capitalism and eternal growth

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of those things have been disappearing for quite some time - I would say only #6 and #8 better describe the world of 2013 than they do that of 1913.

And if the term "Second Scientist Revolution" means anything akin to the idea of the Author then it began when.... with Special Relativity perhaps, which was discovered in 1905... or perhaps with the beginning of Quantum Mechanics... which was in the 1920s i.e. before my grandfather was born.

[© tweed]

#5 has definitely accelerated in the past 20 years or so.  with the EU central bank installing heads of state and whatnot, international financial institutions dictating policy to first world countries, etc.

[© tweed]

And if the term "Second Scientist Revolution" means anything akin to the idea of the Author then it began when.... with Special Relativity perhaps, which was discovered in 1905... or perhaps with the beginning of Quantum Mechanics... which was in the 1920s i.e. before my grandfather was born.

he's pointing to the latter, which he is aware began in the 1920s and goes into Einstein's distrust of the uncertainty principle.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why do people - especially scientists who dip their toes in social science - always seem to think that we are now living through TEH MOST EXCITING TRANSFORMULATION ERA EVAR!!!111? I? I don't see it personally. This is - except in regards to technology - an incredibly conservative era compared to any time between 1920 (or maybe even the 1890s) and 1979. And I don't see much cultural change on the horizon, growth or not.

The Forward March of Labour Halted. No question mark.

That, of course, is a major cause of that. I wouldn't deny that. Not the only one though.

I don't disagree, but these things all link up. The death of Modernism, for example.

[politicus]

The interesting aspect of all this is whether the current economic model can survive in a non-growth context, or rather which parts of it will have to be reformed/changed.

This is far more interesting than the capitalism stuff IMO.

Look at Japan then and enough with the theorizing.

Btw, I would recommend reading Edward Hugh on this.

Japan doesn't have zero growth when measured in resource consumption, which is what matters. GDP is irrelevant in this context.

[politicus]

Why do people - especially scientists who dip their toes in social science - always seem to think that we are now living through TEH MOST EXCITING TRANSFORMULATION ERA EVAR!!!111? I? I don't see it personally. This is - except in regards to technology - an incredibly conservative era compared to any time between 1920 (or maybe even the 1890s) and 1979. And I don't see much cultural change on the horizon, growth or not.

Who are you talking about in this post?

Its may be a Conservative era (only in the negative, conformist sense), but some of the challenges we face (especially peak population and climate change happening at the same time) demand radical changes.

[Ban my account ffs!]

And peak population is likely to be earlier than predicted... as fertility falls faster than predicted with the projected recovery not having occurred in developed nations (look at fertility trends the past 5 years in developed nations).  And global warming... well, we'll see about that.

You seem to be an alarmist down to your very core, Politicus.  You can't open a door without seeing catastrophe.

And you describe conformism as a negative.. yet you live that ideology and demand others do so as well (lest they be more dangerous than a holocaust denier). 

[Gustaf]

I think AG did a good job. I'd just add that if you don't want to be condescended to then don't be an idiot. Or if you insist on being an idiot, at least don't try to be arrogant about it.

[ag]

The interesting aspect of all this is whether the current economic model can survive in a non-growth context, or rather which parts of it will have to be reformed/changed.

This is far more interesting than the capitalism stuff IMO.

Current economic model, shmurrent economic model. The economy is changing all the time. Today's institutions are quite distinct from those 100 years ago, and will, of course, change in the future, growth or no growth.  Any society that has an economy that isn't growing at an accustomed rate will have a lot of unhappy people: irrespective of what its institutions are. Both questions are about as interesting, as figuring out whether sun will come up tomorrow or not: and about as innovative. I still have no freaking clue what makes anybody find any of this anything worth talking about. Class, actual producers, what's not. Gosh.

[opebo]

The economy is changing all the time. Today's institutions are quite distinct from those 100 years ago, and will, of course, change in the future, growth or no growth.  Any society that has an economy that isn't growing at an accustomed rate will have a lot of unhappy people: irrespective of what its institutions are.

Actually no, you can't make that assumption - because, things are changing all the time.  So, it can't always be true, and in fact a society with virtually no growth but a population declining by a considerable amount every year might still have quite fine median income growth and a surfeit of employment opportunities for youth (as elders leave the workforce). 

Of course I'm being the devil's advocate there, but to some extent that does describe Japan: it really isn't anywhere near as 'unhappy' as you'd expect a country with no growth for decades to be.

[politicus]

The interesting aspect of all this is whether the current economic model can survive in a non-growth context, or rather which parts of it will have to be reformed/changed.

This is far more interesting than the capitalism stuff IMO.

Current economic model, shmurrent economic model. The economy is changing all the time. Today's institutions are quite distinct from those 100 years ago, and will, of course, change in the future, growth or no growth.  Any society that has an economy that isn't growing at an accustomed rate will have a lot of unhappy people: irrespective of what its institutions are. Both questions are about as interesting, as figuring out whether sun will come up tomorrow or not: and about as innovative. I still have no freaking clue what makes anybody find any of this anything worth talking about. Class, actual producers, what's not. Gosh.

One last question: If you find the entire topic so extremely uninteresting and pointless why do you feel the need to comment in this thread at all?

That things will change is of course a given, the way they are likely to change is not.

[ag]

The interesting aspect of all this is whether the current economic model can survive in a non-growth context, or rather which parts of it will have to be reformed/changed.

This is far more interesting than the capitalism stuff IMO.

Current economic model, shmurrent economic model. The economy is changing all the time. Today's institutions are quite distinct from those 100 years ago, and will, of course, change in the future, growth or no growth.  Any society that has an economy that isn't growing at an accustomed rate will have a lot of unhappy people: irrespective of what its institutions are. Both questions are about as interesting, as figuring out whether sun will come up tomorrow or not: and about as innovative. I still have no freaking clue what makes anybody find any of this anything worth talking about. Class, actual producers, what's not. Gosh.

One last question: If you find the entire topic so extremely uninteresting and pointless why do you feel the need to comment in this thread

Because, as an actual economist (and the moderator of this board), I find it personally painful to watch. Illiteracy hurts.

[politicus]

I think AG did a good job. I'd just add that if you don't want to be condescended to then don't be an idiot. Or if you insist on being an idiot, at least don't try to be arrogant about it.

Are you talking about me here? If so, say it.

Assuming you did. Why is it idiotic to want to discuss something on a principled level? Or quoting a well regarded expert on these matters like Peter Victor.

Its too cowardly writing a weiled attack like that without saying who you are talking about. Not providing any documentation or actual references to back up your claim of "idiocy" and supposed "arrogance" is problematic.

[politicus]

The interesting aspect of all this is whether the current economic model can survive in a non-growth context, or rather which parts of it will have to be reformed/changed.

This is far more interesting than the capitalism stuff IMO.

Current economic model, shmurrent economic model. The economy is changing all the time. Today's institutions are quite distinct from those 100 years ago, and will, of course, change in the future, growth or no growth.  Any society that has an economy that isn't growing at an accustomed rate will have a lot of unhappy people: irrespective of what its institutions are. Both questions are about as interesting, as figuring out whether sun will come up tomorrow or not: and about as innovative. I still have no freaking clue what makes anybody find any of this anything worth talking about. Class, actual producers, what's not. Gosh.

One last question: If you find the entire topic so extremely uninteresting and pointless why do you feel the need to comment in this thread

Because, as an actual economist (and the moderator of this board), I find it personally painful to watch. Illiteracy hurts.

Misunderstanding and twisting just about everything I said in this thread was hardly helpful.

See the bolded part my post above and your dismissive "the economy is changing all the time" comment as an example.

I quoted Tweeds argument about deflation without thinking it through, otherwise I think your claim of "illiteracy" is unreasonable.

[politicus]

And peak population is likely to be earlier than predicted... as fertility falls faster than predicted with the projected recovery not having occurred in developed nations (look at fertility trends the past 5 years in developed nations).

Unfortunately not as the African and Middle Eastern populations will stabilize later than expected. We are up from a stable world population around 2050 to stabilisation somewhere around 2100.

[politicus]

I think AG did a good job.

He basically derailed it from the start by claiming not to understand basic political and sociological concepts. The whole debate was spoiled by him feigning ignorance about basic marxist or marxist inspired concepts instead of debating them. I cant see how that is doing a good job.
 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I think AG did a good job.

He basically derailed it from the start by claiming not to understand basic political and sociological concepts. The whole was basically ruined by feigning ignorance about basic marxist or marxist inspired concepts instead of debating them. I cant see how that is doing a good job.
 

No he didn't. He pointed out that they are pseudo-concepts. That's all.

[politicus]

I think AG did a good job.

He basically derailed it from the start by claiming not to understand basic political and sociological concepts. The whole was basically ruined by feigning ignorance about basic marxist or marxist inspired concepts instead of debating them. I cant see how that is doing a good job.
 

No he didn't. He pointed out that they are pseudo-concepts. That's all.

That they are "pseudo concepts" is an opinion and starting out claiming that you don't know what capitalism is whitout offering a decent argumentation as to why you dont recognize this basic concept was never going to get us anywhere productive.

If you start out debating terminology you almost never get anywhere remotely interesting. Its the great travesty of academic debate that so much time is wasted clarifying concepts and a major reason why its so often sterile.

Even practical concepts like "actual producers" were dismissed, as if a distinction between people who produce goods and services and those who monitor and administrate this process doesn't exist and apparently there is no "current economic model" in the world!

[t_host1]

Two problems in a shrinking economy:

- deflation - basically messing up the whole system and leading to a negative growth spiral.

- lack of jobs giving fewer and fewer people access to the market leading to increased pressure for either government allocation of resources or a new distribution of the means of production.
 

Now, as a homework assignment: try figuring out what is the relationship between growth, deflation, and jobs.

What is the noun’s placed in the human senses that are in competition to capitalize on each other?

[politicus]

Two problems in a shrinking economy:

- deflation - basically messing up the whole system and leading to a negative growth spiral.

- lack of jobs giving fewer and fewer people access to the market leading to increased pressure for either government allocation of resources or a new distribution of the means of production.
 

Now, as a homework assignment: try figuring out what is the relationship between growth, deflation, and jobs.

What is the noun’s placed in the human senses that are in competition to capitalize on each other?

This thread is already a trainwreck, there is no point in dragging old post out and asking silly questions.

[Beet]

[t_host1]

Two problems in a shrinking economy:

- deflation - basically messing up the whole system and leading to a negative growth spiral.

- lack of jobs giving fewer and fewer people access to the market leading to increased pressure for either government allocation of resources or a new distribution of the means of production.
 

Now, as a homework assignment: try figuring out what is the relationship between growth, deflation, and jobs.

What is the noun’s placed in the human senses that are in competition to capitalize on each other?

This thread is already a trainwreck, there is no point in dragging old post out and asking silly questions.

Oh… well --- a realization that pseudo and voodoo rhyme, took me back to the Reagan /Bush voodoo math times  ‘humm …now I’m thinking this all needs more exploring! 

Actually, this is a good distraction as any from things I’m supposed to be doing.

[Beet]

Japan hasn't much grown in a generation, and the population is already falling. When I was passing through recently, I didn't notice any price controls or socialized factories. Where should I have been looking?

Well that's just it. Japanese capitalism may be on the verge of a major crisis; their best hope is to inflate things away and impose an "austerity of higher prices", particularly higher import prices.

[politicus]

Japan hasn't much grown in a generation, and the population is already falling. When I was passing through recently, I didn't notice any price controls or socialized factories. Where should I have been looking?

Well that's just it. Japanese capitalism may be on the verge of a major crisis; their best hope is to inflate things away and impose an "austerity of higher prices", particularly higher import prices.

What happens if they take the route Herman Daly and Peter Victor prescribe with lower working hours, the loss in productivity partly off set by technological gains but obviously still leading to less productivity, but also less resource comsumption and more time to care for children and elderly and therefore much less pressure on the public budgets.
The housing market goes down to a lower level and this hurt savings, so this debt has to be reduced somehow.

PV estimates it takes 20 years to go through this transformation and reach a new equilibrium with low debt, low poverty and close to zero unemployment.

(This process is of course very hard to get implemented in a democracy, but if we disregard that.)

http://www.web.ca/~bthomson/degrowth/peter-victor-na-nature-11.pdf

[politicus]

Maybe this Peter Victor quote can help bring this thing back on track:

"There is debate about whether capitalism is compatible with steady-state or degrowth economies. A shrinking economy brings a real risk that profit-seeking companies and their shareholders will be disappointed, credit ratings will suffer, the financial system will be in jeopardy, trade will shrink and the whole capitalist system could spiral to collapse. Whether this would happen remains an open question. Solow, for one, sees no reason why capitalism could not survive with slow or even no growth. Others are more sceptical — especially about the survival of capitalism in degrowth societies. It is worth noting that even in a shrinking economy, some sectors— such as renewable-energy development —will flourish."

So do you agree that those factors might cause the system to collapse?