Capitalism: why eternal growth is self-destructive

[Stevicus]

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[Estro Felino]

You make "exploitation" sound like a bad thing.
Yet all economies since hunter-gatherer have used
used it....even your vaunted dream of socialism,
ie, some work for others.
How do you define it?

As for "profit" is simply seeking to get benefit that
exceeds the cost incurred. Without this, why would
anyone invest time & money to take a business risk?
This shows that even under your socialism, profit
must happen (even if called something else) in order
to benefit society.
For example, your collective makes shoes.
It makes extra shoes to trade for bread.

You're good at math, right?

This is my question.
A businessman produces ham in his firm.
He spends 100,000 euros on meat every year. And thanks to the work of his employees, he gains 4 million euros a year.
How much money (of those 4 million) should he use to pay his employees?

 

[Heyo]

To be blunt, it seems that your arguments are naught
but....
- Demonization by labeling, eg, workers under capitalism
are "exploited", but workers under socialism are.....not
really addressed, even though they too must work to
live.

So many fallacies in one point ...
1. Whataboutism, a.k.a. tu quoque fallacy.
2. None sequitur, as we discuss exploitation of resources and overproduction / consumerism.
3. False dichotomy, as the only other system you seem to know is socialism.

- Decrying problems that happen under capitalism, but
not when the same problems happen under other systems.

Because it happens most under capitalism. I haven't denied that it does also happen under other systems.

- Ignoring the utility of regulation.

When have regulations ever worked to prevent the main problem, growth?

- Falsely making unending economic expansion a condition
necessary for capitalism.

I thought we agreed that capitalists wouldn't invest if there was no expectation of gain?

You're just not holding up your end of this discussion.
I expect more from you, unlike some others here.

 

[Estro Felino]

I thought we agreed that capitalists wouldn't invest if there was no expectation of gain?

And I thought that Capitalists wanted to express their creativity in a business, and not because they worship some Phoenician god called money.

 

[Revoltingest]

So many fallacies in one point ...
1. Whataboutism, a.k.a. tu quoque fallacy.
2. None sequitur, as we discuss exploitation of resources and overproduction / consumerism.
3. False dichotomy, as the only other system you seem to know is socialism.

Because it happens most under capitalism. I haven't denied that it does also happen under other systems.

When have regulations ever worked to prevent the main problem, growth?

I thought we agreed that capitalists wouldn't invest if there was no expectation of gain?

This isn't worth it.
Your errors are so numerous & intractable as to be not worth pursuing.
You don't even know how informal logical fallacies work.
Tell you what.
When you find a system in the real world that works
better than capitalism, you can show me. And it
doesn't count to name capitalist countries that
have generous social benefits.

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[Stevicus]

 

[Brickjectivity]

There ARE economic systems that are not state controlled, reward invention and innovation, and do not rely on the myth that economies must grow endlessly to be healthy.

No. The only decent economic system is one in which the entire world is controlled by a state religion in which people own nothing and the leadership is trustworthy!
I posted that intending to be ironic, but I am concerned that some may take it seriously.

 

[Stevicus]

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[Quagmire]

It's sad that there is only a few motorcyclists in that picture.

And I'm guessing most of those cars only have one person inside.

 

[Revoltingest]

Getting this thread on track....
Suddenly There Aren't Enough Babies. The Whole World Is Alarmed...
They weren't alarmed when a booming population
was driving up the cost of living, wrecking the climate,
paving over the natural world, denuding the seas of
life, & causing mass extinction. But a stable or
slightly falling population "alarms" them?
Whether an economy is capitalist, socialist, or communist,
this is good....although I'm skeptical that it's durable.

 

[Nakosis]

Eternal growth is impossible: yet it's what unbridled Capitalism and the profit maximization advocate for.
They want a country to grow every year, and what does that imply?

That more cars are produced, more cars are sold: but spaces are limited and at some point, we will need to stop producing thousands and thousands of car because there will be not even one inch free.
All garages, all parking lots will be taken.
Eternal growth is suicidal and self-destructive: capitalists want more and more people on Earth, because they want more and more customers.

If the universe is infinite then our growth is only limited by our technical knowledge.

 

[Estro Felino]

You're practically demonstrating that Capitalism need slaves to exploit.
That is why Capitalists wouldn't benefit from demographic collapse.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Eternal growth is impossible: yet it's what unbridled Capitalism and the profit maximization advocate for.
They want a country to grow every year, and what does that imply?

That more cars are produced, more cars are sold: but spaces are limited and at some point, we will need to stop producing thousands and thousands of car because there will be not even one inch free.
All garages, all parking lots will be taken.

You seem to ignore that cars are replaced.
It's not like every car that was ever produced is still driving around...

Eternal growth is suicidal and self-destructive: capitalists want more and more people on Earth, because they want more and more customers.

This too seems like a weird thing to say.
Even the biggest companies in the world don't have every single human as a customer today. In fact, I don't think there is any company today of which even half the human population on the globe is already a customer, let alone in all their different branches.

There's a lot of "world" out there and I as a capitalist don't require population growth for my business to expand. I don't think a single life time is even remotely enough to reach every human out there alive today. Not even for companies like Microsoft. And it's not required either.

So I'ld say that while you might have some point somewhere, it gets completely lost in this over-exaggeration way that are trying to present it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

During the twenties and the thirties there was a form of bridled Capitalism, in my country.

You are welcome to go work for a company that treats its employees like they did 100 years ago.

I'll gladly hire you under those conditions.
I can't though. It's not exactly legal anymore. And thank goodness it isn't.

 

[Estro Felino]

Getting this thread on track....
Suddenly There Aren't Enough Babies. The Whole World Is Alarmed...
They weren't alarmed when a booming population
was driving up the cost of living, wrecking the climate,
paving over the natural world, denuding the seas of
life, & causing mass extinction. But a stable or
slightly falling population "alarms" them?
Whether an economy is capitalist, socialist, or communist,
this is good....although I'm skeptical that it's durable.

Actually the Capitalists are alarmed...
They will have to increase the wages, if they want someone to work for them...
They crave slaves. Period.

Governments and public law entities benefit from population reduction because they will have fewer people to take care of.

 

[Nakosis]

You're good at math, right?

This is my question.
A businessman produces ham in his firm.
He spends 100,000 euros on meat every year. And thanks to the work of his employees, he gains 4 million euros a year.
How much money (of those 4 million) should he use to pay his employees?

Meat is not the only cost the businessman has to cover. They have to pay for facilities, utilities, delivery, packaging, advertisement, legal fees, health inspections, licenses, recruitment, etc... As well as tasking 100% of the risk if the business fails. If any one of these employees would be willing to cover these costs, they could start their own business.