One Problem with Capitalism?

[work in progress]

Thanks for the apology, Cheers.

I can elaborate on why I see that as a natural limit to capitalism.

At the heart of Western capitalism is a crucial assumption, it depends upon an environment with potentially unlimited growth. Corporations must grow to survive, markets must expand, new low wage frontiers must be harnessed, and cashed up new consumers must elevate themselves from those very same low wage frontiers.

Capitalism as we know it can not be constrained into a reality of finite resources and natural limits. The present model and practice of capitalism is siml,y not sustainable.

Exactly! The only thing in nature that grows exponentially is cancer. Thanks to capitalism....especially the increasingly avaricious capitalism of modern consumer throwaway society...we will keep pushing for more and more energy supplies (regardless of carbon footprint), draw down renwable resources, and exhaust non-renewable resources, in that quest to produce and consume more and more products.

The only unanswered question now is whether global capitalism will self-destruct before or after it has set us on the course for runaway climate change and the sixth major extinction in earth history.

 

[Alceste]

Exactly! The only thing in nature that grows exponentially is cancer. Thanks to capitalism....especially the increasingly avaricious capitalism of modern consumer throwaway society...we will keep pushing for more and more energy supplies (regardless of carbon footprint), draw down renwable resources, and exhaust non-renewable resources, in that quest to produce and consume more and more products.

The only unanswered question now is whether global capitalism will self-destruct before or after it has set us on the course for runaway climate change and the sixth major extinction in earth history.

To late, but in fairness to capitalism it's unchecked population growth that has done this, not any particular economic model. People - like everything in nature - are gonna consume resources and make a big mess. That's our nature. The only way to limit our mess is to limit our population.

Edited to add: economic growth completely depends on population growth, so whatever is to blame, our current economic model has to go before we can hope to tackle resource depletion and climate change in any significant way.

 

[metis]

To late, but in fairness to capitalism it's unchecked population growth that has done this, not any particular economic model. People - like everything in nature - are gonna consume resources and make a big mess. That's our nature. The only way to limit our mess is to limit our population.

Edited to add: economic growth completely depends on population growth, so whatever is to blame, out economic model has to go before we can tackle resource depletion and climate change.

And I feel you hit at least part of the problem on the head.

Let's say that all people lived as Jesus or Gandhi recommended, namely a renunciation of materialism beyond basic necessities. What would happen to economies under capitalism? I think it would be a very loud thud. And yet look at the benefits if we did as such: less materialism, less resources being used and wasted, less fighting over resources, less pollution, less of a problem with human-caused climate change, people again being more important than money and what money can buy, etc.

 

[factseeker88]

"The problem with capitalism is that it best rewards the worst part of us: the ruthless, competitive, conniving, opportunistic, acquisitive drives, giving little reward and often much punishment--or at least much handicap--to honesty, compassion, fair play, many forms of hard work, love of justice, and a concern for those in need." >>

True, and there is no mention of capitalism in the constitution or the Bible

The constitution preamble says:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We the people, not we the super rich, not we the congress, not we the Supreme Court, just we the people.

The Bible says:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Mark 10:25

“Government and co-operation are in all things the laws of life. Anarchy and competition, the laws of death.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

 

[Revoltingest]

"The problem with capitalism is that it best rewards the worst part of us: the ruthless, competitive, conniving, opportunistic, acquisitive drives, giving little reward and often much punishment--or at least much handicap--to honesty, compassion, fair play, many forms of hard work, love of justice, and a concern for those in need." >>

True, and there is no mention of capitalism in the constitution or the Bible

The constitution preamble says:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We the people, not we the super rich, not we the congress, not we the Supreme Court, just we the people.

The Bible says:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Mark 10:25

“Government and co-operation are in all things the laws of life. Anarchy and competition, the laws of death.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

I don't care what's in the Bible. It's not the basis for our law or anything I believe.
So let's not allow religious fundamentalism from any oppressors infringe upon liberty.
But if capitalism is against your beliefs, then you may personally refrain from it.

The Constitution does address capitalism:
- The Interstate Commerce Clause. Just as with "separation of church & state", while this exact language doesn't appear, it is provided for in thoughts & conduct of the framers when drafting the Constitution. Perhaps it was so obvious & fundamental that people would need to run businesses & work for them that they say no need to say "Capitalism shall be allowed."
- The 5th Amendment deals with property ownership.
"No person shall be....deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
- The Constitution lacks authority to prevent aggregation of capital & people for commercial purposes, although regulation of conduct is permitted.

 

[work in progress]

To late, but in fairness to capitalism it's unchecked population growth that has done this, not any particular economic model. People - like everything in nature - are gonna consume resources and make a big mess. That's our nature. The only way to limit our mess is to limit our population.

Edited to add: economic growth completely depends on population growth, so whatever is to blame, our current economic model has to go before we can hope to tackle resource depletion and climate change in any significant way.

No, I covered this on page 12, but the color graph I posted is behind a paywall and I can't call it up again. So this black and white comparing population growth with carbon emissions by average income levels from the same study shows that economic growth and its related increases in consumption, energy use and resource extraction are more damaging than population growth.

where population is a primary factor is land and water use. Population growth is a problem, but one that could easily be managed if economic demands for constant growth were brought under control.

The implications of population growth and urbanization for climate change | David Satterthwaite - Academia.edu

 

[metis]

Carbon emissions relate to population growth, but there are other factors, and some of these other factors do relate more.

 

[Alceste]

Carbon emissions relate to population growth, but there are other factors, and some of these other factors do relate more.

Sure, in my post I was referring to the whole shebang (water depletion, deforestation, ocean desertification, extinctions due to loss of habitat, topsoil depletion, peak oil, financialization of the economy, etc.) not just CO2 emissions.

We're either going to tackle all those problems together as the result of a paradigm shift, or we're not going to tackle any of it, IMO.

 

[metis]

Sure, in my post I was referring to the whole shebang (water depletion, deforestation, ocean desertification, extinctions due to loss of habitat, topsoil depletion, peak oil, financialization of the economy, etc.) not just CO2 emissions.

We're either going to tackle all those problems together as the result of a paradigm shift, or we're not going to tackle any of it, IMO.

Amen, and this is where some on the right really amaze me in a very negative way. If we work on reducing carbon emissions, other benefits arise from this.

Oh wait, how could I be so stupid! Certainly making as much money as possible is far more important than our future and the future of our kids and grandkids, right?

 

[factseeker88]

Sure, in my post I was referring to the whole shebang (water depletion, deforestation, ocean desertification, extinctions due to loss of habitat, topsoil depletion, peak oil, financialization of the economy, etc.) not just CO2 emissions.

We're either going to tackle all those problems together as the result of a paradigm shift, or we're not going to tackle any of it, IMO.

Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do but hope and pray it will all work itself out in the end. The good news is that the Republican house has finally recognized the veteran's desperate need and passed a bill that allotted them $64.7 billion in 2015 (HR4486)

 

[Alceste]

Amen, and this is where some on the right really amaze me in a very negative way. If we work on reducing carbon emissions, other benefits arise from this.

Oh wait, how could I be so stupid! Certainly making as much money as possible is far more important than our future and the future of our kids and grandkids, right?

That's right! Drill, baby, drill! Frack the hell out of this continent! Frack it until it can't walk straight! Let's bury some pipe! Ooh yeah, feels good don't it!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's right! Drill, baby, drill! Frack the hell out of this continent! Frack it until it can't walk straight! Let's bury some pipe! Ooh yeah, feels good don't it!

And I guess the earthquakes fracking causes are the orgasm, right?

 

[Alceste]

And I guess the earthquakes fracking causes are the orgasm, right?

Multiple earthgasms from all the fracking and drilling and laying of pipe. And boy oh boy, you will want to find some high ground when she ejaculates!

 

[work in progress]

Carbon emissions relate to population growth, but there are other factors, and some of these other factors do relate more.

And, I didn't say there was no correlation between population growth and increasing carbon emissions - more people require more land under cultivation, and when it includes continued slash-and-burn agriculture especially, that's where we see the cause behind rising CO2 levels in undeveloped nations. The fast rising rates of species extinctions for now, correlate more closely with habitat loss to agriculture to feed growing populations than climate change...although that will change in the near future, as greater impacts from changing climate put too much stress on already dwindling animal and even plant species.

And a finite world cannot afford ever-increasing populations. And I've mentioned before at least once or twice, that I haven't seen any experts on ecosystems claim present population levels are sustainable indefinitely into the future. The question is whether populations will be reduced gradually through declining birth rates, or drastically by population die-offs.

And that's where I get a little uncomfortable when population is listed as the no. 1 ecological risk for the future. Back over 200 years ago, Thomas Malthus made his discredited prediction of a population die-off in England and Europe sometime in the mid-century. The cornucopians have flagged Malthus's prediction as an example of the wonders of human ingenuity and innovation - in the case of extreme techno-optimists like Julian Simon, even arguing that Earth has no limits, and the only thing stopping ever-increasing abundance is our abilities to invent and innovate.

But, that was back in the 90's! The post-2000 world realities have brought most optimists back to earth, and techno-optimism today is about at the same level of religious faith in the Rapture. The hard realities is that we still live in a finite world, and our inventions almost always allow us to further draw down nature's ecosystem budgets, and not provide us the ability to ignore them and press on indefinitely. The present global crisis in freshwater availability and topsoil destruction is a warning that we are rapidly running out of room to even maintain present global food production...let alone think we are going to substantially increase it.

So, in a sense, Malthus wasn't wrong; he just had no means to incorporate improvements in food yields through irrigation, mined phosphates and later - oil-based fertilizers. And, during his time, the great powers of Europe were on a colonization spree - using their ships and superior weaponry to turn much of the rest of the world into colonies and harvest their mineral wealth and agricultural resources.

What often gets overlooked though, is that Malthus had a plan for his prediction of exponential population increase: allow periodic die-offs of the masses of poor and marginal members of society. And, that's where I really get suspicious of today's superwealthy and their lackies and hangers-on who do their bidding and tell them how special and important they are. A recent OECD study revealed that the 85 richest billionaires in the world today have as much wealth as the poorest half of the population - 3.5 billion people. Is there any doubt that those 85 don't consider themselves special and more important than billions, because of their inherited wealth that they have magnified to ridiculous, absurd levels?

If the wealthiest believe that future climate impacts and other environmental degradations are survivable, the resources they have at their disposal place them at the front of the line for surviving future global catastrophe. They will move north...maybe take some of their lackies with them...but those imbeciles who worship them and do their bidding will be cast aside, like the extra passengers of a crowded lifeboat.

I don't know if such lifeboat scenarios are in the future of the oligarch's plans...although I came across an interesting article two years ago of a wealthy Wall Street banker purchasing a defunct missile silo in upstate New York and converting it into his emergency bunker. A lot of good that would do in a climate catastrophe, but if there is any evidence that the rich think they will save themselves at our expense, then we have another problem of capitalism - the incentive for the wealthy to kill off millions of people, either through direct malfeasance or through simple lack of consideration. Just saying that the 'we're all in this together' mode of thinking that most environmentalists have, is not shared by everyone thanks to capitalism and the divisions of hierarchy it has created in the human family.

 

[illykitty]

Sure, in my post I was referring to the whole shebang (water depletion, deforestation, ocean desertification, extinctions due to loss of habitat, topsoil depletion, peak oil, financialization of the economy, etc.) not just CO2 emissions.

We're either going to tackle all those problems together as the result of a paradigm shift, or we're not going to tackle any of it, IMO.

It makes me quite depressed, because we could have so much better. We already have tech for clean energy. Why aren't we using it? It's no urgent matter for people with power and money. They continue to bury their heads in the sand. Heck here in the UK the environment secretary is a climate change denier along with a tract record of more stupidity, how messed up is this!? I think he's getting plenty of moneybags.

I hope the 99% does something before it's too late.

 

[Conceivia]

My friend gave an example of a grocery store which gave away free food. First timers would walk into the store and take as much as they could. Later on, after a few trips, people would relax and take only what they need.

This makes me think, maybe it is not so much the money system that is the problem. Maybe it is actually the fact that people don't have enough. When people fear for their survival, they start to break moral rules.

I know that any money system is reward based training, that teaches people to be selfish. That will always be true to some extent. Even so, without rewarding people for working, we might have another serious problem. I've always been worried that no reward for working might not work.

Now I have a new idea, which I call "Open Company". It still rewards people for work, but it also makes sure that everyone has enough, and also that everyone has the ability to succeed. Open Company is like a new operating system for mankind.

If you think of money as power, under Capitalism, every company is created for the purpose of taking away power from the people. Sounds really bad, but if you think about it, it is true.

Open Company is based on a theory about maximum power transfer. A method to achieve the most good for the people. The idea is that maximum power transfer, and therefore the maximum ability to do good, is achieved when 50% of the money is used to generate more income, and 50% of the money is used to do good, to help the people.

That 50% is not just thrown to the poor, where it would quickly disappear and really not help them anyway, rather it is used by Open Company to empower the poor. It is used to buy land, machines, tools, materials, food, etc. It will be used to create an environment where people are extremely empowered. Where people can achieve great things, without worry about how they will support themselves and their families.

Anyone who wants can join Open Company. So, even though the money goes to Open Company, it in effect goes to help the poor.

There is a further division in that 50%. Half of that 50% goes to the local branch of Open Company, and the other half goes to global Open Company, which is then divided among all the local branches all over the World.

In effect, this balances the wealth, so that even the very poorest are provided with the machines, tools, education, food, etc. So that they can become productive. In this system, everyone on Earth should become productive.

Problems like Global Warming and stuff, would be quickly solved by having billions of minds working on the problem. With so many minds solving problems, no one would use oil for fuel, because solar would be cheaper.

Tony

 

[Yerda]

I'm an anarcho-communist.

What a difference a year makes!

 

[Laika]

I'm an anarcho-communist.