[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I') really am trying to find your argument Ralphy but you keep galloping around and winding up in the same place:

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')
while depositors also preferred to use paper notes as it was too dangerous or cumbersome to bring gold around.

[ralfy]

One more thing: the article about "The Fallacy That Capitalism Requires Growth" does not appear to prove that. Rather, it claims that when capitalism falls apart, we may have a static economy, where growth is obviously not needed.

Also, the article looks at decreased manufacturing work hours but doesn't mention the level of pay, what is manufactured, etc., work hours for the service sector, or even amounts received from credit, earned through investments, etc. Might it also be helpful to look at manufacturing hours worldwide?

Finally, why not look at production and consumption of resources as well? Have they been increasing or decreasing worldwide?

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'T')he catch is that more goods can be sold only if workers' wages go up. This is what is never thought about: the same workers who produce goods are also essentially the ones who will buy them. This is, in fact, the problem that led to the housing crisis in the U.S.: banks thought that no matter what happened, they would win if borrowers defaulted because they could still sell the foreclosed properties at higher prices. What they didn't realize is that the same borrowers who defaulted also belonged to the same group of people who were supposed to buy the foreclosed properties at higher prices!

This is, in fact, the means by which the U.S. solved the problem of workers' strikes during the 1970s: allow for easy credit, so that people could buy goods and services that they would not have been able to afford due to lower wages. Banks will offer easy credit eventually as they have to keep lending in order to keep earning. And as more money is created, the same workers can move to service industries and make more money while manufacturing is outsourced to poor countries whose citizens want the same middle class lifestyle.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '+')1
I saw an excellent video that expands on this point. If anyone was interested, here's the link:
FORA.tv - Richard Wolff: Capitalism Hits the Fan

[ralfy]

I forgot to add the ff. points in my earlier message.

The example concerning using one's profits to maintain one's expenses should be considered in light of the ff.

In a capitalist economy, it is assumed that there is economic growth, as seen in investments, spending, and sales. For this to happen, significant numbers of people in that economy have to experience profits.

The consequences of such is that when you make a profit and use that to maintain your expenses, you should also assume that those who sell products and services to you (your expenses) also want to make a profit, and that in turn negates your earnings. This is similar to the RSA presentation shared earlier, which reveals that a capitalist's workers are also eventually his customers, which means if he lowers wages to increase his profits, he also decreases his profits because his customers' buying power also decreases.

What breaks this deadlock is increased credit pumped into the system, which according to the presentation began during the 1980s. This is inevitable because banks, which extend credit, can only earn more money by lending more money. That money can come in the form of increased wages, increased personal credit, etc. Thus, production, consumption, and money supply all go up, which very much explains the last few decades.

And yet you still want to make a profit, and so does the other. Eventually, the only way to do that without raising wages is to increase production, but that also means looking for more markets to sell goods. In order to raise wages without increasing production, one moves to service industries and outsources manufacturing. And yet in turn those who are in manufacturing dream of making more money by moving to services and outsourcing manufacturing in turn. The need to profit even on the personal level increases as one moves from, say, ox carts to, say, F-150s.

This is what happened to the U.S., as it moved from manufacturing to casino capitalism, with 70 pct of its workers in the service industry making many times more money (even adjusted given purchasing power parity) compared to others, using houses built on credit to buy more stuff based on credit (including F-150s, which most human beings cannot afford), and it becomes worse when one imagines that the income and profits generated from that involve increasing production and consumption.

In this case, if you want to earn to buy an F-150, you have to sell F-150s. You will have a lot to sell because the manufacturer can profit more if it sells more. It needs to earn more because its investors (which might even include you) want a return on their investments, and with competition, it can't continue raising prices. The banks will lend more because that's the only way they will earn, and they will certainly want more F-150s to be produced and sold because that's how it will pay off its depositors and investors and pay for its own operations while making a profit. The mining and oil companies will certainly want to see more F-150s produced and sold because that's how they can sell more minerals and oil and pay for their own expenses, while making a profit and providing good returns for the investors, which include probably even you, banks, etc. As for the buyers? Well, they want what you have, and likely their reasons for buying an F-150 will be similar to yours.

Of course, sales for F-150s can drop, but it's expected that the economy should recover, and at some point, the same process will repeat itself, this time with Prius cars replacing F-150s. In any event, citizens, banks, manufacturers, retailers, etc., all want to see their profits rise, and they do by feeding on each other or on other economies.

This idea makes the claim that capitalism doesn't require or lead to growth absurd. If growth does not take place, then as the article points out, it leads to a "self-cannibalizing economic system" where people start screwing each other, and only a few will profit at the expense of the rest. Because growth is determined in aggregate terms, then that economy is definitely not growing even as only a few profit. And those few who do profit will not last for long as there will come a point when most will have very little left to give to them. At that point, there will be no trade except possession through physical force, after which what Hobbes describes in Leviathan will replace a capitalist system.

[ralfy]

One more:

The article

http://ineteconomics.org/john-fullerton

does not appear to challenge the idea that capitalism requires growth. It does appear to support the premise that we can move from capitalism to a more resilient economy, one where there is nothing beyond a "reasonable income." But for that to happen, and to happen to everyone, there cannot be any profits (as the profit that you make is negated by profits made by others who sell to you).

The same can be seen in the other link:

http://www.preservenet.com/

Especially the manifesto:

http://www.preservenet.com/WeBelieve.html

and the link to their policy study:

http://www.preservenet.com/endgrowth/EndGrowth.html

where perhaps even the title of the study is worth noting.

And yet one wonders if armed groups and many other problems (from the effects of environmental damage to droughts, heat waves, floods, etc.) will shatter such a view of the future. After all, we have gone through what is one of the most violent centuries in world history, with two world wars, a Cold War, and over 70 years of conflict leading to around 200 million dead. Will the future be different from such?

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ralphy', 'Y')ou are referring to some "catabolic capitalists" and not the system in which they used to thrive. For such things to happen the system has to fall apart. That's what I mean when I say that capitalism requires growth. Once that growth does not take place, then you end up what is essentially a "a self-cannibalizing economic system." That's not capitalism!

[SeaGypsy]

You couldn't make the point any more clearly Pops.

The alternative anarcho-communism type systems Ralphy linked to all ended in bloodshed as gross as any other experiment in mass control of people against their will, besides capitalism; which only sometimes led to bloodshed (like overnight/ somewhere).

As much as it is totally possible to harass capitalism, it has proven to 'have the legs' to sustain itself through pretty much all phases in the development of a society, including it's downslope. Hell, there is plenty of proof of capitalism thriving even when it gets down to who has the freshest bits of dead humans for sale as meat. That's pretty bad, but it's a fact.

Also a fact is that there is an absolutely huge amount of fat left to trim on the downslope. And that this fat is very unevenly distributed, concentrated on the buttocks and girths of Americans and Australians, as well as the fat cats in every country.

There is still a lot of play in the system, enough to let us bake the planet or 'go solar' and half bake it. At least 100 years of corporate governement silliness left to run, without any major structural changes.

This system is of course, the classic 'lesser evil'; which as abundantly made clear, appeals to human nature in ways impossible to other systems.

A beauty in capitalism which does not exist in any other system, is the ability to opt out and form your own collective. The micro and minimal version is of course the family unit. Joining family units and individuals to collectively acquire alternate means of production/ sustenance, whether you call them- transition towns, hippy communes, feral nomad 'tribes' or even 'zombie hoards' (With the latter being at great risk of being seen as a threat worthy of elimination).

The reason I alluded to anarcho systems as childish, is because they are a pretence of having done away with government, when in fact they are invariably fascist/ a total paradoxical lie.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')
I pointed out early in this thread that in a mature market; one that has ceased growth and is on the downhill side of the price curve, consolidation (cannibalism) is the only path to continued profits. Just like Hubbert said all wells together would perform like one alone, I think all markets together will act like one market alone, with consolidation after consolidation right down to whatever is a sustainable level at a particular time for that segment. All the while "capitalism" will continue (since mature market consolidation is a part of capitalism) until that level is no longer viable/profitable at which time consolidation/cannibalism will resume.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'Y')ou couldn't make the point any more clearly Pops.

The alternative anarcho-communism type systems Ralphy linked to all ended in bloodshed as gross as any other experiment in mass control of people against their will, besides capitalism; which only sometimes led to bloodshed (like overnight/ somewhere).

[SeaGypsy]

You just don't get it. You twist an argument when there isn't one, like a stoned paranoid 17 year old.

I have never heard of a government selling human meat (yet/ Soilent Green excluded/ not fresh); this has however been a fairly common practice of freelance human capitalists at the pit of collapse in broad societies. Point being, it's still capitalism and it doesn't necessarily involve government at all, more the lack of it.

Quite simply, being told: "Ok that's it folks, capitalism is over; time to 'share everything equally' is fascist communism. The law of equal opposites applies. Makes no difference what you call it, it is state totalitarianism and IMO it can go to hell. I do not want to be told when it's time, and I won't be, because this little fantasy won't happen. What will happen is cannibalistic capitalism, which is still capitalism nomatter any of your arguments contrary. This in itself will eventually get ugly enough I will happily take one of many alternatives I have found open in the past, one or more of which will likely still remain so.

The more I read of your posts, the more I remember American Dream on here, blathering on about perfect communism/ whilst sitting at a chair with a lovely view of Lord of the Rings landscape, living off playing the market via the internet. Totally hypocritical.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ompletely the opposite: it will NOT be a seamless transition precisely because of the same "mechanism for cannibalism." That cannibalism is definitely NOT consolidation, as consolidation can only have positive advantages given a growing economy. In fact, what we've been seeing the past three decades or so has involved consolidation, with corporations merging, becoming more powerful, and taking control of most food processing, media, etc. And given their larger sizes and complexity the drive to increase production, consumption, and profits becomes even greater! And when the resources needed to back these behemoths decline, what do you think will happen next?

[Pops]

Is Gypsy right? Do you actually think that at some discrete point in time capitalism just goes Poof! and along with it the evil profit motive that has corrupted humanity, after which we will all live happily ever after in a communist paradise?

That would certainly explain your position. Care to explain your alternative to my forecast?

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'Y')ou just don't get it. You twist an argument when there isn't one, like a stoned paranoid 17 year old.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I')s Gypsy right? Do you actually think that at some discrete point in time capitalism just goes Poof! and along with it the evil profit motive that has corrupted humanity, after which we will all live happily ever after in a communist paradise?
That would certainly explain your position. Care to explain your alternative to my forecast?

[SeaGypsy]

B/S. Again Ralphy tries to redifine the English language.
If there are 50 people left on the planet, and some of these take advantage of the others to make life easier for themselves, that is capitalism. Ad hom deleted.

[Pops]

Sorry, I wasn't clear.
I meant was he right that you think at the point growth ceases there be a rapid change to a communal economy of some kind?

[The Practician]

You guys sure argue a lot for three people who appear to agree about just about everything except the definition of the word capitalism.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'B')/S. Again Ralphy tries to redifine the English language.
If there are 50 people left on the planet, and some of these take advantage of the others to make life easier for themselves, that is capitalism. God you are a tool

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'S')orry, I wasn't clear.
I meant was he right that you think at the point growth ceases there be a rapid change to a communal economy of some kind?