This is a serious question that arose from a lunch discussion for the would be Net economists as I am too lazy to read up on all the theory.

Following is my premise.

For capitalism, or for that matter, any economic system not to be a zero sum game the econonmy, however you measure it must continue to grow. Capitalism advocates always arugued that it is not a zero sum game because the economy can continually grow. As Regan puts it (I think) "A rising tide lifts all boats." But can the economy, allowing periods of retraction, grow forever?

Traditionally, econmic growth that does not consists of actuall pilleging and looting of other countries ultimately was based on physical goods produced and consumed. Because growth in this physical economy is related to population growth (i.e. there is a finite amount of physical goods the average person can consume), economic growth depended on population growth.

In the 20th century we began to see the emergence of what I would call a metaphysical economy. Economy of electronic bits and economy of knowlede come to mind. However, I wonder if this metaphysical economy is directly linked to the physical economy. I.e. can the metaphysical economy grow without growth in the physical goods economy and the population. Can we create more and more bits/services that get consumed (paid for) when there is an upper bound on the total human hours available to be cosume these ever growing bits/services.

I think this relationship is important because leaving out for the moment colonizing outer space, we can safely assume that earth can sustain a finite population and therefore produce a finite amount of physical goods. Assuming that we can achieve zero loss in physical good economy (think perfect recycling, prefect manufacturing practices), when earth's population reached its maximum, can economy continue to grow.

If the metaphysical economy can grow independent of the physical economy and population, then the economy can continue to grow. Everyone can win under the capitalist system even if there are inefficiencies (provided they are no greater than the growth of the metaphysical economy). Otherwise, the economy will become a zero sum game. For one to gain, another has to lose.

Please exclude solutions that require devine intervention, species near extinction because none of my premise will hold true anymore. Otherwise please feel free to rip my asssumptions apart where appropriate.

Carlos

Second Law of Thermodynamics. Growth cannot continue indefinitely, and the system becomes closed. Closed system leads to entropy. Increasing disorder. Collapse.

Entropy will end capitalism, if greed doesn't end it first. Enlightened self interest by the rich not much in evidence in the Bush epoch.

If you were in my class, I'd give you a A for the question alone.

One can never discount ingenuity. New things are discovered daily. New uses for old things. The pie just gets bigger. It is not dependent on population growth, although that would be a component. The very notion that the world can support a finite number of people has been disproved by, for one, the discrediting of the landmark book The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich. The world could not be fed if we had food production processes stuck in the 19th century, but our ability to grow more and more food on less and less space has been absolutely incredible, and would have been inconceiveable by the standards used by Ehrlich and his scare mongers. The reason we have hunger today is not food production, but rather distribution.

Capitalism works. Communism was never more than a theory espoused by the disenchanted grumblers of the world.

"A rising tide lifts all boats." John F. Kennedy

Remarks in Pueblo, Colorado, August 17, 1962, Public Papers of the Presidents: 1962, p. 626.

You and your friends need to quit visiting with Jack Daniels during lunchtime. That was perhaps the most ridiculous statement of a drunken theory I have ever seen.

Entropy, my friend. You can't escape it. Sorry.

It's a great question. In fact, the answer to that question takes 20 minutes to lay out in my intro class, and then a full half hour to discuss the implication and for students to argue against the......

Logic of Capitalism

aka

The fundamental contradiction of capitalism.



So I guess I can't grade my comrade down for brevity here, so I give the answer an A.

I would say, however, that a society based on microcomunist collectives can look a heck of a lot like modern america.

In fact, that gives me an idea..... now should I introduce a new topic, or should I induce topic drift? The structure dictates...

The pie doesn't get bigger, it gets higher.

"What we Republicans should stand for is growth in the economy. We ought to make the pie higher." George W. Bush

Don't you just <i>love</i> the Emperor's new clothes!

---------

Capitalism is a Religion and the faithful will defend it by any means necessary. One might just as well ask if Christianity can be sustained.

Second Law of Thermodynamics. Growth cannot continue indefinitely, and the system becomes closed. Closed system leads to entropy. Increasing disorder. Collapse.

Entropy will end capitalism, if greed doesn't end it first. Enlightened self interest by the rich not much in evidence in the Bush epoch.

The metaphsical economy, to the extend that it is independent of the physical economy, then it can also be independent of entropy, no? By the way, didn't Flip-flash use the same logic to proove that evlolution could not have occurred.

By the way Red, thanks for bursting my hope that there could be one discussion without politcal bashing. Look out, here comes Steam!

Capitalism doesn't work, I'm moving to North Korea. What a paradise.

The metaphsical economy, to the extend that it is independent of the physical economy, then it can also be independent of entropy, no? By the way, didn't Flip-flash use the same logic to proove that evlolution could not have occurred.

By the way Red, thanks for bursting my hope that there could be one discussion without politcal bashing. Look out, here comes Steam!

In this physical universe, one can never escape entropy. One can only fight a rearguard action against it, which socialism can do and capitalism can't -- capitalism, in fact, accelerates entropy.

Moneyman: Behind four walls of stone the rich man sleeps/time we put the flame torch to their Keep.

Sleep well, my bourgeois friend.

hoo and I will continue this seminar in the a.m. The Frolicking co-eds are calling.

Those who support growth are usually the ones who will get richer. Right now, growth happens by a) borrowing more money or b) just printing more money. Spare me the macroeconomic analyses.

Nobody ever asks "Why should we grow?" We consume more, make more, but live less.

The long term effects of increasing crop yield on the environment haven't been realized. Capitalism has failed the world in that there are still people hungry out there.

Corporate capitalism means squat in witness of the tech boom: Somebody invents a software script, goes public, makes millions when Nortel buys the startup, two years later Nortel closes the doors. This is not growth, this is re-distribution of capital from those less-schrewd.

We have faster computers, but why? We have bigger cars that go faster and can burn more fuel going to the corner store, but why?

Mankind has turned down a dangerous path, IMHO.

The danger here, however, is that not all parts of the economy will continue to grow. Cast iron was a big indusrty back in 1900, as was wagon-wheel manufacturing. Neither are as big today as they were then.

What parts of our economy will continue to shrink? Some people say that manufacturing will, but all I see is the shipping of jobs to where labor is cheap and people don't speak up for themselves as much. Gasoline is getting more expensive, and likely will become progressively scarcer in the future. Considering that we already have more cars than drivers in our country, I would assume that the automotive industry is likely to level off and eventually decline in the next couple of decades.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, yes, an economy is not a static no-sum-gain model, but if we expect unrealistic results, we'll get burned. All I see today is excessive consumption. That's not sustainable. Those who don't adress those realities are being short-sighted.

Economics, psychology, sociology, etc., don't operate on the physical laws of nature like randomness and entropy. We are guiding things. We can make changes midstream. We can make leaps. We can correct problems.

Any discussion of economics involving concepts like entropy is like a discussion of poetry created by random typewriter strokes of monkeys. Doesn't work that way. Apples and oranges.

Capitalism will last as long as human free human beings do.

Doug

Second Law of Thermodynamics. Growth cannot continue indefinitely, and the system becomes closed. Closed system leads to entropy. Increasing disorder. Collapse.

Entropy will end capitalism, if greed doesn't end it first. Enlightened self interest by the rich not much in evidence in the Bush epoch.

Good topic. I think before going too far into it, it is worthwhile to distinguish between capitalism and corporatism, the latter being the modern manifestation.

I remember back at a goofy pre-college job (Best Buy) a similar revelation I had. We had these morning meetings where the managers would announce if we had sold more product than one year ago at the store and if our margin was better. For a time, those numbers were down and the managers acted concerned (in spite of the fact that they owned nothing of the company). Being young and brash, I asked "did we make money?" and was told that that wasn't the point.

I think this whole ever upward and higher expectation for corporations is a double edged sword. One one level it makes sense to expect efficiency and ambition, but too often it comes at the expense of quality and ethical practice.

So here is my answer: I think we are embroiled in one index (profit) as to a company's capital, but there is no reason that other factors can't be persuasive in the marketplace. As long as there is a delta between the wants/expectations of a market segment and entrepreneurs, capitalism is the best way for these parties to engage. I just hope it isn't a race to the bottom line, akin to walmart (a place I won't patronize) practice.

...Any discussion of economics involving concepts like entropy is like a discussion of poetry created by random typewriter strokes of monkeys...
Doug

You are familiar with the contents of Steam's inbox.

I'm not talking about Red's use of the term. I would not use entropy for what he described at all, but I took his point.

I walk the stairs in a building every day, and the marble is cupped and worn on the treads from so many people walking up and down. That is a physical example of entropy where repeated and anonymous individual action disorders a system. Would you deny that physical entropy on our material culture has an effect? Buildings fall down, cities grow and get abandoned. I doubt you deny that connection.

Does entropy exist in a non-material social sense? Many have argued so. If the CONCEPT of social structures has value (and it does) then other concepts associated with structure might have value as well.

A specific example:

Family structure. If it is not maintained (energy input), it breaks down (due to entropy). The structure tends towards disorganization UNLESS it is maintained.

Heck, on a grand theory level Talcott Parsons said one of the FOUR function of a society is pattern maintenance (aka, Latency). If I wanted to torture you, I would point you to Parsons.

As for the actual point I think our comrade was trying to make, it is this: Capitalism must grow. The concept of a steady profit, or an equilibrium profit, is alien to modern captialists. Capital seeks INCREASED profit. Capital flows to profit growth.

Given the need, indeed the strict focus on PROFIT in capitalism, one must ask where the profit comes from?

Marx said all value comes from labor. An apple on a tree has no value until we eat it. If a baker makes a pie with it, it might be worth more. The increase in use value at each stage is due to labor.

Note, marx considered value to be USE value. What we can do with something.

Two sources of costs are present in captialism. Labor costs, and non-labor costs.

Non-labor costs (energy, materials, machinery) is purchased on the open market. The market regulates prices, right? So no flexibility there.... in the long run.

So, the source of lowered costs and increased profit is paying labor less. Labor does the work, and creates value. Part of that is paid in wages, part goes to pay non-labor costs, and part goes to those who did not create the value. The capitalist class.

Labor costs can be lowered in many ways. Reduced pay. Raises lower than the rate of inflation. Shifting health care costs to the worker. Increasing productivity (let's people be fired (more value wrung out of each worker). Moving location to low wage areas. There are other ways, but you get the idea.

So, what are we left with? Captialism, a system with a single goal of increasing profit, and a single method to acheive that goal of screwing labor. Long term that is.

Growth of captialism rests on increased exploitation, and more exploitation leads us closer to the revolution.

Entropy is not the best concept for the topic of what might bring down capitalism. Cancer, from a marxist perspective, is much more descriptive.

Given the need, indeed the strict focus on PROFIT in capitalism, one must ask where the profit comes from?



From a good capitalists's perspective, I am reminded of Ricardo Semler: 'The best way to invest corporate profits are to give them to the employees'.

After social, environmental, and capital costs are covered, if there is money left over, you have robbed somebody, or the market is deluded to your actual value. One point, is that we are terrible in accounting for environmental costs.

Too bad. There should be more merit in sustainable operations (equilibrium) as opposed to increasing growth rates (we grew 10% last year, so we must grow 12% this year).

One way to look at it, the historical return in the capital markets is 12%. Sure, emerging markets can beat it, mature industies lag. If you are seriously beating it for no other reason, someone down below is suffering.

I did in fact mean, precisely, entropy.

You're familar with Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's "The Entropy Law and the Economic Process"?

Here's some discussion of it I found with Google:

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:hxz20Hmy7WwJ:orbit.unh.edu/cber/abs/History/Papers/Natural.doc++Nicholas+Georgescu-Roegen%27s+%22The+Entropy+Law+and+the+Economic+Pro cess&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I have a bit of a different take on it than G-R, of course; but the fundament's the same: Capitalism is disordering a closed system, and will leave it drained of energy and barren.

Deléage sees the Second Law of Thermodynamics as key. To paraphrase:

Deleage says the overall increase of entropy associated with the process of production is always greater than the local decrease of entropy that results from the process. The sum total of energy that goes into modern capitalist farming (mechanized agribusiness) is much higher than the human energy associated with subsistence farming. When we produce a sheet of copper, the disorder entropy of the ore is decreased, but in more than counterbalanced by increased entropy in the rest of the environment.

People cannot exist outside this process. It takes place at the level of matter itself. That is why the project that Engels began with Dialectics of Nature needs to be revisited by modern Marxists The class struggle has natural, not just social, underpinnings.

i don't think any of these ivory tower theries are going to convince me or anyone else that we have anything to worry about anyime soon ...

Yes, but we don't just sit idly by and let everything return to chaos. An inner city runs down, and eventually someone rebuilds it -- when it becomes profitable or when a government decides to inject some tax money to encourage it. This is happening constantly. Roads are repaved, buildings rehabilitated, even unprofitable companies are bought, liquidated and assetts redistributed, when used for more profitable or useful purposes. This process is inherent in capitalism, and certainly inherent in the way we do things here in the U.S. Doesn't mean everything is idealized at any point in time, but by and large most everything is "maintained." Chaos is not the natural or inevitable result.

Some would argue that quite the opposite of chaos is the result, that is, unnatural accumulation and concentration of wealth. Taxes helps to move back toward chaos, or redistribution, and so does spending and dilution through donation or inheritance. However, that chaos or entropy is not random, but very intentional, controlled, and purposeful.

I really don't know if overall production must constantly grow. It would be interesting to examine some sort of closed economic system to see if this is true on any particular scale.

I think the entire point of capitalism being doomed due to some natural or inevitable consequence analogous to some physical laws of nature is missing the mark. There are constant "outside forces" redirecting events.

Doug

I'm not talking about Red's use of the term. I would not use entropy for what he described at all, but I took his point.

I walk the stairs in a building every day, and the marble is cupped and worn on the treads from so many people walking up and down. That is a physical example of entropy where repeated and anonymous individual action disorders a system. Would you deny that physical entropy on our material culture has an effect? Buildings fall down, cities grow and get abandoned. I doubt you deny that connection.

Does entropy exist in a non-material social sense? Many have argued so. If the CONCEPT of social structures has value (and it does) then other concepts associated with structure might have value as well.

A specific example:

Family structure. If it is not maintained (energy input), it breaks down (due to entropy). The structure tends towards disorganization UNLESS it is maintained.

Heck, on a grand theory level Talcott Parsons said one of the FOUR function of a society is pattern maintenance (aka, Latency). If I wanted to torture you, I would point you to Parsons.

As for the actual point I think our comrade was trying to make, it is this: Capitalism must grow. The concept of a steady profit, or an equilibrium profit, is alien to modern captialists. Capital seeks INCREASED profit. Capital flows to profit growth.

Given the need, indeed the strict focus on PROFIT in capitalism, one must ask where the profit comes from?

Marx said all value comes from labor. An apple on a tree has no value until we eat it. If a baker makes a pie with it, it might be worth more. The increase in use value at each stage is due to labor.

Note, marx considered value to be USE value. What we can do with something.

Two sources of costs are present in captialism. Labor costs, and non-labor costs.

Non-labor costs (energy, materials, machinery) is purchased on the open market. The market regulates prices, right? So no flexibility there.... in the long run.

So, the source of lowered costs and increased profit is paying labor less. Labor does the work, and creates value. Part of that is paid in wages, part goes to pay non-labor costs, and part goes to those who did not create the value. The capitalist class.

Labor costs can be lowered in many ways. Reduced pay. Raises lower than the rate of inflation. Shifting health care costs to the worker. Increasing productivity (let's people be fired (more value wrung out of each worker). Moving location to low wage areas. There are other ways, but you get the idea.

So, what are we left with? Captialism, a system with a single goal of increasing profit, and a single method to acheive that goal of screwing labor. Long term that is.

Growth of captialism rests on increased exploitation, and more exploitation leads us closer to the revolution.

Entropy is not the best concept for the topic of what might bring down capitalism. Cancer, from a marxist perspective, is much more descriptive.

You are familiar with the contents of Steam's inbox.

Now THAT is some good stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chicken little wasn't correct then, isn't correct now, and won't be correct in the future. It has always been a bad bet when betting against human growth and progress. There have always been those for whatever reason need to take a look around and see impending doom, but what they fail to see are all those out there who don't see the doom and are working to make the future.

Personally, I feel that is a position of extreme arrogance it assumes that we have peaked and must now fall (and oh by the way I am a part of the pinnacle).

I did a quick reading of the few sentences that actually use the term "entropy". Interesting.

Not interesting enough for me to actually READ the article. Maybe next week when things slow down for me a bit.

Quick first impression: he does claim entropy in the thermodynamic sense. The case looks less than sound to me. But I read 1/50th of the paper.

Thanks for the link.

One way to look at it, the historical return in the capital markets is 12%. Sure, emerging markets can beat it, mature industies lag. If you are seriously beating it for no other reason, someone down below is suffering.

This reminds me of the socialist cliche, "profit is a measure of how underpaid the worker is." I think there are additional explanations which don't imply that someone is being screwed. For one, there is usually a startup cost to get into a market or seize an opportunity. Until other competitors take notice, the forerunner has a comfortable edge and can enjoy exceptional profits. Another explanation might be a business that has a government endorsed monopoly, which I personally oppose.

Make it a double, like usual! LOL

One can never discount ingenuity. New things are discovered daily. New uses for old things. The pie just gets bigger. It is not dependent on population growth, although that would be a component. The very notion that the world can support a finite number of people has been disproved by, for one, the discrediting of the landmark book The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich. The world could not be fed if we had food production processes stuck in the 19th century, but our ability to grow more and more food on less and less space has been absolutely incredible, and would have been inconceiveable by the standards used by Ehrlich and his scare mongers. The reason we have hunger today is not food production, but rather distribution.


These are good points but I can't help but be worried what population growth will do to this planet in the end. I mean the planet isn't getting bigger. There's one pie you can't "grow," Whether Ehrlich's Malthusian theories have panned out as stated or not, there's no denying that population growth has direct consequences on the quality of our lives. Since I was born some (gawd) 38 years ago I think the earth's population has grown some 60% or so and from what I understand and not slowing down. The contrary in fact. Obviously, as you say, ingenuity, efficiency and science has allowed this to happen. Growing food supply and medical advances just mean more and more people. People have their plusses and their minuses. One of the minuses is they take up space, use up resources and produce waste.


I grew up in the western US and now live in the east and I still remember the shock of having so many people so close together and the level of development that over ran this beautiful countryside. I've grown quite used to it and it seems natural to me now but there was a time when I thought the opposite. I definitely thought that this was no way to live. Now when I'm visiting the west (Colorado) I get that same shock. The development is absolutely sprawling. The 36 corridor between Boulder and Denver is practically slammed shut with suburban house farms now. This used to be one of the prettiest pastoral drives when I was a kid but, like Long Island out here 50 years ago, those farms are long gone and are never coming back. I don't see this as a good thing. Where are those geniuses you are talking about to prevent this??

In developed nations population growth does tend to slow and almost stop (actually decrease in some cases) but the primary need of capitalistic industries for growth drive the desire to bring in more and more people through immigration and expanding markets and there's no denying this causes huge frictions and dilutes cultures on both sides.

So another question should be: Should we allow this relatively mindless, organic capitalism to homogenize us? This is another result of global economies and cultures intersecting based on need of growth and fresher markets. Are we better off with the shallower more malleable pop culture phenomena that continues to take over the color of the planet? Not so sure. And this can fairly said to be capitalism's onus. Coupled with freedom of course.

I'm not saying Capitalism is a bad thing at all, the benefits have been huge but it is fair to say so have the costs. And let's face it, there's a lot blind faith people like Milton Freidman, and yourself apparently, ask us all to buy into. In essence: "Trust us, some genius will figure this all out." " The Invisible Hand will lead us when the need arises." At some point I'm not so sure this will always be the case. Where are they (It?) leading us? Underground? Space??? We are running out of planet and I'm sorry but that just plain sucks.

Make it a double, like usual! LOL

Heat Death of the brain.

the notion of profit evolves to include quality of life, fairness, time with family, resource management and the like. Otherwise it's just a matter of time until the fuel is all spent.

I''m a strong believer in market capitalism and it's curious bedfellow: regulation. I would speculate that capitalism, or at least something like it, could become self sustaining without continual expansion through management and organization. There are examples of a sort of resource/use equaibrium in some more "traditional" cultures. But you have to be ok with "enough is enough" I suppose, and with capitalism that's like trying to sell a race car that is no faster than last year's model.

I recall an interesting chart from ecenomics that shows the all-time global population relatively constant until the industrial revolution, when the population increased dramatically. I also recall there was no certain explanation for that coincidence. Is capitalism's greatest product simply more people?

The intelligence of my question not withstanding, I think I either did not ask the question clearly enough, or you did not read it carefully enough.

No where did I suggest that Capitalism is doomed to fail, neither did I place moral judegement on it.

Usually proponents say that Capitalism can work for everyone because the economic pie will continuously grow. My question is can it grow forever given some assumptions I made.

How does the pie "just" get bigger foreever? I hope you do not suggest that the earth can sustain an infinte population, and produce infinte amount of goods (I can't count that high, can you?) After all, the earth is made of finite "stuff".

If the metaphysical economy can grow foreever, without growth in the physical economy (the earth can only manufacture X atoms worth of stuff), then the rising tide can continue to lift all boats. This is my hope and my gut feeling, but I don't know how to validate it. That was my personal "lunch" position and the reason I posed the question.

If you argue that the Sun will go supernova long before Earth reached its production limits or something similar then I have no retort. We can go in infinite directions.

By the way, unlike some people I try to only make stupid remarks/do stupid things while sober, so as to look less foolish.

Carlos "my intelligence is your stupitidy, or did I have that backwards?" L.


One can never discount ingenuity. New things are discovered daily. New uses for old things. The pie just gets bigger. It is not dependent on population growth, although that would be a component. The very notion that the world can support a finite number of people has been disproved by, for one, the discrediting of the landmark book The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich. The world could not be fed if we had food production processes stuck in the 19th century, but our ability to grow more and more food on less and less space has been absolutely incredible, and would have been inconceiveable by the standards used by Ehrlich and his scare mongers. The reason we have hunger today is not food production, but rather distribution.

Capitalism works. Communism was never more than a theory espoused by the disenchanted grumblers of the world.

"A rising tide lifts all boats." John F. Kennedy

Remarks in Pueblo, Colorado, August 17, 1962, Public Papers of the Presidents: 1962, p. 626.

You and your friends need to quit visiting with Jack Daniels during lunchtime. That was perhaps the most ridiculous statement of a drunken theory I have ever seen.

The intelligence of my question not withstanding, I think I either did not ask the question clearly enough, or you did not read it carefully enough.

No where did I suggest that Capitalism is doomed to fail, neither did I place moral judegement on it.

Usually proponents say that Capitalism can work for everyone because the economic pie will continuously grow. My question is can it grow forever given some assumptions I made.

How does the pie "just" get bigger foreever? I hope you do not suggest that the earth can sustain an infinte population, and produce infinte amount of goods (I can't count that high, can you?) After all, the earth is made of finite "stuff".

If the metaphysical economy can grow foreever, without growth in the physical economy (the earth can only manufacture X atoms worth of stuff), then the rising tide can continue to lift all boats. This is my hope and my gut feeling, but I don't know how to validate it. That was my personal "lunch" position and the reason I posed the question.

If you argue that the Sun will go supernova long before Earth reached its production limits or something similar then I have no retort. We can go in infinite directions.

By the way, unlike some people I try to only make stupid remarks/do stupid things while sober, so as to look less foolish.

Carlos "my intelligence is your stupitidy, or did I have that backwards?" L.




I don't get this Metaphysical economy business you're talking about. People are physical. they need to eat sleep and sh!t. Their brains, no matter what they think up has to be housed. I think your "Boats being lifted" ad infinitum argument is right up there with "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Almost literally. It doesn't mean anything.

It is economy based on non-physical goods like ideas. Software is an example, which is at its core is simply some algorithm or computation. Another example is frequency bandwidth over the air. You can have a software market where the only physical goods are the server which the sofware is stored, transceiver infrastructure, and the customer computers which download and use the software. The exchange of software use for money that occurs between the server, transceiver, and computer in this scenario I would consider as metaphysical.

Techonlogy has now allowed for the delivery of new services without replacing physical goods. An concrete example is offereving broadband service over power lines. Cell phone researches are working on phones transievers implemented completely in softare. I.e. keep the same physical chipset but achieve improvements (bandwidth and signal quality) via software change only. I work in the telecommunications industry so these are the examples I can think of.

You are correct, people are physical and take up physical space. There is a finite amount of physical goods (food, clothing, fancy bikes) we can consume. Physical goods also have to be housed, but not necessarily the metaphysical goods like software (where one copy could server millions, so I don't count the hard drive that one copy sits on.)

I think the real potential limiter is human mental capacity. Given that earth can house X number of people and each individual has twenty four hours a day of mental capcity, can the population consume more and more information over time? Think of software programs that consume more and more information (other software or data), or alternatively produce more and more information on our behalf.

The "boats" comment is just what I consider the traditional argument in favor of Capitalism. I.e. just because I make $10 doesn't mean others have to lose $10 if the economy (pie) grows sufficiently fast over time. Everyone can make more money and raise their standard of living. My question concerns wether the econmony can continue to grown indefinitely to support the "boat" arguement. For me it means a lot.

I don't get this Metaphysical economy business you're talking about. People are physical. they need to eat sleep and sh!t. Their brains, no matter what they think up has to be housed. I think your "Boats being lifted" ad infinitum argument is right up there with "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Almost literally. It doesn't mean anything.

For having even entered this discussion. I was tired, ready to go home when this topic just jumped out and demanded a response. I typically do not enter the capitalism/communism debate because it is absolutely pointless. Kilimanjaro asks what I considered to be a silly question. I responded in that manner, and Red Menace threatens to burn down my house, all the while calling me his bourgeosie friend. Spunout comments from the sidelines as one of the disenchanted grumblers I mentioned. hoo and Red menace get into an academic discussion that is meaningless and irrelevant to today's world, citing obscure references of more disenchanted grumblers that even hoo admits he won't read. Other proletartiat types chime in about how unhappy they are and how the world has screwed them. And when it comes right down to it, we are in full fledged disagreement about a disproven theory/practice that has, in its various manifestations, caused more heartache, poverty and human degradation than capitalism has ever or will ever cause.

Sorry, but you will all have to go on without me. I have profits to make and labor to screw so I can eat cake while you all grovel around in the mud and manure, begging for the leftovers from my table.

I wish they'd all just leave.

You leech off of the parasite of the capitalist class. You are a parasite on a parasite, according to marx.


"hoo and Red menace get into an academic discussion that is meaningless and irrelevant to today's world, citing obscure references of more disenchanted grumblers that even hoo admits he won't read."

Actually, I will read it. I copied the article author and citation, and will take a look at it sometime over the next week. It looks interesting, even if unsound.


"... begging for the leftovers from my table."


Why have scraps when I can have fine brats and beer? Good, honest workers food, that is. MMMMMMmmmmm, Klement's Brats.

Cooked right, not the way you cook them ^_^

the truth is so obious that any questions concerning its sustainability are, well, silly.

I am worried that as you contemplate beating yourself that you might emulate the main character of a very popular film. Given you compassion and understanding of those who "begg for leftovers", such self punishment will be so underserving.

Kilimanjaro "If I beleived in God I would pray for your soul" L.

For having even entered this discussion. I was tired, ready to go home when this topic just jumped out and demanded a response. I typically do not enter the capitalism/communism debate because it is absolutely pointless. Kilimanjaro asks what I considered to be a silly question. I responded in that manner, and Red Menace threatens to burn down my house, all the while calling me his bourgeosie friend. Spunout comments from the sidelines as one of the disenchanted grumblers I mentioned. hoo and Red menace get into an academic discussion that is meaningless and irrelevant to today's world, citing obscure references of more disenchanted grumblers that even hoo admits he won't read. Other proletartiat types chime in about how unhappy they are and how the world has screwed them. And when it comes right down to it, we are in full fledged disagreement about a disproven theory/practice that has, in its various manifestations, caused more heartache, poverty and human degradation than capitalism has ever or will ever cause.

Sorry, but you will all have to go on without me. I have profits to make and labor to screw so I can eat cake while you all grovel around in the mud and manure, begging for the leftovers from my table.

Some would argue that quite the opposite of chaos is the result, that is, unnatural accumulation and concentration of wealth. Taxes helps to move back toward chaos, or redistribution, and so does spending and dilution through donation or inheritance. However, that chaos or entropy is not random, but very intentional, controlled, and purposeful.



That is such a marxist thing to say!

(as an aside, this thread has gotten way out of hand, and to go much further we would have to get into some texts, and I sure don't want to do that)


The process drives us away from equal access to capital towards concentrated capital. Accumulation. Yes, that is what capitalism does all right.

Taxes move us back towards redistribution through regulation. Social programs (freeways, courts, welfare, ss, medicare, etc) that benefit all are provided by this CONTROL on the process of capitalism.

It is not a random process, but intentional (whose intentions?), controlled (who controls?), and purposeful... towards the goal of increased profits.

You might be interested to know, Doug, that you have argued the core idea of the Social Democratic theory of the Welfare State. Namely, government serves as a moderating check on the problems of uncontrolled captialism. No one I know argues this will lead to a steady state system, but it 1) stops the revolution by keeping the masses passive, and 2) allows capital concentration and enterprise.

An excellent marxist analysis of the capital/state relationship in modern capitalist nations.

Yes, I think most liberals and conservatives agree that there needs to be some regulation, the battle is where we draw the line. Even a hard core libertarian would have to acknowledge that absolutely free markets probably would not work. Even a hard core Marxist needs to acknowledge that some free enterprise stimulates productivity. There is a dynamic equilibrium that we need to optimize, but we just can't all agree on how to do that and what optimum is. The extremes are easy to argue, it's that fine point of balancing on the razor's edge that's so hard (like riding on the edge of anaerobia).

Doug

That is such a marxist thing to say!

(as an aside, this thread has gotten way out of hand, and to go much further we would have to get into some texts, and I sure don't want to do that)


The process drives us away from equal access to capital towards concentrated capital. Accumulation. Yes, that is what capitalism does all right.

Taxes move us back towards redistribution through regulation. Social programs (freeways, courts, welfare, ss, medicare, etc) that benefit all are provided by this CONTROL on the process of capitalism.

It is not a random process, but intentional (whose intentions?), controlled (who controls?), and purposeful... towards the goal of increased profits.

You might be interested to know, Doug, that you have argued the core idea of the Social Democratic theory of the Welfare State. Namely, government serves as a moderating check on the problems of uncontrolled captialism. No one I know argues this will lead to a steady state system, but it 1) stops the revolution by keeping the masses passive, and 2) allows capital concentration and enterprise.

An excellent marxist analysis of the capital/state relationship in modern capitalist nations.

Pretty funny stuff. (nm)

There is a dynamic equilibrium that we need to optimize, but we just can't all agree on how to do that and what optimum is. The extremes are easy to argue, it's that fine point of balancing on the razor's edge that's so hard (like riding on the edge of anaerobia).

Doug

I am curious about your THEORETICAL response to a certain EMPIRICAL fact given your support for equilibrium and optimization.

In the past 300 years captialism has grown pretty much unchecked. Global inequality has increased.

In the past 30 years capitalism has grown pretty much unchecked, and global inequality has increased. Inequality in the USA has as well. The rich get richer, no one else does.

In the past 3 years capitalism has grown pretty much unchecked, with a Captial friendly party in control of all three branches of US government; global and US inequality has increased. More millionaires, more poverty, and the median income DOWN.

Given the movement towards the "extreme" of captialism at 3 different time scales (at three different orders of magnitude I might add), by what logic can you say that we should not swing COUNTER to capitalism, if for no other reason than it needs balancing out?

" Software is an example, which is at its core is simply some algorithm or computation."
Like words in a book? Give it a rest.

Wow. How boring. This forum used to be good.