collapse. As we almost have a single global civilisation then that will be interesting when it happens.

[Profit]

There are plenty of reasons for starting a business. It depends on the person really.

The pricing of a stock is actually a rather complicated business which I could possibly construct a wall-of-text that could be seen from space. If I could boil it down to two words I would say it's because of supply and demand.

Basically what I was trying to point out is that if you start a business you are seeking to provide a good or service for people to consume. If on the other hand you invest in a business/company through the stock market you are hoping to increase your capital through the growth of that business/company. The companies you invest in increase in value by expanding their ability providing goods or services to individuals and profiting off of said consumption. Either way increasing your capital depends on increasing consumption by other individuals.





Profit added to this post, 33 minutes and 50 seconds later...


By saying that Capitalism leads to more Resource Consumption, you're neglecting to say in comparison to what. I can only assume that you mean in comparison to all other economic systems.


My reason for starting this thread was in response to the "Why is socialism et al, a bad thing?". In that thread there was a very loud segment of posters who simply dismissed socialism as a broken system that was more or less a ploy by elites to control individuals. Their argument basically boiled down to capitalism has shown to be very efficient in creating economic growth and development while being conducive to the creation of democratic societies. I do not disagree with these points but I did find the discussion disingenuous seeing how they were attacking socialism by pointing out the positive aspects of capitalism with little regard to the negative aspects of a capitalistic socioeconomic system.

Earlier in this thread I said that all economic systems and societies consume resources. The point about capitalism I have tried to make is that it depends on increasing overall consumption for continued economic growth. As a result of this we may be reaching a point in history where our consumption of resources is becoming unsustainable.
In terms of resource consumption by other economic systems I have given data that shows the mixed economies of Europe have achieved standards of living on par, if not higher, with the US while consuming nearly half the resources.





Profit added to this post, 38 minutes and 0 seconds later...

C
Resources depletion is not a problem of capitalism in terms of it's system. In fact capitalist countries tend to protect resources better because they have far less interest in stripping resources than say a kindom/dictatorship/communist country, for who the money goes directly into their own pocket, and therefore more likely overlook the implications.


That depends on whose resources you are talking about. Sure the developed nations have higher standards for environmental protection and they do manage their resources better. Seeing how we live in a capitalistic global economy however it is very easy for developed countries to protect their own resources while depleting those of others.

[beano]

That depends on whose resources you are talking about. Sure the developed nations have higher standards for environmental protection and they do manage their resources better. Seeing how we live in a capitalistic global economy however it is very easy for developed countries to protect their own resources while depleting those of others.

So if non-capitalist country is stripping it's own resources then you want to say that he capitalist countries or system are to blame?

1. I don't agree - It's up to the non-capitalistic country to manage that and the ethical decision lies with them.
2. perhaps your point is more about consumption than capitalism and its clear that all societies increase consumption usually to the point of stripping the resource entirely. (with a few exceptions). That is human nature and it is also the nature of life in general.

What you can say is that capitalism is a good way to speed up the overall depletion process, but we would get there anyway.

[Profit]

So if non-capitalist country is stripping it's own resources then you want to say that he capitalist countries or system are to blame?


We live in a capitalistic global economy. Regardless of a country's political system it functions within a wider capitalistic system. Less developed countries have few options when it comes to pursuing economic development other than to sell natural resources and raw materials to more developed countries.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[beano]

Of course they do have a choice. But they all want a new TV so they do whatever they need to do. If you think that is a situation brought about by capitalism then I would say it is much simpler than that. It is just about human greed. Generally people are greedy whether capitalist or not so it all ends up the same way.

I could agree that capitalism while being a structure is fundamentally driven by greed.

So to me the root cause of all this is human greed itself and capitalism can be perceived as the evil cause but that means you are not looking deeply enough at the issue.

[Profit]

Of course they do have a choice. But they all want a new TV so they do whatever they need to do. If you think that is a situation brought about by capitalism then I would say it is much simpler than that. It is just about human greed. Generally people are greedy whether capitalist or not so it all ends up the same way.

I could agree that capitalism while being a structure is fundamentally driven by greed.

So to me the root cause of all this is human greed itself and capitalism can be perceived as the evil cause but that means you are not looking deeply enough at the issue.

I would agree that greed plays a large part in capitalism as well as human interaction in general. One of the arguments for capitalism in the 17th and early 18th century was that by privileging and condoning one deadly sine, avarice, you could actually check the other deadly sins and create economic growth that would benefit everyone. Essentially the development of capitalism in western Europe coincided with and was dependent on an ideological transformation that elevated the pursuit of material interests to a more or less worthy goal. As the global capitalistic system becomes increasingly unsustainable it may create the conditions for such a transformation to occur again....or humankind could enter a death spiral as phej remarked.

[hubcap]

Greed is such a pejoritive and quite frankly it is inaccurate.

A more correct terminology is to "satisfy desires for wants and needs". If someone wants a wide-screen TV does that make them greedy? If someone wants little bigger home, does that make them greedy?

Capitalism recognizes that the INDIVIDUAL will work harder for self-interest than for any other reason. The American worker is the most productive worker in the world. Compare the productivity of the American worker in any socialistic country and you will quickly find out that capitalism will outperform any other system because everyone gets to work for themselves. They aren't working for the "collective" or for "society" or the "government".

[Profit]

Greed is such a pejoritive and quite frankly it is inaccurate.

A more correct terminology is to "satisfy desires for wants and needs". If someone wants a wide-screen TV does that make them greedy? If someone wants little bigger home, does that make them greedy?

No it makes them guilty of avarice. Why do they want the bigger tv or house?



Capitalism recognizes that the INDIVIDUAL will work harder for self-interest than for any other reason. The American worker is the most productive worker in the world. Compare the productivity of the American worker in any socialistic country and you will quickly find out that capitalism will outperform any other system because everyone gets to work for themselves.

Part of the reason workers in the US are more productive compared to workers in other developed countries is because they simply work more hours per week.

No one is arguing that capitalism doesn't produce a tremendous amount of goods.

[hubcap]

No it makes them guilty of avarice. Why do they want the bigger tv or house?
Avarice - simply the use of another pejorative term.

Perhaps their other TV quit, perhaps they want to start a family. What difference does it make?

[Tristan]

Capitalism has to keep expanding. Say you have one region of the world that develops a capitalistic society. After awhile the standard of living rises to the point where the cost of labor begins to cut into the profit margin of businesses producing consumer goods. What do businesses do? They expand into less developed regions of the world where the cost of labor is lower. But after a while the new regions that have been incorporated into the capitalistic system see their standard of living rise and suddenly the cost of labor begins to cut into profit margins. So now the systems has to expand further to encompass an even larger percentage of the world in order to take advantage of lower labor costs.And yet, other societies are not "guilty" of seeking out lower labor costs where possible?

The best alternative to lowering labor costs is guilds. These keep the costs high by entrenching the professions and barring entry by the lowly. Worker syndicates are the modern equivalent of guilds. Nations with good syndicates tend to be wealthy, but have high unemployment, because a lowly underclass emerges that fails to gain entry, for whatever reasons. Our so-called McJobs would have left the unemployed quarter of the workforce better off.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

From UNSUSTAINABLE GROWTH, UNSUSTAINABLE CAPITALISM by Petter Naess
Assumptions don't count as arguments. That guy doesn't venture an argument on the causal relationship between capitalism and growth. Not that he really has to, in his paper: the two are correlated, and that's all that matters with environmentalism.

[Stickman]

Avarice

There's really nothing wrong with avarice, greed, self-interest, pursuing happiness or whatever value-neutral term you want to call it. The strength of capitalism occurs when self-interests align with public interests. Example: it is in my self-interest to work hard and trade with others, when we trade I benefit from your hard work and we both are happier then otherwise.

Since this is a thread about the weaknesses of capitalism I'll outline a few cases where self-interest doesn't align with public interests.

1) The free-rider problem:
Example: national defense.

2) The prisoner's dilemma:
Let's pretend those thousands of scientists were right all along and pollution spewing industry really will lead to ecological disaster some decades down the road. In a completely free-market, fully globalized world, what would happen? Every company faces essentially two choices:

A) Reduce pollution by either reducing industrial output in the short-run or investing in R&D and other technologies in the long-run
B) Maintain the status quo.

We know that if everyone else chooses B, the fate of humanity is literally threatened and everyone is in peril. Our options are A or B. If we were to choose A then we'd lose a tonne of money and air/water quality would barely improve. If we were to choose B then we'd have a lot of money and shitty water which we can perhaps mitigate by buying brita filters. Clearly the best option in this scenario is B.

On the other hand if everyone chooses A, we have the option of also doing our share in keeping the environment pristine and everyone's happy or shitting on everyone's lawn and choosing B enjoying a relatively clean environment while also being very wealthy. Again our best option is B.

You might have noticed that the best case scenario in this slightly contrived example is that if everyone chooses A. Unfortunately, self-interested rational actors have no reason or incentive to choose A over B under any scenario so the "Nash equilibrium" is that the planet is fucked.





Stickman added to this post, 14 minutes and 52 seconds later...


Assumptions don't count as arguments. That guy doesn't venture an argument on the causal relationship between capitalism and growth. Not that he really has to, in his paper: the two are correlated, and that's all that matters with environmentalism.

From an epistemology point of view, assumptions are fine. The only place assumptions don't belong in is in your conclusion or if you were to write an empirical paper. This academic paper isn't making an empirical argument using statistics and experimentation (almost impossible in economics) but a rational argument using deduction and logic.

Basically, when making an argument in a rational manner, clearly state the assumptions you're making. Assumptions don't effect the validity of your argument so long as you don't make any fallacies or form a tautology with your conclusions (a form of circular logic). Whether your argument is sound or not will depend on whether your assumptions are true or not which is the job of empiricists and statisticians.

[Profit]

Avarice - simply the use of another pejorative term.

Perhaps their other TV quit, perhaps they want to start a family. What difference does it make?

But you didn't say their old tv had stopped working or that the did not have enough room in their old house because of an increase in family size. You just said they wanted bigger. Desiring a tv is not avarice wanting the latest, biggest tv simply for the sake of having a bigger tv is. Same with a house.

[hubcap]

But you didn't say their old tv had stopped working or that the did not have enough room in their old house because of an increase in family size. You just said they wanted bigger. Desiring a tv is not avarice wanting the latest, biggest tv simply for the sake of having a bigger tv is. Same with a house.
It doesn't matter to me why they want it, while it does seem to make some difference to you.

[Profit]

And yet, other societies are not "guilty" of seeking out lower labor costs where possible?

The best alternative to lowering labor costs is guilds. These keep the costs high by entrenching the professions and barring entry by the lowly. Worker syndicates are the modern equivalent of guilds. Nations with good syndicates tend to be wealthy, but have high unemployment, because a lowly underclass emerges that fails to gain entry, for whatever reasons. Our so-called McJobs would have left the unemployed quarter of the workforce better off.



The part of my post that you quoted was in reference to the need of a capitalistic economy to continuously expand. There was not value judgement on my part.

I'm a little confused about the point of your post, care to expand?





Profit added to this post, 4 minutes and 11 seconds later...

It doesn't matter to me why they want it, while it does seem to make some difference to you.

It does matter to me when resource consumption at the level of the American consumer is creating an unsustainable society. Like or not actions by individuals have wider consequences.





Profit added to this post, 42 minutes and 4 seconds later...


The US, acclimatized to perpetual, steady growth, will be hit hard by sustainability measures. Switzerland wouldn't have any problems with them.

The Swiss economy is becoming increasingly dependent on FDI it is also heavily invested in the US, to the tune of 157 billion dollars in 2007. National economies don't exist in a vacuum, we're talking about a global capitalistic system here.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





Profit added to this post, 44 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Very difficult assumptions here... I agree with muzicman: nothing about capitalism, in theory, is specifically premised on growth. Not in its functionality.


Please explain how a capitalistic system does not depend on continued growth for stability.

[Tristan]

Please explain how a capitalistic system does not depend on continued growth for stability.

Each real-life civilization plainly has its own variable set of needs. The burden of proof really rests on you, concerning whether growth is a constant, unifying need of the capitalistic ones. Personally, I think the relationship (capital and growth) involves outside factors, in myriad. In practice, what generalizations can we make? How good is our perspective to be able to place growth before and after "capitalism?" I don't know what grand, unified axiom we offer in the midst of a time when the the human population is growing like this. We don't really have a zero-growth control group.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[childofprodigy]

In order to survive and increase capital, companies/industries have to continuously invent new wants within the consumer marketplace. Consumers have to keep consuming in order for the system to continue to function.

While companies do invent new wants, you don't have to worry about consumers stop wanting to consume since humans by nature have infinite wants and needs, which stops only after they die. Thus you don't have to worry about lack of consumers. There will always be consumers unless if humans go extinct. In fact, the human species as a whole is currently still consuming below its potential. Billions of people still live in poverty and underconsume, and these people are potential consumers/producers as well. There's still plenty supply of consumers, and most likely there will always be a plenty supply of consumers with wants and needs unless if humans die out.

Now about the extraction of natural resources. It's a legitimate concern, but it's not a problem that's specific to capitalism. Any socio-economic system will need to extract resources in order to produce, and the problem is really the depletion of natural resources itself, not of the socio-economic system. Capitalism simply produces at a more efficient rate, hence it extracts more resources faster. The only way to stop the depletion of finite natural resources would be to underconsume and that implies regression towards the stone age. Another possibility is to have science and technology advance far enough so that the production process can be performed at a more sustainable rate without killing consumption (via some form of recyling, etc.) But innovation in technology itself requires incentive and hence it requires capitalism. We might run out of resources before this happens, but we might also manage to find a way to do this before resources run out. Only time will tell.