how long can global capitalism last?

[reggie jax]

what do you think the life expectancy of global capitalism is, and what kind of system do you think will replace it? or do you think this is the last system we will have?

if you take the last option, keep in mind that economic systems have been changing throughout the ages. it seems kind of naive to me that in the face of history we could think we finally stumbled on to the system to end all systems when we haven't ended some of humanity's most severe problems such as systemic poverty, environmental doom, and violent resource-based conflicts which with current and future technology could possibly escalate to the point of the extinction of the human species and possibly even the extinction of life on earth.

so how will we overcome these problems, and when, or will we sink with the ship while the band still plays?

 

[Hambone]

what do you think the life expectancy of global capitalism is, and what kind of system do you think will replace it? or do you think this is the last system we will have?

if you take the last option, keep in mind that economic systems have been changing throughout the ages. it seems kind of naive to me that in the face of history we could think we finally stumbled on to the system to end all systems when we haven't ended some of humanity's most severe problems such as systemic poverty, environmental doom, and violent resource-based conflicts which with current and future technology could possibly escalate to the point of the extinction of the human species and possibly even the extinction of life on earth.

so how will we overcome these problems, and when, or will we sink with the ship while the band still plays?

Great question. I would think maybe never? After all, I'm super poor, and last night I spent my last dollars on a penis pump, and some beer as opposed to reconsidering the current system.

 

[reggie jax]

the question is not how long can we convince the poor and downtrodden to waste their money on useless nonsense but rather how long can we expect to perpetuate a system of endless growth and consumption.

 

[FenderBender]

I don't think you can call capitalism a system of endless growth and consumption any more than any other economic system. The only difference is that in capitalism people are free to pursue their own interests. I hope that another system doesn't replace it.

 

[Hambone]

I don't think you can call capitalism a system of endless growth and consumption any more than any other economic system. The only difference is that in capitalism people are free to pursue their own interests. I hope that another system doesn't replace it.

Props to Reggie, and you as well.I can only speak for myself....but lets's be honest.Man is in power and has no FUCKING idea of how to deal with it? Can we agree to disagree?Hence "capitalism" is nothing more than a ...............want

I'm trying real hard to deal in a need basis, but it's becoming obsolete. And that frightens me

 

[Nocturnal]

The system will last until we figure out a way to make free/clean energy. At that point food will become free more or less, and work can be done by robots. Most humans will not need to work so either the elite will just give them what they need to survive or will withhold these goods and create a vast underclass (95% of all people) that live in squalor and poverty.

 

[chalupa]

the question is not how long can we convince the poor and downtrodden to waste their money on useless nonsense but rather how long can we expect to perpetuate a system of endless growth and consumption.

I don't think you can call capitalism a system of endless growth and consumption any more than any other economic system. The only difference is that in capitalism people are free to pursue their own interests. I hope that another system doesn't replace it.

Actually, capitalism is predicated on growth, as the system suffers pretty massive calamity under the smallest contraction. By the very nature of the beast, it is absolutely not indefinitely sustainable, not the least of which is because the resources of the planet are finite. What people don't understand, though, is that there are just a fuckload of resources.

Run out of buffalo? No problem, grow corn. Destroy the fisheries? No problem, eat jellyfish (this will happen). Run out of oil? No problem, here is fracking. Run out of natural gas? No problem, we finally figured out how to store nuclear waste.


The real threat to our existence is when large enough groups of people determine that they do not like the ramifications of the way of life, and that is invariably tied to environmental issues. I see massive environmental calamity being the driving force behind the dismantling of capitalism. Take a look at India...the entrenched Congress party lost their grip on power not because of bad growth or corruption, but because the Ganges is a fucking cesspool. Hindus and Muslims both just voted for a Hindu Nationalist party because the guy claims he is going to clean the environment.

There is a lesson there.

 

[FenderBender]

The system will last until we figure out a way to make free/clean energy. At that point food will become free more or less, and work can be done by robots. Most humans will not need to work so either the elite will just give them what they need to survive or will withhold these goods and create a vast underclass (95% of all people) that live in squalor and poverty.

I don't think this changes the economic system. As the marginal cost of production goes to zero, the market will produce different outcomes. This doesn't mean that capitalism will cease to work.

Actually, capitalism is predicated on growth, as the system suffers pretty massive calamity under the smallest contraction. By the very nature of the beast, it is absolutely not indefinitely sustainable, not the least of which is because the resources of the planet are finite. What people don't understand, though, is that there are just a fuckload of resources.

Run out of buffalo? No problem, grow corn. Destroy the fisheries? No problem, eat jellyfish (this will happen). Run out of oil? No problem, here is fracking. Run out of natural gas? No problem, we finally figured out how to store nuclear waste.

This isn't really capitalism. This is economics in general. All economic systems deal with the issue of scarce resources. As best I know, capitalism is just the purely voluntary economic system.

Resource scarcity is definitely a challenge, but innovation has actually produced a lot of solutions to scarcity (fracking, solar energy, etc.).

The real threat to our existence is when large enough groups of people determine that they do not like the ramifications of the way of life, and that is invariably tied to environmental issues. I see massive environmental calamity being the driving force behind the dismantling of capitalism. Take a look at India...the entrenched Congress party lost their grip on power not because of bad growth or corruption, but because the Ganges is a fucking cesspool. Hindus and Muslims both just voted for a Hindu Nationalist party because the guy claims he is going to clean the environment.

There is a lesson there.

The problem is that our priorities are all different. I don't think that the cleanliness of the Ganges is being ignored by the poor of India. The problem is that when people weigh the cleanliness of the river against their more pressing needs for survival it doesn't compare.

We watched this happen in west previously. The industrial revolution produced massive pollution. The pollution was not as big a concern as food and shelter. As the industrialization improved life situations it gave people the freedom to concern themselves with problems like pollution.

India and China are in the middle of their industrializations now. It's not fair that we demand the live in poverty because their priorities don't align with ours. And the problem with a governing class, is that their priorities always come at the expense of the unrepresented (typically the poor). Capitalism is the one system that lets people seek their own priorities.

 

[Nocturnal]

I don't think this changes the economic system. As the marginal cost of production goes to zero, the market will produce different outcomes. This doesn't mean that capitalism will cease to work.

How could it continue if 90% of people had no reason to work even if they wanted to? There would be a point where robotic labor was 100%. Hell, people couldn't even prostitute themselves anymore because robots will take that job too.

Capitalism as a system requires the basics of supply and demand. If supply is infinite then nothing else works.

 

[FenderBender]

How could it continue if 90% of people had no reason to work even if they wanted to? There would be a point where robotic labor was 100%. Hell, people couldn't even prostitute themselves anymore because robots will take that job too.

Capitalism as a system requires the basics of supply and demand. If supply is infinite then nothing else works.

I don't think scarcity of supply can be solved for everything in our life. Things like time, artistic inspiration, geography, etc. will still be finite in supply. Intellectual property and media content production will still play a role in our society and social currency and standing would play a factor as well. This is all speculation, but I don't think our notion of value goes away simply because we value things very lowly.

 

[Nocturnal]

I don't think scarcity of supply can be solved for everything in our life. Things like time, artistic inspiration, geography, etc. will still be finite in supply. Intellectual property and media content production will still play a role in our society and social currency and standing would play a factor as well. This is all speculation, but I don't think our notion of value goes away simply because we value things very lowly.

Not in our lifetime of course, but eventually. Time can't be sold and is only valuable because it is an input of labor. Art would be a remaning persuit but even ignoring natural talent you can't have 1 rock star for every robot programmer.

Just look at our economy now. What percentage of people actually create IP or music or art? (that is actually valued) 10%? The rest do relatively menial tasks to support those efforts. Growing food, building cars, even performing surgeries.

 

[reggie jax]

I don't think this changes the economic system. As the marginal cost of production goes to zero, the market will produce different outcomes. This doesn't mean that capitalism will cease to work.



This isn't really capitalism. This is economics in general. All economic systems deal with the issue of scarce resources. As best I know, capitalism is just the purely voluntary economic system.

Resource scarcity is definitely a challenge, but innovation has actually produced a lot of solutions to scarcity (fracking, solar energy, etc.).i,

all economic systems must allocate scarce resources, but it isn't necessarily so that they rely on consumption for consumption's sake, as capitalism does. in capitalism we need people to keep buying stuff even if they don't need it and keep working jobs even if we could just get robots to do it cause we still need a consumer class to prop the system up. one example of this necessary consumer culture is the idea of planned obsolescence. i noticed that when i buy a pair of headphones and use them for a while, one ear always goes out and i have to buy another. always the same issue when they die, one ear goes out. i thought it might be some sort of trick to get me to have to keep buying them, but i never took it too seriously cause i thought it was the kind of thing that even if it were true they'd never admit it so there's no knowing. then i take a business class and it's right there in the chapter in bold as a vocab word to memorize. they make shit to break after a certain point on purpose just to get you to come back and buy more. this is why shopping is now a hobby in the west. it's every bit as necessary to the system as the actual resources we're trying to obtain.

The problem is that our priorities are all different. I don't think that the cleanliness of the Ganges is being ignored by the poor of India. The problem is that when people weigh the cleanliness of the river against their more pressing needs for survival it doesn't compare.

We watched this happen in west previously. The industrial revolution produced massive pollution. The pollution was not as big a concern as food and shelter. As the industrialization improved life situations it gave people the freedom to concern themselves with problems like pollution.

India and China are in the middle of their industrializations now. It's not fair that we demand the live in poverty because their priorities don't align with ours. And the problem with a governing class, is that their priorities always come at the expense of the unrepresented (typically the poor). Capitalism is the one system that lets people seek their own priorities.

do you think we have the resource capacity for everyone in the world to live like the US, and if so then for how long? i am really asking, not making a rhetorical point... i don't know the math on this topic

 

[reggie jax]

Actually, capitalism is predicated on growth, as the system suffers pretty massive calamity under the smallest contraction. By the very nature of the beast, it is absolutely not indefinitely sustainable, not the least of which is because the resources of the planet are finite. What people don't understand, though, is that there are just a fuckload of resources.

Run out of buffalo? No problem, grow corn. Destroy the fisheries? No problem, eat jellyfish (this will happen). Run out of oil? No problem, here is fracking. Run out of natural gas? No problem, we finally figured out how to store nuclear waste.


The real threat to our existence is when large enough groups of people determine that they do not like the ramifications of the way of life, and that is invariably tied to environmental issues. I see massive environmental calamity being the driving force behind the dismantling of capitalism. Take a look at India...the entrenched Congress party lost their grip on power not because of bad growth or corruption, but because the Ganges is a fucking cesspool. Hindus and Muslims both just voted for a Hindu Nationalist party because the guy claims he is going to clean the environment.

There is a lesson there.

i think the real threat to our continued existence is our ideological hang-ups which cause us to do stupid shit like engage in a wasteful system of consumption that changes the climate and pretending that it doesn't matter or some religious nut-job will get his hands on a nuke and try to bring on armageddon. here are my 3 most likely doomsday scenarios in order of plausibility:
1. environmental catastrophe, probably climate change or something similar where there are deadly consequences for our environmental tampering.
2. some religious nut from iran or whatever gets a nuke and tries to fulfill some prophecy or whatever
3. humans create AI without the proper controls, naively thinking that we will ride them like a horse to paradise, and are duly wiped out by natural selection, having now introduced a superior intelligent agent into the same environment as us.

 

[FenderBender]

all economic systems must allocate scarce resources, but it isn't necessarily so that they rely on consumption for consumption's sake, as capitalism does. in capitalism we need people to keep buying stuff even if they don't need it and keep working jobs even if we could just get robots to do it cause we still need a consumer class to prop the system up. one example of this necessary consumer culture is the idea of planned obsolescence. i noticed that when i buy a pair of headphones and use them for a while, one ear always goes out and i have to buy another. always the same issue when they die, one ear goes out. i thought it might be some sort of trick to get me to have to keep buying them, but i never took it too seriously cause i thought it was the kind of thing that even if it were true they'd never admit it so there's no knowing. then i take a business class and it's right there in the chapter in bold as a vocab word to memorize. they make shit to break after a certain point on purpose just to get you to come back and buy more. this is why shopping is now a hobby in the west. it's every bit as necessary to the system as the actual resources we're trying to obtain.

I don't think capitalism relies on endless consumption for consumption's sake. I think that this is a myth that is currently out there, and it comes from the macro-economic view that if we just pump more currency in to the economy, all our lives will improve.

Planned obsolescence is not something intrinsic to capitalism. If you as a consumer had a choice between headphones that lasted a week and headphones that lasted forever at the same price you would choose the headphones that lasted forever every time right? All things are rarely ever equal though, and maybe an everlasting pair of headphones costs a lot more than a cheap pair. Maybe over the lifetime of the everlasting headphones the cost of several sets of cheap headphones turns out to be a better value. Durability of goods is just another factor affecting value. On top of that if you are the one who can make a cost competitive pair of headphones that last forever then you stand to become very wealthy off of it.

But this is not necessary to capitalism. You're ignoring the opportunity cost of producing headphones. If we theoretically "solved" the headphone problem for life, then it would free society up to tackle other problems. This happened when the obsolescence of horse buggies made way for the car industry. It can happen again and it is good for both capitalism and our society, even if some people have to feel some pain in the short term.

do you think we have the resource capacity for everyone in the world to live like the US, and if so then for how long? i am really asking, not making a rhetorical point... i don't know the math on this topic

This is not an easy question to answer, but what is frequently left out of this debate is that the demand on resources is not the only thing growing with the growth of the third world. Production is growing as well. And there are still limited resources, but maybe there are alternatives to those limitations as well. (i.e. solar energy instead of fossil fuels). If resources become scarce, then the cost of those resources goes up incentivizing people to find alternatives.

 

[chalupa]

Capitalism is absolutely predicated on consumption and growth. Without those two things, the system literally falls apart; this is why they pumped trillions into banks. If the economy contracts, all hell breaks loose, so the solution is QE. Unlimited growth is not sustainable in a finite system, it's just that the system has the capability to be huge.

My point is that the system will be torn apart through environmental problems before an inherent flaw in capitalism brings it down, and even then, that is a long way off.

we will be eating jellyfish long before the world ends.

 

[FenderBender]

Capitalism is absolutely predicated on consumption and growth. Without those two things, the system literally falls apart; this is why they pumped trillions into banks. If the economy contracts, all hell breaks loose, so the solution is QE. Unlimited growth is not sustainable in a finite system, it's just that the system has the capability to be huge.

I would argue first, the the government pumping trillions of dollars in to banks is not capitalism. Second, the argument the government made for pumping all the money in to the banks was that the world will come to an end if it doesn't happen. We'll never get to know whether that is true or not, but there are plenty of people who would say that not only would things be ok with the banking collapse, but that we'd actually be better off. Generally speaking people need to consume, and our growth is just the increasing production to match our consumption. Capitalism does not need consumption; rather, it is what occurs when people are allowed to pursue their own interests.

 

[reggie jax]

I don't think capitalism relies on endless consumption for consumption's sake. I think that this is a myth that is currently out there, and it comes from the macro-economic view that if we just pump more currency in to the economy, all our lives will improve.

Planned obsolescence is not something intrinsic to capitalism. If you as a consumer had a choice between headphones that lasted a week and headphones that lasted forever at the same price you would choose the headphones that lasted forever every time right? All things are rarely ever equal though, and maybe an everlasting pair of headphones costs a lot more than a cheap pair. Maybe over the lifetime of the everlasting headphones the cost of several sets of cheap headphones turns out to be a better value. Durability of goods is just another factor affecting value. On top of that if you are the one who can make a cost competitive pair of headphones that last forever then you stand to become very wealthy off of it.

But this is not necessary to capitalism. You're ignoring the opportunity cost of producing headphones. If we theoretically "solved" the headphone problem for life, then it would free society up to tackle other problems. This happened when the obsolescence of horse buggies made way for the car industry. It can happen again and it is good for both capitalism and our society, even if some people have to feel some pain in the short term.

i disagree. capitalism absolutely relies on consumption for the sake of consumption... that is how money is circulated in our economy. that is how people pay their rent. like i said even if people didn't technically have to work for goods because of robotics they would have to continue to hold down a job in order for capitalism to stay afloat. this is because without a vast pool of consumers the system falls apart.

and of course there will always be a trade off between quality and price.. but planned obsolescence is not a trade off, it is an intentional degradation of a product for the explicit purpose of guaranteeing repeat purchases and thus higher profit. in other words it is not a question of paying more for something that is built to last... the fact is that these firms need you to keep buying so they really don't have the incentive to create a product that will last for life. sometimes this just comes in the form of software compatibility, or sometimes the actual device will fail sooner than it has to, but the point is that they absolutely need you to keep buying. these companies aren't individuals who will get rich and then be content. they are systems of resource allocation that feed entire populations. people will continue to milk them for as long as the utters are full. it just so happens that consumerism is more lucrative than efficiency, so the incentive is to keep producing and keep selling. it is inherently wasteful.

This is not an easy question to answer, but what is frequently left out of this debate is that the demand on resources is not the only thing growing with the growth of the third world. Production is growing as well. And there are still limited resources, but maybe there are alternatives to those limitations as well. (i.e. solar energy instead of fossil fuels). If resources become scarce, then the cost of those resources goes up incentivizing people to find alternatives.

isn't there also an incentive for the current status quo to suppress technologies which would undermine their current monopoly? it's so strange to me to think that we somehow can't figure out how to drive places without gas. i really think we should have the answer to this by now.

 

[Nocturnal]

isn't there also an incentive for the current status quo to suppress technologies which would undermine their current monopoly? it's so strange to me to think that we somehow can't figure out how to drive places without gas. i really think we should have the answer to this by now.

We've had that for like 100 years. Almost every city in America had them until the auto companies bought them in order to tear them down.

 

[FenderBender]

i disagree. capitalism absolutely relies on consumption for the sake of consumption... that is how money is circulated in our economy. that is how people pay their rent. like i said even if people didn't technically have to work for goods because of robotics they would have to continue to hold down a job in order for capitalism to stay afloat. this is because without a vast pool of consumers the system falls apart.

You're confusing cause and effect when it comes to consumption. Economics is about consuming scarce goods. We don't need consumption for capitalism. We need capitalism for consumption. People pay their rent because they need shelter. Capitalism didn't cause that, it simply provided a means to produce the shelter.

and of course there will always be a trade off between quality and price.. but planned obsolescence is not a trade off, it is an intentional degradation of a product for the explicit purpose of guaranteeing repeat purchases and thus higher profit. in other words it is not a question of paying more for something that is built to last... the fact is that these firms need you to keep buying so they really don't have the incentive to create a product that will last for life. sometimes this just comes in the form of software compatibility, or sometimes the actual device will fail sooner than it has to, but the point is that they absolutely need you to keep buying. these companies aren't individuals who will get rich and then be content. they are systems of resource allocation that feed entire populations. people will continue to milk them for as long as the utters are full. it just so happens that consumerism is more lucrative than efficiency, so the incentive is to keep producing and keep selling. it is inherently wasteful.

This is just the broken window fallacy. Companies may design obsolescence in to their products, but I don't see how this makes their product more valuable. Shitty stuff simply doesn't sell over good stuff if it is priced competitively. You recognize it yourself that shitty headphones are not something good. So why would you value them over good headphones? If you can't find good headphones, then why can't you make them? In a free market there should be nothing to stop you. So maybe either everlasting headphones don't exist or they aren't more cost effective than shitty disposable headphones. As I said people aren't still making horse buggies and the sky hasn't fallen. People spend their money on what they value.

Firms may want you to keep buying their product, but that doesn't mean that you want to keep spending money on the same thing. You're ignoring the consumer's own agency in this equation.

isn't there also an incentive for the current status quo to suppress technologies which would undermine their current monopoly? it's so strange to me to think that we somehow can't figure out how to drive places without gas. i really think we should have the answer to this by now.

A company's interest might be to continue doing nothing and just have you give them money forever, but that is not how markets work. Your interest might be just to get free shit for no effort. Again you're not the only person in the equation.

And we have figured out other ways to get around. We just haven't done it in a way that beats cars in terms of cost-effectiveness. Also, while we're discussing this, the auto market is not exactly a free market. The government has subsidized roads, gas, the cars themselves. That's how monopolies form.

 

[chalupa]

Fender, I'm not sure why you keep denying this, but capitalism is absolutely predicated on growth. If growth stops, the system fails; revolutions happen, people die. While growth isn't in the definition of the term, it is one of the most basic tenets that allows that particular system to function smoothly. Contractions, which do occur, lead to calamity. If the correction turns itself, you are back to, wait for it, growth.

Capitalism cannot function in a stasis, and the success of it is tied directly to growth.

So, since the question of the thread is how long can global capitalism last, I again state my answer: as long as growth is possible without massive environmental destruction. I've been saying this a lot lately: "the world isn't going to end, we are just going to get really good at eating jellyfish."

The problem is if we could ever poison the oceans enough that we can no longer grow jellyfish.