by ralfy » Mon 06 Aug 2012, 02:16:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'H')eh, no wonder I couldn't figure out what you were going on about.
I'm not arguing profits would be the same, only that there can be profit (so capitalism) without growth. I can't see where I wrote that, point it out to me if you would, please.
It's in this post:
Topic 66150especially the second paragraph, as well as the third, which implies that as we "transition to something else," we can maintain or even increase current production and consumption levels. The example is implicit in the first paragraph: we replace an F-150 with a Prius supposedly because the second uses fewer resources.
And yet part of the current capitalist system doesn't simply involve switching from an F-150 to a Prius, it's selling more Prius units together with everything else. And the third paragraph doesn't help if what we transition to won't provide enough petrochemicals to produce more cars.
Take a look at the points raised in this article: "Alternative energies won’t replace oil, gas, and coal anytime soon."
SlateDuring the past decade, global energy consumption rose 27 pct or the equivalent of six Saudi Arabias. And that level of energy consumption was enough to power up present infrastructure, with more than 60 pct of human beings still earning only around two dollars a day.
In order to ensure that everyone today who has something like an F-150 will be able to switch to a Prius, and in addition to that those who still don't have an F-150 to have a Prius or equivalent (as that is the nature of market competition: you sell more to meet demand) we will very likely need more than just six Saudi Arabias. Will "something else" allow for that, or do we end up with ox carts? But if we do end up with ox carts, then it is obvious that we won't be able to maintain current production or profits. In fact, it may even reach a point when we run out of ox carts.
Finally, it's helpful to bring up ideas like innovation (more on that below, but for now, the transition to ox carts is probably not a good example of that), but isn't the use of oil one example? If so, then why do we face the threat of peak oil? Is it because in a global capitalist system that involves competition, non-utilized resources, like profits that are not invested, are seen as opportunity costs? Again, we see this in Dsula's example: if I have a machine that makes me eight times more productive, then that will free up seven-eighths of my working time for more leisure. But a competitor might see things otherwise: the same machine will allow him to produce eight times more, and with a lower cost per unit he can sell at a cheaper price and thus take over more market share. At some point, more people will not buy from me because my products are priced higher.
Do you see the same taking place for oil, for profits made, etc? Does this explain why oil production and consumption, money supply, etc., have been rising considerably worldwide for decades? Do those who worked in businesses see similar phenomenon regarding meeting quotas, cutting production costs by x pct, etc?
It's also best to be clear about what we mean by having profit without growth. If that means a few or one person profiting at the expense of others, then we can argue that there can be profit without growth. But if by that statement we mean most wanting to profit, then we cannot say the same, as a shrinking economy will mean less profits for more people, until there is very little left.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nless it was this:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'T')he economy can be shrinking and still a better idea can equal profit at the expense of lesser idea
IOW: ideas equal profit.