PeakOil is You
Meet Cannibalistic Capitalism: Globalization's Evil Twin
Re: Meet Cannibalistic Capitalism: Globalization's Evil Twin
by ralfy » Wed 29 Aug 2012, 22:47:17
One likely doesn't take chances with capitalism as one will in most cases have no choice. The same goes for downsizing.
-
ralfy - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 5651
- Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
- Location: The Wasteland
Re: Meet Cannibalistic Capitalism: Globalization's Evil Twin
by SeaGypsy » Fri 31 Aug 2012, 06:34:44
Capitalism is the only system on offer which offers any choice. Downsizing is currently in transit from choice to mandated necessity, best to jump before being pushed is the memo.
- SeaGypsy
- Master Prognosticator
- Posts: 9285
- Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Re: Meet Cannibalistic Capitalism: Globalization's Evil Twin
by kublikhan » Sun 02 Sep 2012, 01:30:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '.')..the world wide growth rate will fall to levels seen before the Industrial Revolution: 1 - 1.5% per year.
That growth was basically population growth right? We always overlook the fact that growth happens naturally each time you ad a productive person to the workforce - as long as they don't starve to death. This is natural growth and it has nothing to do with capitalism.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Comparison to earlier centuries
The striking thing about postwar economic growth is how recent such growth is. I have said that total world production has been growing at over 4 percent since 1960. Compare this to annual growth rates of 2.4 percent for the first 60 years of the 20th century, of 1 percent for the entire 19th century, of one-third of 1 percent for the 18th century.2 For these years, the growth in both population and production was far lower than in modern times. Moreover, it is fairly clear that up to 1800 or maybe 1750, no society had experienced sustained growth in per capita income. (Eighteenth century population growth also averaged one-third of 1 percent, the same as production growth.) That is, up to about two centuries ago, per capita incomes in all societies were stagnated at around $400 to $800 per year
To say that traditional agricultural societies did not undergo growth in the living standards of masses of people is not to say that such societies were stagnant or uninteresting. Any schoolchild can list economically important advances in technology that occurred well before the industrial revolution, and our increasing mastery of our environment is reflected in accelerating population growth over the centuries. Between year 0 and year 1750, world population grew from around 160 million to perhaps 700 million (an increase of a factor of four in 1,750 years). In the assumed absence of growth in income per person, this means a factor of four increase in total production as well, which obviously could not have taken place without important technological changes. But in contrast to a modern society, a traditional agricultural society responds to technological change by increasing population, not living standards. Population dynamics in such a society obey a Malthusian law that maintains product per capita at $600 per year, independent of changes in productivity.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')img]http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2012/06/Screen%20Shot%202012-06-20%20at%209.37.55%20AM-thumb-615x284-90639.png[/img]
I'm guessing that your first question, if you started scanning from the left, is: Wait, India was by far the biggest economy at the dawn of AD? Yup, India.
In Year 1, India and China were home to one-third and one-quarter of the world's population, respectively. It's hardly surprising, then, that they also commanded one-third and one-quarter of the world's economy, respectively.
Before the Industrial Revolution, there wasn't really any such thing as lasting income growth from productivity. In the thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution, civilization was stuck in the Malthusian Trap. If lots of people died, incomes tended to go up, as fewer workers benefited from a stable supply of crops. If lots of people were born, however, incomes would fall, which often led to more deaths. That explains the "trap," and it also explains why populations so closely approximated GDP around the world.
The industrial revolution(s) changed all that. Today, the U.S. accounts for 5% of the world population and 21% of its GDP. Asia (minus Japan) accounts for 60% of the world's population and 30% of its GDP.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan - Master Prognosticator
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois