Economy vs. ecology in capitalism

[fed1943]

It seems a lot depends on the chosen goal.

Best regards,

[Unimatrix11]

So i actually read the article by Victor Lebow, mentioned in the short movie, Frosty posted ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/965920/LebowArticle ). First, here is the correct quote, which is minimally distorted in the movie:

"Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction in consumption. The measure of social status, of social acceptance, of prestige, is now to be found in our consumption patterns. The very meaning and significance of our lives is today expressed in consumption terms. […] These commodities and services must be offered to the consumer with a special urgency. […] We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced and discarded at an ever increasing pace."

On page one it says:

"The costs of distribution actually represent the pressure needed to maintain the high level of consumption. Our economy demands a constantly expanding capacity to produce." (which is of course nonsense, as KH so eloquently has proven...) It goes without saying, i guess, that this ´capacity to produce´ must also be used to actually do produce.

On page 7: "´[…], we see that in 1946 roughly 20% out of the consumer´s dollar was tied up in various contractual types of payment. In 1954 this figure reached a high of 32%. Included are payment and interest charges on mortages and instalment credit, rent, insurance payments and property taxes. […] It follows, therefore, that one answer to competition in 1955 must be an extension of consumer credit and installment selling."

Regarding the last: So there is a problem with people loosing control over their income, because, basically, they have already spend it. So what´s the solution? Let them spend even more of what they dont have, by allowing them to buy on credit. The problem as its own solution. Reminds me of Homer Simpson: "Alcohol - the source and the solution of all our problems".

BTW: Note, how carefully the woman in the movie avoids to say ´capitalism´. Maybe, if i hadnt used it in the thread title, the discussion would have been more fruitful upto now, since some people seem to regard any criticism on it as a red sheet being wavered in front of their nose.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, the fact that Victor Lebow said something doesn't make it so. In fact, I'd claim that the opposite is true.

[KrazyHorse]

Rate of return = rate of growth.



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

[KrazyHorse]

Really, I would like you to explain to me WHAT goes so horribly wrong in a capitalist economy when the rate of growth hits 0.

Please.

This ought to be entertaining.

[Unimatrix11]

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)

[KrazyHorse]

Just one example. We have just witnessed, how desperate need for reinvestment had a financial bubble grow which just burst.

WTF is this supposed to mean?

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.

Are you ****ing retarded? There is NO REASON to say that 0 growth -> 0 rate of return.

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.

???????????????????????????????????



Capitalist economies grow BECAUSE THEY CAN.

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.

Yeah, yeah. People are forced to consume, somewhere in the back room there are evil capitalists who force increasing consumption because otherwise capitalism would collapse. Blah, blah, blah.

[Solomwi]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

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)

[Unimatrix11]

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?

[Unimatrix11]

I want to add, that even if i was totally wrong, replying to that with condescending mockery would be a shame. If that is the way, you are trying to convince people of what you conceive as the truth, then every drop of ´knowledge´ is wasted on you.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

I want to add, that even if i was totally wrong, replying to that with condescending mockery would be a shame

No, it's completely justified when confronted with stubborn ignorance.

[Unimatrix11]

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