Pops wrote:pstarr wrote:Pops, It's why you haven't heard a thing I have said,
Sorry, Pete, conversing with ralfy is like trying to out-shout microphone feedback, LOL.
I have been very civil in my posts, and I've provided as much detail as possible for my arguments. Given that, I don't understand why what I shared is labeled as such.
My guess is that there are other reasons why you do not want to understand what Pstarr is saying.
Anyway, I turned down the mic gain and looked back at your posts.
I agree, our main problem is population and overconsumption, both abetted by FFs.
Some points to consider regarding that: likely the population boom was brought about by the use of FFs which enabled extensive manufacturing and food production, both of which also ensured proper sanitation, greater availability of health care, etc. At the same time, it led to more profits for manufacturers and food producers, and required ever-increasing need for FFs, copper, fresh water, etc. That need became greater as more business (due to competition) engaged in overproduction while more of the human population engaged in overconsumption as part of middle class lifestyles.
In short, all of these point to the argument that capitalism not only enables growth but requires it.
I also agree the last few years of slow/no growth and free money look a lot like deflation - especially if you take out the all the central bank printing and Chinese hoarding (that would be "prepping" to you). You said in deflation money value grows and there are no loans and free money (QE) is just stuck in a drawer somewhere because it earns more sitting that "working" in an economy that is shrinking.
But this does not prove that capitalism does not require growth, unless one can show that capitalists are happy that deflation is taking place and should continue.
In addition, financial speculation is also the result of capitalism: as some realize that they can make more money from financing rather than from manufacturing and food production, they do so. And what we are experiencing now is fallout from such.
Just to expand that, if money is growing in value because real productive assets are shrinking in value, interest rates should be negative, Or another way, instead of interest being the incentive for the lender to not spend his money today but lend it, negative interest is the incentive to sit on it and wait for it to become more valuable on its own.
Or instead of discounting the future value of money there is a premium on its future vale. Right?
I think it is not so much as assets decreasing in value as the opposite (due to peak oil and physical limits), with an increase in money propping up the illusion that these resources can be accessed as easily.
Ultimately, one realizes that capitalism relies on increasing energy and material resource use to prop up the value of money.
As far as misinterpreting your POV, I did a OF2 and looked back at your other posts about capitalism. Here is one you wrote in 2011 that sums up my view of your view:
We are all parasites upon the Green Earth, slaves to our automation, high-technology, and an innate genetic need to consume. Inexpensive petroleum and several centuries of accumulated industrial design have destroyed our natural relationship with the Ecology of the Earth and thus we are in Overshoot. Until we come to terms with our predatory predisposition and genetic proclivity to breed and devour, we will remain incapable of creating a steady-state green economy based on the 3-R's. But that would be our only salvation.
Except for the parasitic part, which seems the wrong way to look at terraforming humans, I agree completely.
All of the points given refer to growth, which is what capitalism is about. A steady-state situation is the opposite.
I on the other hand argue both sides of the fence regularly, here from just lat year ...
As for elites, as long as there is organization there will always be elites - shamen, priests, kings Grand Poohbah, etc, the Iron Law of Oligarchy is immutable! Socialism has no advantage over any other ism in that respect.
Big time corporate capitalism as we know it will of course be pruned back severely, perhaps until it eventually disappears. Perhaps the revolution will come about after all and all land and whatever production is left will be appropriated and distributed among the cubical refugees to squander . . . not looking forward to that
Ironically, what you hope will not happen is what happened, and has led to the current situation. That is, the economy started with farming, then that and manufacturing, then service industries while manufacturing was outsourced and farming mechanized. Thus, descendants of farmers and manual laborers moved to offices and better-paying white-collar jobs.
Guess what many farmers and factory workers in developing nations want?
There have always been pooling of "capital" but without virtually unlimited labor (and no wages to pay like we've had in the FF era) it won't look like today. That is unless dystopian mega-mergers bring about [Skynet or Omni Consumer Products or of course, Soylent Corp] and then who knows but that seems at least as likely as global socialism.
It's possible that such a world already exists. For example, from what I remember, only a few mega-corporations generally control much of food processing and mechanized agriculture worldwide while several dozen control much of financing.
Welcome to capitalism.
I've argued forever that private property will probably last a long time yet, but I don't know...
It will last for a long time only as long as governments exist to legalize it. Very likely, the same governments will support those who want to use it for profit, then use the profit to obtain more private property to make more profit, and so on. Obviously, the profit will come in the form of money (made possible thanks to the same governments), and eventually the move to profit from profit will take place.
In short, capitalism.