Squilliam wrote:@Ralfy: Capitalism refers to the private control of the means of production. It doesn't necessarily mean that the world is screwed. People work within the rules, so the fact that resources are being squandered doesn't mean that the system cannot conserve them. We are entering into a new stage of economic development, so the old rules and ways of operation don't necessarily apply to the new systems. We are moving towards an era where increasing efficiency, lower resource usage and greater conversion of raw materials into end products is becoming a new paradigm. Add into that the increasing productivity of modern production methods as well as the creation of more durable end products means we can make gains on both sides of the production equations.
The problems of economics are simply a problem of distribution of resources and spending. A small proportion of people are growing their wealth in the form of debt, and the rest of the economy is being forced to take on debt in order to allow the economic systems to function. There are huge problems, but they are only really large at this point because there hasn't been the political will to allow the system to shed the excess debt. The reason for this is that a lot of retirement savings and middle class wealth is also tied into this broken economic system. Eventually it will be rationalised, so it isn't a problem in a real world sense. The fact others are willing to buy this debt isn't really a problem except in the sense that a default will mean that government will have to live within its means.
The world when it finally knuckles down and decides to conserve resources is an entirely different place to the last 100 years of growth. We can be considerably more efficient. The increasingly globalised economic system came about because of a comparative advantage for cheap labour destinations. Once this comparative advantage ends then the global economic system can move into a period of rationalisation/simplification. When production is automated with very few workers needed what point is there to ship over international borders multiple times in order to produce products when factories can be located close to each other to maximise shipping and logistical inefficiencies. This is what I refer to when I say that we can reach a point of higher complexity and simplicity at the same time. One part simply gives way to another part in this system.
You only gave part of the definition. You will find the rest in my previous posts.
The "system" doesn't "conserve" them for reasons I gave earlier.
Increasing efficiency leads to more resource use for reasons I also gave earlier.
Also, about moving to an era of increasing efficiency, you're over 60 years too late.
Distribution of resources is not a problem of economics because capitalists do so through profit motive.
It is not true that only a few increase wealth through debt because much of the global economy consists of credit. In fact, very few people worldwide don't use money.
Globalization did not come about because of "cheap labor destinations." Rather, it took place because of cheap energy.
The "huge problems" are not caused by lack of "political will" but by the fact that what drives every point you raised, from automation to even investing in technology, is the profit motive.