by Doly » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 08:59:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Overlyhonest', 'I')f paying interest was eliminated worldwide would that negate the need for a growing population?
That's an interesting question. I imagine you are referring to the fact that economic growth looks like it requires a growing population, and that growth looks like it's driven by the need to repay interests.
Let's look at the two issues separately:
1) Does economic growth require a growing population?
My opinion is that it doesn't require it, but our current growth is partly fuelled by growing population, and it would be hard to keep it at the current pace with a stable population. The detailed analysis is written in one of my posts in the thread "Where does growth come from?" But my opinion is not an expert opinion.
2) Is growth driven by the need to repay interests?
Again, this is my opinion. Growth is driven by the fact that all companies in a capitalist state try to make a profit. If most companies are to make a profit successfully, the total amount of money has to be constantly growing. Interest is part of the reason a company tries to make a profit. If you have to repay your loan, you will need profits to repay it. But companies try not just to break even and repay their loans, they try to make a profit above that. And let's not forget that banks are companies as well, and when they make a loan they're making a profit. That is, banks aren't just breaking even and paying with the interests the salaries of their employees plus the cost of defaulted loans that are never recovered.
If banks were to become non-profit organizations, but the rest of companies were still profit-making, growth would still be necessary. If all companies turned into non-profit organizations (that's exactly what a guy called Karl Marx suggested, but his ideas have been twisted in all directions since he wrote them), there would be no need for growth.
Once again, this is my non-expert opinion. If anybody knows better, please correct me.