[Pops]

I've been ranting for years that energy and population increase are the key factors in "growth." Slowing population growth and the reduction of cheap energy to waste on frivolous economic activity means growth will slow. Doesn't mean the WSJ goes out of business, just that the primary goal of business will become, once again, making a profit, rather than making the stock price go up.

[ralfy]

I've been ranting for years that energy and population increase are the key factors in "growth." Slowing population growth and the reduction of cheap energy to waste on frivolous economic activity means growth will slow. Doesn't mean the WSJ goes out of business, just that the primary goal of business will become, once again, making a profit, rather than making the stock price go up.

But even profit-making through sales of goods and services may require more than enough material resources and energy. In addition, unnecessary economic activity, such as the manufacture of middle class conveniences, takes places because businesses profit more from selling them. And the credit used to drive expansion to ensure even more profit-making comes from financing.

[Pops]

But even profit-making through sales of goods and services may require more than enough material resources and energy. In addition, unnecessary economic activity, such as the manufacture of middle class conveniences, takes places because businesses profit more from selling them. And the credit used to drive expansion to ensure even more profit-making comes from financing.

I'm encouraged Ralfy, usually you simply say profit is growth is capitalism.

Not sure what you mean by "more than enough resources"? Lower energy, either fossil energy or manpower or both are a given considering the population bubble passing and FF depletion.

My point is the end of systemic growth is not the end of individual surplus, or to clarify, the end of me working and making a surplus to trade or share with my overlord/

[ralfy]

I'm encouraged Ralfy, usually you simply say profit is growth is capitalism.

Not sure what you mean by "more than enough resources"? Lower energy, either fossil energy or manpower or both are a given considering the population bubble passing and FF depletion.

My point is the end of systemic growth is not the end of individual surplus, or to clarify, the end of me working and making a surplus to trade or share with my overlord/

What my post argues is exactly that.

Businesses profit by selling goods and services, and these require more material resources and energy. The profit is reinvested, allowing the business to grow and thus sell more goods and services. These in turn require even more material resources and energy.

All these lead to increasing production and consumption of goods coupled with increasing credit. That's growth. They all take place in a system that involves private property (which ensures control of the means of production by business owners) and money. That's capitalism.

There may be businesses that will have no profits, losses, or flat profits, but given competition, they will have to recover by increasing both sales and profits.

Thus, profit-making leads to more material resources and energy needed. Competition increases that need. Peak oil, etc., will not allow it, leading to a return of something similar to feudalism. That might include having to "share" with the "overlord."

[Pops]

Businesses profit by selling goods and services, and these require more material resources and energy.

That is as far as I got.

Business do not require "more" resources.

They require resources.

If demand is less and they sell less, then they require less resources.

Surprisingly they can still make a profit selling less, or at least some of them can. The proof is the simple fact that they were doing it before they sold more.

[ralfy]

That is as far as I got.

Why?

Business do not require "more" resources.

They do. That's why money supply, oil consumption, copper use, cement use, etc., have been rising worldwide for decades.

Why do you think we are experiencing the effects of peak oil?

They require resources.

They require more resources because the profits are reinvested to make more smart phones, kitchen appliances, etc. It's highly unlikely that these goods and services are being produced or offered without using more energy or materials.

If demand is less and they sell less, then they require less resources.

But that hasn't been the case for decades, right? We've seen a growing demand for energy and material resources worldwide.

Surprisingly they can still make a profit selling less, or at least some of them can. The proof is the simple fact that they were doing it before they sold more.

They can if they lower costs and maintain prices. The problem is that they also have to deal with competition, market share, investors wanting better returns, etc. That's why we've been seeing higher production, consumption, profits, and so forth worldwide for decades.

[Pops]

The thread is about aging populations, that means change. My comment was about leveling or lower population and lower energy surpluses - things change ralfy.

There will be no profit reinvested to grow capacity if existing capacity is overbuilt.

[ralfy]

The thread is about aging populations, that means change. My comment was about leveling or lower population and lower energy surpluses - things change ralfy.

There will be no profit reinvested to grow capacity if existing capacity is overbuilt.

The catch is that capitalist systems require increasing population and increasing energy surpluses. The reasons are obvious:

Given competition, businesses need expanding consumer markets. That's why we've been seeing a growing global middle class.

Given technology, the same growing global middle classes want more sophisticated goods. These include computers, Internet access, smart phones, kitchen appliances, passenger vehicles, etc.

Even with population aging brought about by prosperity, energy and resource consumption still increases because of prosperity. And to pay for caregivers, advanced health care, etc., aging populations will have to earn from returns in investments in businesses that sell to expanding consumer markets.

[Pops]

The catch is that capitalist systems require increasing population and increasing energy surpluses.

Actually Ralfy I think your POV requires growth. LOL

We've gone over this dozens of times, you look at Goldman Sacs or Warren Buffet or GE and think that is Capitalism.

I've quoted you the definition of capitalism over and over from any number of sources and because it doesn't jibe with you point of view it rolls off your back like a bad employment report of OF2. Since it never sticks so I won't go to the trouble. I'll just repeat that capitalism is merely private property used to make stuff to sell in a free market for private profit - the keys being private property and markets.

I've worked many an hours in my life and some of it has even been worth the effort. I created more value than I had before using tools that belonged to me and was able to trade that surplus for someone else's surplus.

Capitalism.

[Strummer]

I'll just repeat that capitalism is merely private property used to make stuff to sell in a free market for private profit - the keys being private property and markets.

But Goldman Sachs, Warren Buffet and GE are a natural and logical conclusion of this process.

Also, for the most part of human history, society did not function like this. It's a myth which economists beginning with Adam Smith simply made up.

[Pops]

Yeah, I've never argued that the current iteration will continue, just that private property and private profit can continue even with de-growth.

Not that they necessarily will, just that they won't necessarily stop.

[ralfy]

Actually Ralfy I think your POV requires growth. LOL

We've gone over this dozens of times, you look at Goldman Sacs or Warren Buffet or GE and think that is Capitalism.

I've quoted you the definition of capitalism over and over from any number of sources and because it doesn't jibe with you point of view it rolls off your back like a bad employment report of OF2. Since it never sticks so I won't go to the trouble. I'll just repeat that capitalism is merely private property used to make stuff to sell in a free market for private profit - the keys being private property and markets.

I've worked many an hours in my life and some of it has even been worth the effort. I created more value than I had before using tools that belonged to me and was able to trade that surplus for someone else's surplus.

Capitalism.

The corporations you mention are capitalist. Are you claiming otherwise?

This was explained to you in the past. I'll do it one more time. Here's the definition of "capitalism":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Read the first paragraph carefully. You will see that it is not only about private property. In fact, there are types of capitalism that do not involve that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

and they do not necessarily involve free markets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulated_market

That's why the global economy involves a mixture of the two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

And your reference to profit proves my argument. See this wiki entry for more details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation

I'll illustrate this point further using your last point:

If those tools are computers, then keep in mind the extensive mining, manufacturing, and transport systems needed to make them available to consumers and workers. The money or credit you used to buy them were created by large, multinational banks that also provided credit to all of the businesses involved in those systems. The businesses in those systems involve combinations of private and state-owned enterprises across various countries. Governments worked with these businesses through extensive development of infrastructure, security systems, etc.

The credit used to pay for work came from the same banks. The goods and services that are bought and paid for using earnings come from the same systems funded by the same banking systems, sometimes with manufacturers and business centers spread across the world.

Change the computers to construction equipment or smart phones or trucks and the same process applies.

These large businesses compete with each other, which is why we see many brand names and lots of advertising. That's also why we have department stores and malls with all sorts of goods and services available. The energy and material resource requirements for such systems are extensive, and the need grows as more people want better tools or goods and services. That's why oil consumption, money supply, resource demand for copper, cement, iron ore, etc., as well as fresh water, have been growing worldwide.

All of these were made possible because of profit that was churned back into the system, leading to extensive amounts of credit and manufacturing and transport systems to make tools, goods, and services available to more people.

Finally, one of the reasons populations age is because of greater prosperity, and that also means more energy and resource consumption. That's why richer countries generally have higher ecological footprints than most. As one documentary puts it, if the world tried to copy what populations did in the U.S., Australia, and Canada, then we'll need several more earths.

Does the world population want to consume more? Apparently so, as seen in greater sales of goods and services worldwide. It's also seen, ironically, in large numbers of young contract workers or immigrants working in the same rich countries providing care-giving support to the elderly. Their goal is to also avail of middle class conveniences.

Do businesses want the world population to consume more? Very likely, as that means more profits and greater returns on investment for them.

All of these are part of capitalist systems, especially the need to profit. The profit earned is spent or reinvested to fuel the systems and make even more profits. The catch is that energy and material resources are needed to provide those goods and services, and if those are limited, then there can be no further surpluses.

That's why capitalism requires continuous growth. That's why peak oil, global warming, etc., won't allow it.

[ralfy]

Yeah, I've never argued that the current iteration will continue, just that private property and private profit can continue even with de-growth.

Not that they necessarily will, just that they won't necessarily stop.

Private property in modern capitalist systems started with physical force and later legalized by government. That's why it started with enclosures and ended with land titles. Given de-growth, private property can take place, but not in the way most imagine.

Private profit will obviously continue, just as they did long before modern capitalist systems existed. But they will likely involve amounts that are so small such systems cannot be maintained.

Again, go back to the definition of capitalism and look at the various terms that are involved. It's not just private property, profit, and markets that are involved but also capital accumulation. That leads to more businesses, businesses growing larger, and expanding markets. All these require increasing more energy and material resources.

[Pops]

First link, first sentence:

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2

Monibot gets a footnote, otherwise no mention of growth as a requirement, only a result.

Sure there are dozens of permutations, labels, minutia but alas no requirement for growth, only private property and profit.

... but also capital accumulation. That leads to more ...

This is where you're stuck, simply because one accumulates capital doesn't mean the economy itself grows. Using that one line definition, capitalism is about profiting from personal capital, it doesn't say anything about "more" except as it applies to the capitalist.

Accumulation merely means an individual has more capital, not the system - capitalism doesn't care about the system except as it impacts profit. That of course is both it's great strength and it's great danger.

Perhaps our friendly neighborhood capitalist is able to profit when 5 other accumulators can not because the market is shrinking. He invests his money by accumulating them. In that case his share grows while the overall market shrinks, he is the prototype capitalist and I think this will be the prototypical economy for a long while.

Another example might be 5 capitalists who are able to profit in a shrinking market where one once dominated. Although their total profit may be less than the large corporation, rather than more, they are able to profit where the large company could not. This will also be typical I think once transportation cost rises and GDP shrinks to the point that economies of scale are no longer favorable.

Perhaps profit and accumulation are only relative: say farmland vs Angry Bird stock? Angry Bird shareholders sell out and buy Chinese hog packing shares as the entire angry bird market evaporates due to a shrinking economy. The hog packing shares increase in relative value and some capitalists "profit" even though the overall economy is "less" not more.


Once an individual has capital you say he must reinvest it and make the system grow. Let me ask; would you build a new factory if the one you have is only producing at 50% capacity?
Of course you wouldn't. And if all "factories" were at 50% capacity the only option for the capitalist is to either make a new market or buy up failing competitors. Consolidation is a typical phase in the lifecycle of the business model, When the total market is mature, the consolidation will be total. There is no rule of capitalism that says there must always be "more" capitalists.

Private profit will obviously continue, just as they did long before modern capitalist systems existed.

That is all I've ever said in any of our discussions, private property and private profit can coexist with de-growth because there is no requirement for growth and obviously there can be no growth in a resource constrained system.

[ralfy]

First link, first sentence:

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2

Monibot gets a footnote, otherwise no mention of growth as a requirement, only a result.

Read the next sentence, and the sentences that follow it. Read the other terms in the same message.

Sure there are dozens of permutations, labels, minutia but alas no requirement for growth, only private property and profit.

No, it's not, unless the profit earned is not spent or re-invested. Go back to your example: you sold something and earned a profit. That means additional money entered the system.

You use that profit and buy something from another person. That's an additional sale for him. To meet that additional sale, he has to produce more. Ultimately, that means either using his profits or borrowing money from a bank (which includes profits deposited) to buy more equipment, etc.

And this doesn't not yet include returns on investment or interest earned, both of which add to money supply.

That's why worldwide for many decades the number of goods and services have been going up, together with money supply, the level of credit, oil, copper, etc., consumption, energy consumption, etc. That's all what growth is about and is part of a global capitalist system.

This is where you're stuck, simply because one accumulates capital doesn't mean the economy itself grows. Using that one line definition, capitalism is about profiting from personal capital, it doesn't say anything about "more" except as it applies to the capitalist.

Again, don't get stuck with one line. Continue reading subsequent sentences.

And it's not only personal capital, as some businesses have several owners.

Accumulation merely means an individual has more capital, not the system - capitalism doesn't care about the system except as it impacts profit. That of course is both it's great strength and it's great danger.

No, it's not. Read the wiki entry carefully. Don't get stuck with the first sentence or one line.

Perhaps our friendly neighborhood capitalist is able to profit when 5 other accumulators can not because the market is shrinking. He invests his money by accumulating them. In that case his share grows while the overall market shrinks, he is the prototype capitalist and I think this will be the prototypical economy for a long while.

If the market is shrinking, and if he is the only one who is profiting, then he will not be able to receive a return on his investment as no one else is profiting. In fact, he might not even able to invest his money as no one will have reason to borrow from him because they are all only breaking even or losing money.

And as the market continues to shrink, even his profits will start decreasing.

Long while? Not even close.

Another example might be 5 capitalists who are able to profit in a shrinking market where one once dominated. Although their total profit may be less than the large corporation, rather than more, they are able to profit where the large company could not. This will also be typical I think once transportation cost rises and GDP shrinks to the point that economies of scale are no longer favorable.

If the market is shrinking, then the profits of those five will start decreasing as well. In time, they will make no profits.

Worse, if they are competitors (which is very likely), then they will start fighting with each other over not only market share but a shrinking market. With that, they will be lucky if all of them remain in business for long.

On top of that, you assume that their costs do not rise, or that they can easily raise prices to cover increasing costs. That makes absolutely no sense at all in a shrinking market.

Perhaps profit and accumulation are only relative: say farmland vs Angry Bird stock? Angry Bird shareholders sell out and buy Chinese hog packing shares as the entire angry bird market evaporates due to a shrinking economy. The hog packing shares increase in relative value and some capitalists "profit" even though the overall economy is "less" not more.

The economy didn't shrink, as the profits earned from the second venture came from losses from the first. Will it swing the other way after that?

It's nice to assume that this system, which is essentially a static economy, will last indefinitely, and that no other factors will take place, like damage to arable soil, or shareholders no longer wanting to lose every other year and making more profits than they did in the past, or workers in either industry no longer happy in having a job or getting laid off every other year, or that the profits earned from either industry come from the ability of workers from both industries to buy what is sold by both industries, or that markets of both industries won't grow, etc.

Once an individual has capital you say he must reinvest it and make the system grow. Let me ask; would you build a new factory if the one you have is only producing at 50% capacity?
Of course you wouldn't. And if all "factories" were at 50% capacity the only option for the capitalist is to either make a new market or buy up failing competitors. Consolidation is a typical phase in the lifecycle of the business model, When the total market is mature, the consolidation will be total. There is no rule of capitalism that says there must always be "more" capitalists.

It's not so much as having to re-invest it as wanting to do so, and not so much as wanting to make the system grow as wanting to earn from investments. Investments make the system grow. Returns on investment lead to further growth.

Also, capitalists create new markets or consolidate only if they expect to earn more. That's growth.

Finally, it's nice to imagine that we've now reached a stage of total maturity. I don't think we're even close to meeting one or more basic needs of most people worldwide.

That is all I've ever said in any of our discussions, private property and private profit can coexist with de-growth because there is no requirement for growth and obviously there can be no growth in a resource constrained system.

Again, capitalism involves more than just private property and private profit. In fact, some capitalist systems don't even involve either. More details in my previous message.

Second, the purpose for profit is to spend or to re-invest with expected returns. That means more production required to meet additional spending and the same to pay for the expected returns plus to earn additional profit.

Consider the additional production and profits earned from sales of that and churned back into the system through additional spending or investment, and you have growth.

If profits are earned from losses of others (i.e., the example you gave earlier), then what exists is a static economy, not de-growth. Also, there are actually no profits earned, as either industry profits one year and loses the next. In order for that static economy to last for a long time, we have to assume that all participants do not want to gain more market share, stop losing, don't expect to see expanding markets, etc.

With de-growth, the situation worsens (see above) as no one earns in the long run. No profits are earned by some, and for the others, any profits cannot be used to spend more, as less is now being produced each time, and no interest earned from investments as fewer are profiting.

Finally, a very small market and no use of money, it is highly unlikely that profit or even private property (which is dependent on land times legitimized by governments and legal and police networks) will matter.

[Pops]

First link, first sentence:

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2

Read the next sentence, and the sentences that follow it. Read the other terms in the same message.
[quote]
You can read and re-read and still, Monibot gets a mention but no other argument that capitalism requires growth.

[careinke]

Private property in modern capitalist systems started with physical force and later legalized by government.

You repeat yourself, the government IS force, or on a good day just the threat of force.

[ralfy]

You can read and re-read and still, Monibot gets a mention but no other argument that capitalism requires growth.

Again, the reason why capitalism requires growth is found in the second term linked in the second sentence of the first paragraph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation

Consider the other terms, like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competiti ... onomics%29

Again, don't get stuck with the first sentence or one-line definitions. Also, don't assume that capitalism is only about private property or that profits are not spent or re-invested.

[ralfy]

You repeat yourself, the government IS force, or on a good day just the threat of force.

I should, as it is easy to assume that there is no difference between the two.

[Pops]

I see how you did that Ralfy

But as I said, it isn't me who is stuck on capitalism being a one way street to More.

Marks thought capitalism is a tug of war where capital accumulation and capital destruction constantly work against each other. Here is Karl:

Capital, as self-expanding value . . . can be understood only as motion, not as a thing at rest.

Mendel talks about devaloisation, where lack of labor destroys producing capital. Marx talks about capital depreciation as a fundamental of price (this is interesting and not too thick)

Even Wiki quotes Karl as pretty well refuting your argument of "more" (in your link, thanks)

Accumulation does not imply a necessary change in total magnitude of value produced but can simply refer to a change in the composition of an industry (pg. 514).

I'm not arguing that we don't all want more and that is not the goal, we're by and large greedy little piggies after all. What I am saying is the system where one person owns the means and another willingly provides labor resulting in the creation of added value is not dependent on ever increasing "more".

I think about it like this, it's just the abstract extension of the biggest he-monkey getting all the she-monkeys, Jane cooking for Tarzan, the chief receiving tribute, the king his taxes, the landlord his share.