Population explosion - or is it implosion?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Except that this would probably cause wages to go up. Capitalism will probably colapse before 2050.

Rising wages cut into profits. Either way, capitalism as we know it is doomed. Our alternatives will be fascism or socialism.

[KrazyHorse]

Quebec seperatists

Be fair. Most of the FLQ were anti-religious socialists or commies.

[el freako]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Rising wages cut into profits. Either way, capitalism as we know it is doomed. Our alternatives will be fascism or socialism.

Then why hasn't it happened?

Why has the growth in real wages not been faster than productivity?

Why have profits as a share of income been pretty stable in the west over the last century?

[RGBVideo]

Uhm, IRA, Basque terrorists, Puerto Rican terrorists, Quebec seperatists, Corsician seperatists, etc. As for Philippine Catholic terrorists, ever hear of the Huk?

Just in case that someone is looking a modern catholic fundamentalist
terror group with plenty of atrocities on it's history, I would like to mention the
Lord's Resistance Army, which has been active in both Uganda and Sudan.

Our alternatives will be fascism

or socialism.

:/

[KrazyHorse]

Weren't both the Hutus and the Tutsis mostly Catholic?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by el freako
Then why hasn't it happened?

Why has the growth in real wages not been faster than productivity?

Because for the most part the markets have continued to expand. Thus increases in productivity are matched somewhat by increases in demand. It tends to lead a little bit, which is why we have periodic contractions, aka, depressions and recessions.

Why have profits as a share of income been pretty stable in the west over the last century?

There have been some pretty nasty shocks, however. The Great Depression cut deeply into profitability (even though many companies were still making profits hand over fist). Also, you seem to have forgotten the stagantion of the 70s and 80s. New markets have opened up, but by the middle of the next century they should be fully integrated into capitalism, which means that we've got nowhere new to grow into.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Either way, capitalism as we know it is doomed. Our alternatives will be fascism or socialism.

I just got a feeling of deja vu. Now where did I see that prediction before?

Ah, yes. Eric Blair said it in a variety of writings throughout the late 30's. He was a very intelligent man, a perfect example of someone who sees so much and yet manages to be utterly wrong.

On topic, we have known for some time now that population will level off somewhere around nine billion, and then begin a decline. Aging populations will cause a serious problem, as they are already starting to in some countries.

Of course, they cause the most problems for government pension systems. It is socialism, not capitalism, that will suffer most as the proportion of retired people increases.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Uhm, IRA, Basque terrorists, Puerto Rican terrorists, Quebec seperatists, Corsician seperatists, etc. As for Philippine Catholic terrorists, ever hear of the Huk?

For the record, Quebec separatists only had one brief fling with terrorist activities in 1970, in what came to be known as the October Crisis. Once that radical cell was broken up, they've never been any trouble.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Rising wages cut into profits. Either way, capitalism as we know it is doomed. Our alternatives will be fascism or socialism.

Am I following this right? Frist, business increases productivity and then they exploit new markets all over the world. Productivity will keep increasing but business will run out ot markets to exploit. Then there is increasing unemployment which causes revolution. Is that how you see it? I'm really not sure because I think we agree that a decrease in population will decrease unemployment.

A global depression will have to effect the US severely. The whole global economy is focused on the US. It's not so focused on the periphery as you are thinking. Most of the finished products are sold in the US and the other already developed markets. The investment in the periphery is mainly for the purpose of exploiting labor now. Business wants to exploit labor more so that they can make more profit selling the finished products in the US and to a lessor degree the other developed nations.

This current economic system depends on demand here in the US. If demand collapses in the US the whole thing will collapse. The system does not depend on the demand on the periphery. So business and government must keep demand up here in the US. Business does that by creating new industries here. When new industries are developed it creates a feeding frenzy for economic profit among the business sector. This creates job growth and keeps the system going. As time goes by business will find it harder and harder to create new industries and the economy will collapse. Government will keep it going for awhile, but will go bankrupt eventually.

[Felch]

Bliar was smarter than most of his collegues. He was right in his depiction of Stalinism, for example. But yes, he was wrong about the demise of capitalism and (seperately) the rise of totalitarianism.

As far as wages hurting capitalism, you couldn't be more wrong. Increased wages mean a growth in the potential market for goods. American facotry wages during the middle of the 20th century rose a great deal in real terms (although that rise has not continued recently in the service sector) and contributed to the development of the middle class. Of course, reality has never fazed Marzists, so I don't expect anybody to be conviced.

Capitalism doesn't need new markets to thrive. It can quite easily exist without any new markets. It's simply a system where the means of production are owned by people richer than any of us. It can exist anywhere, just like socialism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch X
Increased wages mean a growth in the potential market for goods. American facotry wages during the middle of the 20th century rose a great deal in real terms (although that rise has not continued recently in the service sector) and contributed to the development of the middle class.

Wages do not rise as fast as productivity, so even as wages rise, profits rise higher. Wages can only rise as long as profitablity rises, and profitability can only rise as long as there are new markets. This growth can coming from the naturally increasing population or from countries that were previously not part of the capitalist system joining it, but there must always be growth. Without growth there is stagnation, and stagnation has historically led to repression and collapse.

Fascism was a direct result of this in the 1920s and 30s. Capitalism was saved when the USSR collapsed and China opened its markets, giving capitalism new room to grow. The only other way to get around this problem is world war, which destrpyed massive amounts of capital and productive forces, thus clearing the way for new growth (which is what Blair didn't understand - but Trotsky did).

Capitalism doesn't need new markets to thrive. It can quite easily exist without any new markets. It's simply a system where the means of production are owned by people richer than any of us.

It isn't simply anything. It is a dynamic system based fundimentally on growth. The "problem" with capitalism is that it is more productive than it can manage. It always produces more than can be consumed. Without full consumption, profits can't be realized. If profits can't be realized, wages have to be cut, which decreases consumption even more, and so on into a death spiral.

[Dauphin]

Che, are you saying that markets are solely or predominantly defined by the population open to purchase goods? What about situations where new markets are made by new goods?

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Wages do not rise as fast as productivity, so even as wages rise, profits rise higher. Wages can only rise as long as profitablity rises, and profitability can only rise as long as there are new markets. This growth can coming from the naturally increasing population or from countries that were previously not part of the capitalist system joining it, but there must always be growth. Without growth there is stagnation, and stagnation has historically led to repression and collapse.

Growth can also come from higher wages in the working classes.

Fascism was a direct result of this in the 1920s and 30s. Capitalism was saved when the USSR collapsed and China opened its markets, giving capitalism new room to grow. The only other way to get around this problem is world war, which destrpyed massive amounts of capital and productive forces, thus clearing the way for new growth (which is what Blair didn't understand - but Trotsky did).

It isn't simply anything. It is a dynamic system based fundimentally on growth. The "problem" with capitalism is that it is more productive than it can manage. It always produces more than can be consumed. Without full consumption, profits can't be realized. If profits can't be realized, wages have to be cut, which decreases consumption even more, and so on into a death spiral.

We seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe that the produce of capitalism is less than what people want. That's why people want more money. More money means more stuff. People want stuff, they don't have all the stuff that they want, and new stuff is being invented or improved all the time to make them want it.

I'm sorry, but that's always been so self-evident to me, that it's never occured to me that anyone would think differently. The thought that more stuff is produced than wanted just doesn't mesh with reality as I perceive it. It also wouldn't make much sense in capitalism, where making too much of something is bad for business. Companies don't need war to destroy capital, they simply make enough widgets to satisfy demand for widgets and then move onto making gizmos, until the gizmo market is flooded, and then they develop new and improved widgets, and so on.

I guess if you don't think in those terms, there's not much to do but agree to disagree. Different ways of looking at the same situation will usually produce different predictions for the future.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
What about situations where new markets are made by new goods?

BC said in less than a dozen words what I took a couple paragraphs to not explain. New markets made by new goods. That's the saving grace of capitalism. The desire to constantly make a better mouse trap means that there's no inevitable collapse. It could fall apart, or it could continue, but there's nothing historically inevitable about the future of capitalism.

[Shi Huangdi]

I don't see what you are getting at Che. Because the world's population will be 8.9 billion instead of 9.3 billion, capitalism will collapse?