[myspacepro]

Of course, as long as we assign monetary values for the environment, capitalism will be able to adjust.

[11Pecepebra]

So the economy grows by 2% p.a. for the next 50 years: In order to keep energy and ressource consumption and waste production at the same level, by what factor would we need to increase our eco-efficiency in order to keep your ´ecological footprint´ (which is already too big) the same? To spare you the math (but please, do check it yourself): By a factor of 27, roughly.

No.

Learn how exponential growth works.

[Drugmachine]

still it´s only a matter of time, until (exponential) growth outpaces any efficiency gains, even if all that could be done in order to raise it, would be done

How the **** does this follow?

If we allow your little model then all "efficiency" has to do is keep increasing at the same pace that the economy grows.

[Gastonleruanich]

Can economic activity?

[amimabremiBit]

Thanks, KH ! No, it cant. But it is a premise for capitalism to work

Because one has to if one wants to believe in the sustainablity of capitalism - it needs constant exponential growth in order to work.

[N1bNXuDb]

What? Are you denying that all capitalist societies have one common goal, and that this goal is economic growth at any cost? You do know that in capitalistic societies, any investment needs to be profitable, right ? At least as profitable as the basic interst rate is (Liquidity trap). Right now it´s about zero, but that is certainly an exception (unfortunately). 2% is actually a rather conservative estimated average for 50 years. We simply do not have the option of a ´steady state´ economy as things are right now. But in the long run, growth has to stop. I mean, how absurd and anti-conventional this may sound, just shows, how much we already have taken it for granted, that our econmies have to grow all the time.

(Dont expect any answer from me anymore, today, as it is 1am here, and i will hit the sack now).

[newshep]

This is quite a good video on STUFF.

[Si8jy8HN]

It seems a lot depends on the chosen goal.

Best regards,

[Stetbrate]

KH, it would be nice, if you put a single point in your post

As opposed to the multiple points I put in?

For example, economic growth has obviously a connection to the capital return rate, since that returned capital needs to be reinvested

No.



Production from invested capital can EITHER be reinvested OR consumed.



- and you know this.

I know that you've proved yourself to be horribly ignorant

As well, as you do know, that a capitalistic economy goes into crisis when it hits zero-growth

?

No, I know that people would PREFER economies to continue to grow. I also know that when there ISN'T a crisis capitalist economies tend to grow. This is simply because they do a good job allocating resources, encouraging growth.

You have this totally ass-backwards.




Simply dismissing what i wrote as ´rediculous nonsense´

Oh, but it is.



You've made a bunch of claims which are laughable on their face.

and then blaming me for going to bed at 1am

I'm blaming you for being retarded and then leaving before I could abuse you some more.

i dont even know what to call that

Entertainment

Maybe you should have used the time to give what i said a serious thought and, if you´d feel the need to, prepare a somewhat convincing debunkment.

I've already done so. I've explained PRECISELY which of your claims are ridiculous.

[nushentelve]

Rate of return = rate of growth.



OMFG, a new economic identity that nobody else has discovered, but unitard has stumbled upon

[GogaMegaPis]

a) Of course, the classical theory splits profits, after they have been attained, into to-be-reinvested capital and consumption. That is such basic book-lore, that even i do not really disagree with that. So, the $20B profit run by the major oil-companies yearly - how much of that goes into consumption? Just one example. We have just witnessed, how desperate need for reinvestment had a financial bubble grow which just burst.

b) Capitalism has an issue with zero-growth, because for every investment, there is interest to pay. You dont really believe, that the majority economy runs on every corps own capital, do you? So if the economy does not grow, the interest can not be paid -> crisis. Cut down of costs -> firing people... you know recession basically. Give me one example of a capitalist economy running on zero-growth over a prolonged period of time.

c) ´because the people want it to grow´ - read the article above, about the ´want for growth´. I really dont have much to add to that, since i put it out here on poly multiple times, in my own words. People want more stuff, cause their are frequently bombarded with ads, that tell them so. I did quote passage from the article, that points out that the ever increasing volume of marketing just reflects the need for constant growth.

BTW your condescending mockery is dispicable. Either your tone changes drastically, or i wont discuss with you at all anymore.

(post #18 has been reported)

[Erunsenef]

a) Of course, the classical theory splits profits, after they have been attained, into to-be-reinvested capital and consumption. That is such basic book-lore, that even i do not really disagree with that. So, the $20B profit run by the major oil-companies yearly - how much of that goes into consumption? Just one example. We have just witnessed, how desperate need for reinvestment had a financial bubble grow which just burst.

b) Capitalism has an issue with zero-growth, because for every investment, there is interest to pay. You dont really believe, that the majority economy runs on every corps own capital, do you? So if the economy does not grow, the interest can not be paid -> crisis. Cut down of costs -> firing people... you know recession basically. Give me one example of a capitalist economy running on zero-growth over a prolonged period of time.

c) ´because the people want it to grow´ - read the article above, about the ´want for growth´. I really dont have much to add to that, since i put it out here on poly multiple times, in my own words. People want more stuff, cause their are frequently bombarded with ads, that tell them so. I did quote passage from the article, that points out that the ever increasing volume of marketing just reflects the need for constant growth.

BTW your condescending mockery is dispicable. Either your tone changes drastically, or i wont discuss with you at all anymore.

(post #18 has been reported)

You've started by getting some very basic facts and premises wrong, and refused to revisit them when KH has pointed out that they're wrong, and why. Even in this latest post, you cling to the notion that rate of return and rate of growth are the same. The condescending mockery is perfectly appropriate in this case. Given that, you're probably going to have to stop discussing with him, which in turn will present an even greater opportunity for condescending mockery. Oh, the humanity.

By the way, people want more stuff because they find stuff useful. If it were just because they are bombarded with ads, I'd have a basement full of Tampax and Summer's Eve. I don't, but it's not because I've never seen a tampon or douche ad.

[JANALA]

I´ll jump over my own shadow, in reply to this, despite the fact, that style of writing still is beyond all common courtesy.

About the 0 growth, 0 rate of return: If i have profits, and am not allowed to reinvest them (in which case, theoretically, Growth = 0, RoR > 0), i´d have to consume it all. This is buying power, that did not exist prior to the investment though, and how am i gonna consume it, without the need for growth elsewhere - i am sure you heard of the ´say-theorem´ - any production will generate new demand (and with it growth).

I dont say, and never did, that ´evil capitalists´ are forcing anything. In fact, i think they are as much victim of the system as most other people as well. I am not one of those people, who pushes the blame for the defects of capitalism on a certain group of people, like the Nazis did on the Jews after the pre-recent crisis and many people tend to do today with managers and bankers today.

I will now provide you with a set of vocab, which you seem to be lacking:

- ´I do not agree´ - means in your language: ´you are retarded´

- ´This is a rediculous, easily debunkable claim, because... [insert debunkment here]´ - this equals the laughing smilie you like to use

- ´very [much]´, ´strongly´ etc. - vulgo: ****ing

I dont claim to be infailable - you can see that in post #5. I merely want to discuss stuff - this is not about my ego. How about you adopt this posture, for as long as we talk, at least?

[JeorgeNoxeref]

I´ll jump over my own shadow, in reply to this, despite the fact, that style of writing still is beyond all common courtesy.

Boo hoo.

bout the 0 growth, 0 rate of return: If i have profits, and am not allowed to reinvest them (in which case, theoretically, Growth = 0, RoR > 0), i´d have to consume it all. This is buying power, that did not exist prior to the investment though, and how am i gonna consume it, without the need for growth elsewhere

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Does this make any sense to ANYBODY?

- i am sure you heard of the ´say-theorem´ - any production will generate new demand (and with it growth).

?

I dont say, and never did, that ´evil capitalists´ are forcing anything. In fact, i think they are as much victim of the system as most other people as well. I am not one of those people, who pushes the blame for the defects of capitalism on a certain group of people, like the Nazis did on the Jews after the pre-recent crisis and many people tend to do today with managers and bankers today.


Bunch of useless nonsense. The point is that you're claiming that marketing drives growth and this is done BECAUSE capitalism needs growth in order to survive. Both claims are silly

I will now provide you with a set of vocab, which you seem to be lacking:

- ´I do not agree´ - means in your language: ´you are retarded´

No. When I say "you're retarded" it's because I've pointed out an error (not a difference in opinion) more than one time and you still persist in maintaining your mistaken position.

´This is a rediculous, easily debunkable claim, because... [insert debunkment here]´ - this equals the laughing smilie you like to use

Laughter suffices for most of what you post.

- ´very [much]´, ´strongly´ etc. - vulgo: ****ing

I like swearing.

I dont claim to be infailable - you can see that in post #5. I merely want to discuss stuff - this is not about my ego. How about you adopt this posture, for as long as we talk, at least?

I was happy to, until you demonstrated that you're incapable of learning from those who are better informed than yourself.

[Teareerah]

How about competition, combined with the decreasing marginal profits, being a reason for a need for growth?

[FrassyLap]

See, THAT was a decent answer! I am totally happy with it. I may in fact learn something from it - thank you.

EDIT:

Can we talk then?

(Please note, that none of the following questions is meant to be provocative - i´d just like to hear your opinion on them)

So, let´s assume, that we are approaching (or already have crossed) the limit of ressource and energy consumption and waste-sink-capacities - i take it, that you think, that capitalism is absolutely able to adept to that situation, and would, if needed, go to a steady-state economy. How so? By forces of the ´invisible hand´, or would interference from outside, say eco-taxes, internalization of costs or something else, be needed? In other words: If you were an almost allmighty politician (assuming there would be somthing like that), and believed (take this as another assumption) that our ecological ´footprint´ (basically the sum of what was mentioned above) was to big soon or already - what would your politics look like? Roughly, please. Please, if you find the time, also eloborate a little on the chances of implementing such a policy under real world conditions.

You said, that the economy wants (rather than ´has to´ - i am willing to concede this point for sake of discussion for now) to grow. I wonder, if you agree with my estimanition, that a raise in eco-efficiency could not keep up with a constant economic growth for an infinite period of time. If you do, how would you ´force´ the economy not to follow that want to grow? Or would it, in your opinion, stop growing all on its own, before its too late?

Cause, you see, my concern is not to attack capitalism per se - my concern is the environment.

[vipbunter]

KH may know a lot of stuff, but he'd make a **** teacher.