Pops wrote:I've been ranting for years that energy and population increase are the key factors in "growth." Slowing population growth and the reduction of cheap energy to waste on frivolous economic activity means growth will slow. Doesn't mean the WSJ goes out of business, just that the primary goal of business will become, once again, making a profit, rather than making the stock price go up.
ralfy wrote:But even profit-making through sales of goods and services may require more than enough material resources and energy. In addition, unnecessary economic activity, such as the manufacture of middle class conveniences, takes places because businesses profit more from selling them. And the credit used to drive expansion to ensure even more profit-making comes from financing.
Pops wrote:I'm encouraged Ralfy, usually you simply say profit is growth is capitalism.
Not sure what you mean by "more than enough resources"? Lower energy, either fossil energy or manpower or both are a given considering the population bubble passing and FF depletion.
My point is the end of systemic growth is not the end of individual surplus, or to clarify, the end of me working and making a surplus to trade or share with my overlord/
ralfy wrote:Businesses profit by selling goods and services, and these require more material resources and energy.
Pops wrote:That is as far as I got.
Business do not require "more" resources.
They require resources.
If demand is less and they sell less, then they require less resources.
Surprisingly they can still make a profit selling less, or at least some of them can. The proof is the simple fact that they were doing it before they sold more.
Pops wrote:The thread is about aging populations, that means change. My comment was about leveling or lower population and lower energy surpluses - things change ralfy.
There will be no profit reinvested to grow capacity if existing capacity is overbuilt.
ralfy wrote:The catch is that capitalist systems require increasing population and increasing energy surpluses.
Pops wrote:I'll just repeat that capitalism is merely private property used to make stuff to sell in a free market for private profit - the keys being private property and markets.
Pops wrote:Actually Ralfy I think your POV requires growth. LOL
We've gone over this dozens of times, you look at Goldman Sacs or Warren Buffet or GE and think that is Capitalism.
I've quoted you the definition of capitalism over and over from any number of sources and because it doesn't jibe with you point of view it rolls off your back like a bad employment report of OF2. Since it never sticks so I won't go to the trouble. I'll just repeat that capitalism is merely private property used to make stuff to sell in a free market for private profit - the keys being private property and markets.
I've worked many an hours in my life and some of it has even been worth the effort. I created more value than I had before using tools that belonged to me and was able to trade that surplus for someone else's surplus.
Capitalism.
Pops wrote:Yeah, I've never argued that the current iteration will continue, just that private property and private profit can continue even with de-growth.
Not that they necessarily will, just that they won't necessarily stop.
Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2
... but also capital accumulation. That leads to more ...
Private profit will obviously continue, just as they did long before modern capitalist systems existed.
Pops wrote:First link, first sentence:Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2
Monibot gets a footnote, otherwise no mention of growth as a requirement, only a result.
Sure there are dozens of permutations, labels, minutia but alas no requirement for growth, only private property and profit.
This is where you're stuck, simply because one accumulates capital doesn't mean the economy itself grows. Using that one line definition, capitalism is about profiting from personal capital, it doesn't say anything about "more" except as it applies to the capitalist.
Accumulation merely means an individual has more capital, not the system - capitalism doesn't care about the system except as it impacts profit. That of course is both it's great strength and it's great danger.
Perhaps our friendly neighborhood capitalist is able to profit when 5 other accumulators can not because the market is shrinking. He invests his money by accumulating them. In that case his share grows while the overall market shrinks, he is the prototype capitalist and I think this will be the prototypical economy for a long while.
Another example might be 5 capitalists who are able to profit in a shrinking market where one once dominated. Although their total profit may be less than the large corporation, rather than more, they are able to profit where the large company could not. This will also be typical I think once transportation cost rises and GDP shrinks to the point that economies of scale are no longer favorable.
Perhaps profit and accumulation are only relative: say farmland vs Angry Bird stock? Angry Bird shareholders sell out and buy Chinese hog packing shares as the entire angry bird market evaporates due to a shrinking economy. The hog packing shares increase in relative value and some capitalists "profit" even though the overall economy is "less" not more.
Once an individual has capital you say he must reinvest it and make the system grow. Let me ask; would you build a new factory if the one you have is only producing at 50% capacity?
Of course you wouldn't. And if all "factories" were at 50% capacity the only option for the capitalist is to either make a new market or buy up failing competitors. Consolidation is a typical phase in the lifecycle of the business model, When the total market is mature, the consolidation will be total. There is no rule of capitalism that says there must always be "more" capitalists.
That is all I've ever said in any of our discussions, private property and private profit can coexist with de-growth because there is no requirement for growth and obviously there can be no growth in a resource constrained system.
ralfy wrote:Pops wrote:First link, first sentence:Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2
ralfy wrote:
Private property in modern capitalist systems started with physical force and later legalized by government.
Pops wrote:You can read and re-read and still, Monibot gets a mention but no other argument that capitalism requires growth.
careinke wrote:
You repeat yourself, the government IS force, or on a good day just the threat of force.
Capital, as self-expanding value . . . can be understood only as motion, not as a thing at rest.
Accumulation does not imply a necessary change in total magnitude of value produced but can simply refer to a change in the composition of an industry (pg. 514).
Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests