Moved from D1 forum

[kandrathe]

Capitalism needs population growth.

There is a myth popular with anti-capitalist that capitalism is a pyramid scheme. I think the argument is rather chicken/egg, in that initially moving from agrarian to industrial, a population can grow due to excess abundance, but once people do not need to rely on the labor of their offspring they choose to have fewer children. I would agree that capitalism encourages economic growth, but I've never thought that was a bad thing.

Capitalists may profit from population growth, but capitalism has little to do with population growth other than in providing the improvement in quality of life sufficient to enable people to not rely on their offspring for taking care of them in their old age. Hence, the world is simultaneously experiencing a large number of elderly people, which actually exposes the weakness of socialism. I suspect that over the next decade there will be quite a bit of selfish argumentation for increased socialism and social spending due to this large number of dependent elderly. However, the youth who will increasingly be shouldering the burden may rebel against it. In 2010 in the US the ratio of >65 people to workers is 5 to 1, by 2020 that ratio will be 4 to 1, and by 2030 it will be 3 to 1.

Increased population means increased demand for goods and services, hence the size of the pie increases for everyone. But, similarly, once the population nears the theoretical maximum bearing weight, it is in the best interest of profits to curtail population. Shortages in commodities, and the resultant social unrest cause disturbances in the economy, which is bad for business. Pollution is similarly bad business, as it causes illness, or death which saps productivity and increases the number of dependents. What you and I really despise are opportunists who bamboozle people for short term gains at other peoples expense. But, it is unfair to label all Capitalists as confidence tricksters.

However, it is overly simplistic to assume with zero or declining population growth there are no opportunities for investment. Things are changing all the time making certain goods and services obsolete and other in new demand. Technology obsoleted the buggy whip, and the local livery stable, but converted the carriage into the motor carriage. Blacksmiths became garage mechanics, or mechanical engineers.

Capitalism needs increasing consumption.

Again, I think this is fallacious in omission. In order to be profitable (growing), a business needs an increasing market share, but this can come from a better product resulting in a greater slice of the same market pie.

Central to the socialist theme is class warfare where the wealthy are characterized as undeserving of their profits. But, let's say some over consuming wealthy person owns three nice cars. Who built those cars? Who mined the materials to produce them? How many can that person drive at one time? What do they do when the cars are "not new", or "not in style"? They sell them used to someone who can get better utility from them.

But, yes, a business can also be profitable by increasing the number of products consumed. Something as ubiquitous as Coca-cola still only has a 53 percent world market share. Somewhere in the world is a person who has never tried a cold Coke on hot summer day. In the US, people consume about 31.3 liters of Coke per capita (about 1 every 4 days), while in China it is only 1.2 liters per capita. It doesn't mean that people in the US are pounding down more Coke. The average person drinks about 2.4 liters of fluid in a day, so there is lots of room for growth. Especially if they went ahead and reformulated it to be actually nutritious, then we may not complain so much about the increasing consumption of Coca-cola.

Capitalism needs 'free' raw materials to be sustainable, and even then will only be sustainable in part of the world.

This goes hand in hand with your consumption argument. But, here too you overlook some glaring things, and make simplistic assumptions about the economy.

What percentage of the economy is labor and services? On the way home today you get a massage for $10, and the masseuse will take the $10 and buy groceries at the farmers market. You earned the $10 by using your mind in some pharmaceutical lab. The company where you work is betting on you to create some chemistry (intellectual property) that they can patent and mass produce a product they can sell. The farmer exchanged his labor planting, weeding, and picking the produce that the masseuse bought. Everyone has profited. You get a relaxed back, and a place to engage in your profession. The company has taken a long term risk on you, but someday they may recoup their investment many times over. The farmer has used their land to grow food, and engaged their labor to sell in a market and earn a profit. The masseuse has exchanged a service you needed or desired into a delicious meal for their family.

What is bad is the waste of non-renewable resources. This is not a capitalism thing, that is a waste that can occur under any economic system. Do you think they drink Coke differently in Beijing, Moscow, Havana, or Caracas? SUV sales worldwide are highest in Venezuela because the market price is set by Chavez at about 15 cents a gallon. Were the market to set the price, hardly anyone could afford to drive.

If capitalism did not need economic growth I would agree with you.
Capitalism can make it work but it will need to change. One important thing is introducing a cost for use of things like, land, oil, water that reflects the damage that is done obtaining that land, oil or water, only then capitalism will become sustainable.

How are the costs for land, oil, water not built into the price? At least here in the US, pollution is too costly for business to ignore, and through government oversight, few people get away with it. And, once they are caught, they are still on the hook for cleanup of their mess. The cost of stringent pollution laws in the US is the migration of manufacturing to places where they don't care as much about their environment. The only culprit who gets away with rampant abuse of the environment in the US, is the US government.

Capitalism as it is now, will intrinsically lead to overpopulation, financial, and food crises.

These things will come with or without capitalism. You might take your argument a step further... Capitalism causes hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters. The socialist hero Chavez has even declared that volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes, are the result of capitalism.

Right wing nuts think God causes natural disasters, and left wing nuts believe capitalism causes natural disasters. Which would make the craziest form of government a theocratic socialist state.