[Cid_Yama]

You right-wingers were all predicting you were going to take both the House and Senate. So who was wrong? Everyone? That's what's funny.

(I know, to you it only matters if I was wrong. Amazing that MY opinion is so much more important to you. Must be because I am nearly always right, and to find any instance where I was wrong, is truely exceptional. )

I guess you've been beaten pretty badly in the debates, and any small victory or even a draw, no matter how insignificant, is a victory.

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'Y')ou right-wingers were all predicting you were going to take both the House and Senate. So who was wrong? Everyone? That's what's funny.

(I know, to you it only matters if I was wrong. Amazing that MY opinion is so much more important to you. Must be because I am nearly always right, and to find any instance where I was wrong, is truely exceptional. )

I guess you've been beaten pretty badly in the debates, and any small victory or even a draw, no matter how insignificant, is a victory.

[nobodypanic]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'L')et me talk this out and you guys tell me where I'm wrong.

Capitalism itself doesn't require growth, it only requires private ownership of the means of production (or ownership of some resource) and that the product be sold or rented for a profit, preferably in a free market.

Capital accumulation however does require growth and at some level of reinvestment of profits, capitalism produces growth - profit from profit.


I own some land and a cow, that's the capital, I grow some cow and have some left over, that's the profit, hopefully there is a market for cow and the markets demand for cow sets the value.

I guess it would still be capitalism if the government (or a monopoly corporation) set the cow price, or controlled the cow selling place or even owned the cow selling place as a for profit enterprise but as long as I get to profit from my capital, that's capitalism.

Right?


The "growth" thing is only required for accumulation of capital. But if I make just enough cow to keep me full and have some to trade to my neighbor for toothpicks and occupy my time eating and picking my teeth instead of making babies I'll keel over from a MI at 60 and our 1.8 kids can then sit on the same porch and pick their teeth for their 3 score. No growth required.

Capital accumulation can happen without growth but it requires taking the capital of others unfairly, unfairly is a subjective word but hitting someone over the head and taking their wallet is certainly unfair and so is, say, payday loans whose effective APR can be in the thousands of percent, or manipulating a market so that demand appears to be higher than it actually is.

No growth is no problem as long as you don't have in mind cornering the market in capital or making a profit without making anything as in interest or gambling in whatever form.

As it turns out capitalism is alive and well. So well in fact that while we've been bickering about and gay marriage and welfare queens and who has a valid birth certificate, the capitalists have acquired just about everything that can turn a profit except the government - and they are doing a good job keeping us talking so they can privatizing that.

AD always talks about capital going into paper gambles and that's fine since oil fueled growth will make those all smoke. But I do worry about privatization of government assets right about now.

Really the only problem with capitalism is the moral one: how much profit is fair to make from labor, what is the limit to fair dealings with laborers, how much cost should society bear to enable capital's profit, how much restriction should there be on capital accumulation, if any. I also worry about capital being scared right now and buying real assets like farmland and water rights.


I like capitalism, unlimited capital accumulation not so much.

[kublikhan]

Can profit growth continue in a capitalist economy after it has bumped up against ecological and/or energy limits? When I say profit growth, I mean growth for the entire system, not one unscrupulous capitalist managing to wring more profits for himself at the expense of others.

Say we are in the post peak fossil fuel era, and every year we are have slightly less energy available to us, until eventually all we have left is renewable energy. Is it possible the economy will still grow in this energy starved scenario of declining energy? During times of cheap energy, economic growth and energy growth were about 1-1. During the energy crunch of the late 70s/early 80s, economic growth was about double energy growth. Efficiency enhancements managed to eek out some economic growth even in an energy constrained environment. But this was a relatively small energy gap between supply and demand. Will the global capitalist system begin to wither if there is a large gap between the supply and demand of energy?

Or, instead of energy, we consider ecological limits such as fresh water, arable soil, fish, raw materials, etc. Say we had a business owner making wooden chairs. The vast old growth forests have all long been cut down and the only timber available to him is from sustainable tree farms. And even these have shrinking acreage available to them. Thus our burgeoning capitalist can no longer increase his production of chairs because of a dwindling supply of lumber. Not only that, but because of increased unemployment and poverty his customer base is shrinking as well. Can our clever capitalist still manage to eek out a profit increase in the face of increasing supply side costs and decreasing demand? Increases in productivity can only take you so far. I predict bankruptcy for our unfortunate capitalist, and a shrinking global economy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') assert that the current crisis is dramatically and profoundly different from any crisis previously faced by the global capitalist system. I see one basic reason for this: the system can no longer grow. Without growth, capitalism cannot function. Like a shark that must keep moving in order to breathe, a capitalist economy must keep growing in order to survive. Without the possibility, or probability, that investors will make a profit on their investments, they will not invest. No one invests if they expect to lose money or keep the same amount. If investors cease to invest, businesses cannot expand, jobs are lost, consumer spending declines, and loans stop coming, creating a cycle of bust. Crashing markets will continue to freefall until the government steps in with bailouts to artificially boost investment. But bailouts are only a temporary solution. If the markets cannot be “corrected” and get back on a growth trajectory, game over.

Richard Heinberg has written a book called Peak Everything, and argues that from ecological limits alone, growth is no longer possible. Capitalism needs abundant and growing sources of energy to move its resources, products and labor around the world, to organize them into the production process, and to power the assembly lines. We are now entering a period in which for the first time in 500 years, less energy will be available, the energy that exists will be more expensive, and therefore profits will be severely constrained. Without energy, the shark stops swimming and dies.

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'L')et me talk this out and you guys tell me where I'm wrong.

Capitalism itself doesn't require growth, it only requires private ownership of the means of production (or ownership of some resource) and that the product be sold or rented for a profit, preferably in a free market.

Capital accumulation however does require growth and at some level of reinvestment of profits, capitalism produces growth - profit from profit.


I own some land and a cow, that's the capital, I grow some cow and have some left over, that's the profit, hopefully there is a market for cow and the markets demand for cow sets the value.

I guess it would still be capitalism if the government (or a monopoly corporation) set the cow price, or controlled the cow selling place or even owned the cow selling place as a for profit enterprise but as long as I get to profit from my capital, that's capitalism.

Right?


The "growth" thing is only required for accumulation of capital. But if I make just enough cow to keep me full and have some to trade to my neighbor for toothpicks and occupy my time eating and picking my teeth instead of making babies I'll keel over from a MI at 60 and our 1.8 kids can then sit on the same porch and pick their teeth for their 3 score. No growth required.

Capital accumulation can happen without growth but it requires taking the capital of others unfairly, unfairly is a subjective word but hitting someone over the head and taking their wallet is certainly unfair and so is, say, payday loans whose effective APR can be in the thousands of percent, or manipulating a market so that demand appears to be higher than it actually is.

No growth is no problem as long as you don't have in mind cornering the market in capital or making a profit without making anything as in interest or gambling in whatever form.

As it turns out capitalism is alive and well. So well in fact that while we've been bickering about and gay marriage and welfare queens and who has a valid birth certificate, the capitalists have acquired just about everything that can turn a profit except the government - and they are doing a good job keeping us talking so they can privatizing that.

AD always talks about capital going into paper gambles and that's fine since oil fueled growth will make those all smoke. But I do worry about privatization of government assets right about now.

Really the only problem with capitalism is the moral one: how much profit is fair to make from labor, what is the limit to fair dealings with laborers, how much cost should society bear to enable capital's profit, how much restriction should there be on capital accumulation, if any. I also worry about capital being scared right now and buying real assets like farmland and water rights.


I like capitalism, unlimited capital accumulation not so much.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', 'c')apitalist production is about capital accumulation. what you're describing (in bold) isn't capitalist production but subsistence farming under primitive market conditions.

[nobodypanic]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'L')et me talk this out and you guys tell me where I'm wrong.

Capitalism itself doesn't require growth, it only requires private ownership of the means of production (or ownership of some resource) and that the product be sold or rented for a profit, preferably in a free market.

Capital accumulation however does require growth and at some level of reinvestment of profits, capitalism produces growth - profit from profit.


I own some land and a cow, that's the capital, I grow some cow and have some left over, that's the profit, hopefully there is a market for cow and the markets demand for cow sets the value.

I guess it would still be capitalism if the government (or a monopoly corporation) set the cow price, or controlled the cow selling place or even owned the cow selling place as a for profit enterprise but as long as I get to profit from my capital, that's capitalism.

Right?


The "growth" thing is only required for accumulation of capital. But if I make just enough cow to keep me full and have some to trade to my neighbor for toothpicks and occupy my time eating and picking my teeth instead of making babies I'll keel over from a MI at 60 and our 1.8 kids can then sit on the same porch and pick their teeth for their 3 score. No growth required.

Capital accumulation can happen without growth but it requires taking the capital of others unfairly, unfairly is a subjective word but hitting someone over the head and taking their wallet is certainly unfair and so is, say, payday loans whose effective APR can be in the thousands of percent, or manipulating a market so that demand appears to be higher than it actually is.

No growth is no problem as long as you don't have in mind cornering the market in capital or making a profit without making anything as in interest or gambling in whatever form.

As it turns out capitalism is alive and well. So well in fact that while we've been bickering about and gay marriage and welfare queens and who has a valid birth certificate, the capitalists have acquired just about everything that can turn a profit except the government - and they are doing a good job keeping us talking so they can privatizing that.

AD always talks about capital going into paper gambles and that's fine since oil fueled growth will make those all smoke. But I do worry about privatization of government assets right about now.

Really the only problem with capitalism is the moral one: how much profit is fair to make from labor, what is the limit to fair dealings with laborers, how much cost should society bear to enable capital's profit, how much restriction should there be on capital accumulation, if any. I also worry about capital being scared right now and buying real assets like farmland and water rights.


I like capitalism, unlimited capital accumulation not so much.

[nobodypanic]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', ' ')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', 'c')apitalist production is about capital accumulation. what you're describing (in bold) isn't capitalist production but subsistence farming under primitive market conditions.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'I')'m just sick and tired of this whole free market jive, where they imply that free means fair, until you push them.

[nobodypanic]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'I')'m just sick and tired of this whole free market jive, where they imply that free means fair, until you push them.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', 't')he appropriation of surplus value under capitalist production creams off the labor of the worker for the benefit of private interest (much like theft), while the appropriation of surplus value in the form of taxes (again creaming off the labor of the worker) goes, in theory, towards public interests and the good of all (very unlike theft).

[AgentR11]

Americandream was on to a good way to keep the two parts "open market" and "capital accumulation" distinct. Referring to the production and sale of goods in an open market as mercantilism. Leaving the "capitalist" term for accumulation, leverage, and money creation activities. Mercantilism is doing fine, and will always do fine, Bob grows a potato, Bob sells a potato, since forever. Jerry borrowing $100 to finance $1000 worth of potato farming, is a tad more complicated, and is more about the money, than the potato; and may be starting to run into a bit of trouble as the mercantilist price of certain raw materials begins to encroach upon the core transaction.

[peeker01]

From Wikipedia:

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.[1] Income in a capitalist system takes at least two forms, profit on the one hand and wages on the other. There is also a tradition that treats rent, income from the control of natural resources, as a third phenomenon distinct from either of those. In any case, profit is what is received, by virtue of control of the tools of production, by those who provide the capital."


AD may want to make that distinction, but Wikipedia doesn't.

[Pops]

It's hard trying to keep up with you edumacated folks, I went straight from Dick and Jane to Wikipedia with only an intervening 30 years or so.

This link says
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Adam Smith coined the term “mercantile system” to describe the system of political economy that sought to enrich the country by restraining imports and encouraging exports. This system dominated Western European economic thought and policies from the sixteenth to the late eighteenth centuries.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', 't')he appropriation of surplus value under capitalist production creams off the labor of the worker for the benefit of private interest (much like theft)

[mmasters]

Another aspect of the problem is much of the world is in a maturity model with regards to everyday conveniences like telephones, microwaves, cars, etc... Most of these things we value have been already perfected to a large degree. The areas where development is still ripe are health care and computers. However computers as they are are already good enough for most corporate and business needs so there's not a ton of room for it to grow when you think about it.

Half the US jobs are now government related jobs, most everything else is "maintainance of society" (manufacturing, retail, farming, transport, financial services, etc) or scams.

Bottom line is society can only be developed so far within its resource constraints and unless we have huge breakthroughs in energy and technology that would allow Star Trek like stuff to happen, we're approaching a maturity of what greed driven capitalism has to offer.

[kublikhan]

I don't buy it. Humanity has not hit the zenith of what we can achieve. To suggest that microwaves or a car is the epitome of human achievement suggests a lack of imagination, and a large does of hubris too. We have not done all we are capable of doing. I think the next 100 years will see at least as many changes as the previous 100...

And as far as Star Trek goes, we are already have communicators, early replicators, and are working on cloaking devices.

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I') don't buy it. Humanity has not hit the zenith of what we can achieve. To suggest that microwaves or a car is the epitome of human achievement suggests a lack of imagination, and a large does of hubris too. We have not done all we are capable of doing. I think the next 100 years will see at least as many changes as the previous 100...

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', 'N')ot before a die off.

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I')'m not a fast crasher and don't subscribe to that school of thought. I believe carrying capacity is not just a function of population size, but also depends on level of consumption(lifestyle), which for human beings can vary radically.