capitalism and eternal growth

[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.

[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.

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.

The comment was directed at several people and I no longer recall exactly whom.

It's idiotic to be arrogant about economics if one doesn't get it. And the whole premise of this thread is flawed. I'm sorry if that upsets you. I'm sure Ag and others are willing to help people understand economics but then those people need to show some awareness of how little they know on the topic.

[Gustaf]

OK, lets avoid the term capitalism and try looking at two of the elements of the economy, that some of the more radical "no growthers" believe will have to change in a no growth/degrowth context.

(but remember that some sectors will grow even in a "no growth economy" such as recycling ad renewable energy)

Assumption: Two fundamental structural features of the present economic system drive growth and resource depletion.

1. Private finance.

Private finance inevitably demands interest as compensation for risk, and therefore requires continuous growth for proper functioning.

If one agrees with this statement private finance must be replaced by community finance in which risk is socialized so that we do not have to demand interest as the price of creating and maintaining useful infrastructure and production.

2. Competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights.

The problem with private savings is that society as whole does not save other than relatively small inventories of manufactured goods and raw materials.
The only real savings is in the build up infrastuctre (incl. production capacity) of society and in the resource base which supports that infrastructure. So the competition to obtain lots of savings is a competition to build up infrastructre and use it to produce lots of goods and services. Society as a whole can decide that it has sufficient infrastructure. But for the individual economic actor seeking personal security and economic independence, anxiety about the future drives a constant desire for the further accumulation of consumption rights (which obviously requires growth).

So the competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights may have to be replaced by work and income sharing (which could be called "socialism"). The older people whose productivity drops are supported by younger people who are in their productive prime. "This condition of mutual dependence is a physical reality and until we give up our quest for a delusory economic independence we will find no solution to the ecological dilemmas which face us". In other words: retirement should be funded by community, not by private savings.

Is there any truth to this line of reasoning? If there is it would mean a more collectivist economy (which some of us would consider non-capitalist  )

To Tweed: When you said capitalism, was this the factors you thought about, or was it more than that?

I know I'm on ignore but I guess others might be served by knowing that 1 is false and again shows that you don't understand economics very well. You can charge interest without growth.

I also don't understand 2. Some people will consume more than they produce, some less and people will smooth their consumption over time. I don't see why this would require growth.

I will also reiterate that AG did well in pointing out that the use of vague catch-phrases from people who don't understand the subject doesn't make for good analysis. Using growth is an improvement, since it reveals how far off the idea of this thread is.

[Gustaf]

OK, lets avoid the term capitalism and try looking at two of the elements of the economy, that some of the more radical "no growthers" believe will have to change in a no growth/degrowth context.

(but remember that some sectors will grow even in a "no growth economy" such as recycling ad renewable energy)

Assumption: Two fundamental structural features of the present economic system drive growth and resource depletion.

1. Private finance.

Private finance inevitably demands interest as compensation for risk, and therefore requires continuous growth for proper functioning.

If one agrees with this statement private finance must be replaced by community finance in which risk is socialized so that we do not have to demand interest as the price of creating and maintaining useful infrastructure and production.

2. Competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights.

The problem with private savings is that society as whole does not save other than relatively small inventories of manufactured goods and raw materials.
The only real savings is in the build up infrastuctre (incl. production capacity) of society and in the resource base which supports that infrastructure. So the competition to obtain lots of savings is a competition to build up infrastructre and use it to produce lots of goods and services. Society as a whole can decide that it has sufficient infrastructure. But for the individual economic actor seeking personal security and economic independence, anxiety about the future drives a constant desire for the further accumulation of consumption rights (which obviously requires growth).

So the competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights may have to be replaced by work and income sharing (which could be called "socialism"). The older people whose productivity drops are supported by younger people who are in their productive prime. "This condition of mutual dependence is a physical reality and until we give up our quest for a delusory economic independence we will find no solution to the ecological dilemmas which face us". In other words: retirement should be funded by community, not by private savings.

Is there any truth to this line of reasoning? If there is it would mean a more collectivist economy (which some of us would consider non-capitalist  )

To Tweed: When you said capitalism, was this the factors you thought about, or was it more than that?

I know I'm on ignore but I guess others might be served by knowing that 1 is false and again shows that you don't understand economics very well. You can charge interest without growth.

I also don't understand 2. Some people will consume more than they produce, some less and people will smooth their consumption over time. I don't see why this would require growth.

I will also reiterate that AG did well in pointing out that the use of vague catch-phrases from people who don't understand the subject doesn't make for good analysis. Using growth is an improvement, since it reveals how far off the idea of this thread is.

The positions I have presented in this thread are not mine (a few are, but thats not the point), I have been trying to introduce an academic debate about non-growth economics and havent received serious answers just dismissive "you are a dummy"-talk.

There is no reason to write things like "you dont understand economcs very well" when I quote economists from alternative schools. It was clearly mentioned in the post, that I quoted arguments by others. Its misreading stuff like that, which makes you so irritating to debate with.

Also, you seem to overlook the important qualifier "proper" in their first argument again simplying by saying you can charge interests without growth, which is obvious, but not really the point when we are talking about transforming an entire economy.

It's not economics from an alternative school, just like saying the Moon is made of cheese is not alternative physics.

This isn't an academic debate because it's based on, well. I'm not sure exactly. But not anything recognizable in academia.

You seem to think that you're providing a starting point for a debate and some type of valid alternative view points. But since that's not true it does indicate a lack of understanding of the field.

And what is a proper interest rate? That is, again, a term I don't understand. I've never seen such a distinction made in economics.

[Gustaf]

The positions I have presented in this thread are not mine (a few are, but that's not the point), I have been trying to introduce an academic debate about non-growth economics and haven't received serious answers just dismissive "you are a dummy"-talk.

There is no reason to write things like "you don't understand economics very well" when I quote economists from alternative schools. It was clearly mentioned in the post, that I quoted arguments by others. Its misreading stuff like that, which makes you so irritating to debate with.

Also, you seem to overlook the important qualifier "proper" in their first argument again simplifying by saying you can charge interests without growth, which is obvious, but not really the point when we are talking about transforming an entire economy.

It's not economics from an alternative school, just like saying the Moon is made of cheese is not alternative physics.

This isn't an academic debate because it's based on, well. I'm not sure exactly. But not anything recognizable in academia.

You seem to think that you're providing a starting point for a debate and some type of valid alternative view points. But since that's not true it does indicate a lack of understanding of the field.

And what is a proper interest rate? That is, again, a term I don't understand. I've never seen such a distinction made in economics.

Your arrogance is just absurd.. Peter Victor is a professor at York University and environmental economics is a recognized field of research. Who are you to liken a well established academic discipline to claiming the moon is made of cheese? Why not at least do some basic research in the field before providing such a dismissive answer?

http://ineteconomics.org/people/peter-victor

Also, neither I, nor anyone I quoted, used the term "proper interest rate" (whereas the phrase "proper functioning" was used).

This was a late bump. You're the one presenting this alternative field and its ideas. What you have presented makes no sense. Now, if this is because you don't understand it yourself I don't know. But I don't really see that as my responsibility or problem in this context. Maybe the man has good things to say but what you have put forward here is not some interesting alternative theory.

For someone so allergic to semantic debates you seem very into semantics. So what is a proper functioning interest rate then?