Towards a 0 growth economy

[RGacky3]

Ultimately this should be the goal for a healthy socialist economy, a no growth economy.

Heres what I mean by that, when there is social need for expansion the economy expands, when it needs to contract it contracts, and where industries can both run at a loss for a while and with a gain, basically a non-profit economy.

In a Capitalist economy you need about 3% growth for a health economy (there are many reasons for that, but its mainly the for-profit nature of the economy), when you have a need for consistant quarterly growth several things happen:

1: constant cost cutting, lower wages, layoffs and so on, which increases profits in the short term, but destroys the consumer base in the long term, leading towards collapse.

2: Bubbles, new markets need to be found when old markets cannot sustain growth, which creates bubbles, speculation, derivatives, refinancing, other financial tricks and so on, these bubbles create profits in the short term, but then they burst.

3: enviromental destruction, in the search for eternal growth, more markets, more natural resources are exploited and are done so at the least cost possible, more pollution and so on, short term effect is profits, long term effect .... well .... really bad.

There are many more side effects of a growth economy, but the point is growth economies, for profit economies are just disaster makers and are absolutely unsustainable.

One major reason Norway survived the recession is that a large section of the economy is public, meaning that section can take a financial hit and still be ok, not reliant on profit.

If you want a good economy, you need to move towards a non-profit economy, directed towards social needs rather than eternal growth, one that is not reliant on the financial sector and on capital markets, one that is non competative and which is democratic. This is the economic ideal we should work toward, the definition of a healthy economy needs to be changed from a growing economy to a economy that meets the poeples needs, which does not mean consistant growth just for growths sake.

[Thug Lessons]

Gacky have you been reading David Harvey? Both zero-growth economics and the '3% expansion is necessary for capitalism' thing are staples of his.

[RGacky3]

a little :).

[Lt. Ferret]

zero growth economy would have to coincide with zero growth population. its impossible without the kind of totalitarianism that 1984 couldnt even comprehend.

[Thug Lessons]

zero growth economy would have to coincide with zero growth population. its impossible without the kind of totalitarianism that 1984 couldnt even comprehend.

That is not what zero growth economics is. Also when citizens have access to contraceptives the population tends to stabilize automatically.

[Lt. Ferret]

zero growth economics is a shitty idea. i like new factories, houses, and businesses.

also, at no point will the population stabilize until its too expensive to have more children.

[Thug Lessons]

zero growth economics is a shitty idea. i like new factories, houses, and businesses.

also, at no point will the population stabilize until its too expensive to have more children.
That is not what zero growth economics is. Also family size has much less to do with the expense of raising children than you think.

[Lt. Ferret]

raising children is 100 percent entirely dependant on how much it costs to raise them. in western nations is becoming prohibitive to raise many children. thats why they stopped doing it.

[Thug Lessons]

raising children is 100 percent entirely dependant on how much it costs to raise them. in western nations is becoming prohibitive to raise many children. thats why they stopped doing it.

No, they stopped having so many children because they have access to a wide range of contraceptives. It is expensive to raise children no matter where you live. Also you would have to be autistic to think that when a couple sits down and decides to have kids the only thing on their minds is "How much will this cost?" Anyway this has nothing to do with zero growth economics so start another thread for this idiocy.

[RGacky3]

zero growth economics is a shitty idea. i like new factories, houses, and businesses.

also, at no point will the population stabilize until its too expensive to have more children.


Read my post 0 growth does not mean no new things or no actual growth, it means a flexible economy that does not REQUIRE growth, and growth and contraction is relative to actual social needs.

Lt Ferret READ THE POST, the least you can do is read the OP before responding.

[Demogorgon]

zero growth economy would have to coincide with zero growth population. its impossible without the kind of totalitarianism that 1984 couldnt even comprehend.
Not really, the relationship between birth rate and affluence shows that in a prosperous and egalitarian society, the principle problem would be trying to prevent too much population decline rather than overpopulation.

[Lt. Ferret]

Read my post 0 growth does not mean no new things or no actual growth, it means a flexible economy that does not REQUIRE growth, and growth and contraction is relative to actual social needs.

Lt Ferret READ THE POST, the least you can do is read the OP before responding.


I read it, its a bunch of garbage.

[RGacky3]

I read it, its a bunch of garbage.

Well, point out where I'm wrong, or piss off, but obviously you did'nt understand it based on your earlier post.

[Lt. Ferret]

becuase you didnt make a point, you just posted a bunch of nonsense. sustaining an economy is already harmful to the environment. if brazil did not build one more farm, the amount of farms and ranches it has will already cripple the amazon basin.

to contract its farms would lead to a lower standard of living for its people.

the reason norway did so well during the recession is that it used its oil profits to invest heavily in all sorts of financial safeguards. the same financial institutions that got us into the crises in the first place. they didnt have a zero growth economy, they had a massively diverse use of their profits. their PROFITS.

you need about a 3% growth in capitalist society because 100 taco bells can support 20k people but not 200k people. then you need 1000 taco bells. to stop the economy you also have to stop the population growth.

[RGacky3]

All right Lt. Ferret, you obviously need a lesson in economics, and why 3% growth is neccessary (the US does not have a 3% annual population growth).

As for Norway, most of the economy is non-profit, in the sense that there is no demand for maximum return, which is WHY they were able to SAVE THE OIL FUNDS FOR A RAINY DAY, also the public sectors of the economy kept running (even at a loss) and kept creating demand, which kept the whole economy going.

Now go and learn about basic economics and let the adults talk, once you've learned a little you can come back and tell us what you learned.

[Lt. Ferret]

LOL, yeah tell me to go learn basic economics while you spout off about a 0 growth economy. :thumbup1:

[Blackscare]

Lt Ferret, growth =/= development or expansion. They aren't nearly the same thing. Growth refers to market indexes, GDP, profits, etc.


For instance, to push to automate the economy in every way possible would, under capitalism, cause the 'economy' to shrink, as you would have no consumers to buy things. This is why socialism cannot measure it's development in the accumulation of capital. Growth for the health care system means growth in profits for a particular year, which directly correlate to the amount of pills sold, the number of times people have to come back to the hospital, the amount that insurance companies can squeeze out of people, in short 'growth' and profit correlate directly to human suffering in this field.


Growth, in reality, has very little or nothing to do with material economic efficiency.


If you don't understand what growth means in the context of capitalist economics, and think that 0 growth means no new farms or whatever your asinine strawmen were, kindly stfu and go scrub a latrine.

[Bud Struggle]

I've been to the Soviet Union before the fall--they had a 0 growth economy and there were LONG lines for the staples of life.

You really need to rise above a certain level before you can wish for such a Nirvana. Now if a Socialist world would feed off of the advances of the Capitalist state that came before it--that might be an option. But it's never come to pass that a Communist state has achieved such perfectionion on it's own.

I wish you well.

[Blackscare]

I've been to the Soviet Union before the fall--they had a 0 growth economy and there were LONG lines for the staples of life.

You really need to rise above a certain level before you can wish for such a Nirvana. Now if a Socialist world would feed off of the advances of the Capitalist state that came before it--that might be an option. But it's never come to pass that a Communist state has achieved such perfectionion on it's own.

I wish you well.

The Soviets didn't have a "zero growth economy", in the sense that it was an economy based entirely on properly allocating resources without paying heed to profit. The Soviets had an economy geared towards capital accumulation (granted it was reinvested) that was stagnant after a certain point.


That is a growth economy that is not growing. That is not a zero growth economy. Also, what you are talking about in the examples above refers to insufficient economic development, not growth.


Another instance of people in this thread going by "common sense" webster dictionary definitions of words and not understanding the proper economic meaning behind terms.

[RGacky3]

LOL, yeah tell me to go learn basic economics while you spout off about a 0 growth economy. :thumbup1:

You don't even know what that means, so yeah, learn basic economics, nor do you know what causes economic growth in a growth economy (its not population). Honestly your embarrasing yourself.


I've been to the Soviet Union before the fall--they had a 0 growth economy and there were LONG lines for the staples of life.


Had nothing to do with a 0 growth economy.


You really need to rise above a certain level before you can wish for such a Nirvana. Now if a Socialist world would feed off of the advances of the Capitalist state that came before it--that might be an option. But it's never come to pass that a Communist state has achieved such perfectionion on it's own.


Bud re-read my post, try and understand it, re-read it again if you dont, read some basic economics, then come back and have a real discussion, just pointing to the USSR (Who's problems had nothing to do with the lack of profit motive, but even so, the USSR was not a no growth economy).

I made this thread for people that have some knowledge of economics. (i.e. not Lt Ferret or Bud).

[Bud Struggle]

The Soviets didn't have a "zero growth economy", in the sense that it was an economy based entirely on properly allocating resources without paying heed to profit. The Soviets had an economy geared towards capital accumulation (granted it was reinvested) that was stagnant after a certain point.


That is a growth economy that is not growing. That is not a zero growth economy. Also, what you are talking about in the examples above refers to insufficient economic development, not growth.


Another instance of people in this thread going by "common sense" webster dictionary definitions of words and not understanding the proper economic meaning behind terms.

That's because there has never been a 0 growth economy--all was have is real world scenerios to go by, not some fantasy world "maybe if" ideas.

For all we know there never will or could be a 0 growth economy. But what we do know is the Socialist model has been the closest we've gotten so far.

Work off of reality.

[RGacky3]

Please Bud, if you don't know what we're talking about don't post. You obviously don't know what we are talking about.

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry to mess up your cosplay.

[Baseball]

All right Lt. Ferret, you obviously need a lesson in economics, and why 3% growth is neccessary (the US does not have a 3% annual population growth).

As for Norway, most of the economy is non-profit, in the sense that there is no demand for maximum return, which is WHY they were able to SAVE THE OIL FUNDS FOR A RAINY DAY, also the public sectors of the economy kept running (even at a loss) and kept creating demand, which kept the whole economy going.

Now go and learn about basic economics and let the adults talk, once you've learned a little you can come back and tell us what you learned.

Lt Ferret's observation was that oil profits allowed Norway to do all the things you praise.

[Baseball]

Heres what I mean by that, when there is social need for expansion the economy expands, when it needs to contract it contracts, and where industries can both run at a loss for a while and with a gain, basically a non-profit economy.

I guess you are going to need to explain how the socialist "social need" for expansion is defined, as well as contraction (and how it distinguishes from capitalist contraction), how industries run at a loss and for how long is "a while" and why not longer than " a while" ect.

[RGacky3]

Lt Ferret's observation was that oil profits allowed Norway to do all the things you praise.

Except it was'nt oil profits, that revenue was not taken out as profits, it was re-invested and saved by the public, Norways Oil is non profit, which is why it can CHOOSE to stop production, not drill certain areas and pay sufficient compensation, pay for saftey and so on, because it does'nt need to maximise profits.


I guess you are going to need to explain how the socialist "social need" for expansion is defined, as well as contraction (and how it distinguishes from capitalist contraction), how industries run at a loss and for how long is "a while" and why not longer than " a while" ect.

Social need for expansion would be for example, do we need more roads? should we invest more in housing because there is more poeple, and so on, but those considerations are based on social need meaning a democratic process, even simple non-profit but non accountable groups would be more inclined toward social need, simple because one you take profit and competition out of the picture you can (and chances are will) take into consideration externalities, and take into consideration your consumers as individuals rather than just money providers.

As far as running at a loss, it could be simply not laying off people, (keep in mind this is much less likely to happen to a non-profit institution), the government subsidising a certain industry, the money saved up that had'nt gone to profit being used to keep the economy going, and so on.

But think about the idea of running at a loss, is the state company that makes roads "running at a loss" considering the roads are free? When you have more of an economy geared towards that, it becomes less about gains and loss and more about simple production.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2039466]Except it was'nt oil profits, that revenue was not taken out as profits, it was re-invested and saved by the public, Norways Oil is non profit, which is why it can CHOOSE to stop production, not drill certain areas and pay sufficient compensation, pay for saftey and so on, because it does'nt need to maximise profits.

Yes; profits. What else is that wealth called?




Social need for expansion would be for example, do we need more roads? should we invest more in housing because there is more poeple, and so on, but those considerations are based on social need meaning a democratic process,

Right. But you STILL cannot describe by what source of information people use to make their democratic decisions.



even simple non-profit but non accountable groups would be more inclined toward social need, simple because one you take profit and competition out of the picture you can (and chances are will) take into consideration externalities, and take into consideration your consumers as individuals rather than just money providers.

The opposite tends to be true. I have worked for profit and non-profits and the latter tend to be a little more on the savage side.


, t
he government subsidising a certain industry, the money saved up that had'nt gone to profit being used to keep the economy going, and so on.

All you are arguing here os for the government to consume wealth. It only works for a while.


But think about the idea of running at a loss, is the state company that makes roads "running at a loss" considering the roads are free?

The state company running the road is a different entity with different capabilities, and different limitations than the company building the road.


When you have more of an economy geared towards that, it becomes less about gains and loss and more about simple production.

Except that gains and losses (otherwise known as profit and losses) is what tells the producer whether their production makes any sense, whether it creates anything of value. A company cannot operate at a loss forever, at least if it is not subsidized by the government, and even in that case that requires revenue from a company that operates at a gain ie profit).

[RGacky3]

Yes; profits. What else is that wealth called?


Surplus value, that value was'nt given to stockholders of executives, it was not overhead, its not a for profit organization.


Right. But you STILL cannot describe by what source of information people use to make their democratic decisions.


What they want personally in an economy ....


The opposite tends to be true. I have worked for profit and non-profits and the latter tend to be a little more on the savage side.


Well so have I and I have a different experience, except my experience or your is irrelivant, you have to show why non-profits would be more inclined to be savage rather than for-profits, and thats a rediculous argument.


All you are arguing here os for the government to consume wealth. It only works for a while.


no the government does not consume the wealth perse, the people do, when you build a road people drive it, not the government, but then people are paid, meaning a consumer base is built and the economy gets rolling.

But those measures (i.e. deficit spending) don't need to be taken as often in a non growth economy (or one with less for profit institutions), because the systemic risks in a for profit economy are avoided.


The state company running the road is a different entity with different capabilities, and different limitations than the company building the road.


Its different in differente countries, but either way the point stands.


Except that gains and losses (otherwise known as profit and losses) is what tells the producer whether their production makes any sense, whether it creates anything of value. A company cannot operate at a loss forever, at least if it is not subsidized by the government, and even in that case that requires revenue from a company that operates at a gain ie profit).

Its not known as profit and losses, thats a different thing from gainst and losses, if you sell $100 and then pay out $70 in compensation you have a $30 profit for your investors, if you sell $150 next quarter, you've increased your gains bt $50, but then if you pay out $100 in compensation, and save and/or reinvest $20, you've still got only $30 profit.

Gains went up, profit stayed the same.

A company cannot operate at a loss forever, however in a non profit economy, companies that make a profit can subsidize those that do not but are socially needed, until those companies make more, so that the economy keeps going. Your looking at the whole economy here too, if a for profit company stops making profits its looses investment, cuts jobs and so on, creating systemic risk, a non profit economy avoids that. Not only that but it avoids bubbles, speculation, mass unemployment/layoffs and so on.

As far as telling a producer what makes sense, thats not really the case, does it make sense to push mortages on people and then raise their rates until they loose their house? Under a profit motive yes. What about selling securities that you know are junk but hiding the fact that they are? Well sure, under a profit motive.

[Thirsty Crow]

Could someone explain and identify the real, concrete mechanisms behind the development of capitalist economy which necessitate the rate of growth of 3%?

[RGacky3]

When you don't have growth private investment stops, When profits stop going up people stop investing because they won't get a return, when people stop investing, companies will need to try and compete for that investment somehow (they need to maximise profits), so they cut workers, they buy less equipment, they downsize. Which may raise the profits short term, but creates the systemic problem of less demand since unemployed people don't buy stuff, and with less capital being bought other comapanies are making less revenue dropping their profits.

Then you have inflation, which is pretty much more money being put in to keep investment going, people want to take out credit (you'll borrow money, then when you pay it out its worth less) which encourages the economy to run while at the same time maximising profits, when you have deflation, i.e. prices going down, you get recessions, credit slows down, then in order to stay profitable again, people get laid off, companies that are not profitable end up shutting down.

Think about it, when you NEED profit to stay afloat (people will only put out money to get a return, when they can't get a return they won't put out their money), and all companies need profit, it inevitably requires purpetual growth, the 3% is the standard for most economists.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=RGacky3;2039519]Surplus value, that value was'nt given to stockholders of executives, it was not overhead, its not a for profit organization.

Surplus value=profit-- that's what it is: The value of the finished product is greater than the sum of its parts.

You seem to be under the impression that "profit" is defined as something which is stuck in the backpocket of the capitalist. But that is incorrect.




What they want personally in an economy ....

Which means nothing... Everyone has different needs, and multiple different needs. People choose what they need most urgently first and so on.
Still need to describe how the socialist system meets these needs.




Well so have I and I have a different experience, except my experience or your is irrelivant, you have to show why non-profits would be more inclined to be savage rather than for-profits, and thats a rediculous argument.

"Savage" was an unfortunate term on my end. It was also probably irrelevent since topic was more on the consumers of the non-profit rather than its labor.




no the government does not consume the wealth perse, the people do, when you build a road people drive it, not the government, but then people are paid, meaning a consumer base is built and the economy gets rolling.

Yes. But there needs to be a way to measure whether all this road building is proper and needed, and whether the road is the proper size and built in the proper area ect. Profits is the way to measure that.


But those measures (i.e. deficit spending) don't need to be taken as often in a non growth economy (or one with less for profit institutions), because the systemic risks in a for profit economy are avoided.

All economic activity is a risk- even in a socialist system. And that is because nobody can se the future. The capitalist system uses profit as a measurement as to whether the risk is worth it. What does the socialist system use?




A company cannot operate at a loss forever, however in a non profit economy, companies that make a profit can subsidize those that do not but are socially needed, until those companies make more, so that the economy keeps going.

So even you admit the socialist system has to pursue profits, that its better when a company gains profits ect.
Another question: How is success or failure measured? I mean, a company which is operating at a loss and is being subsidised-- maybe its in its predicament because of bad management ect. Would this not be a problem for the socialist system?


Your looking at the whole economy here too, if a for profit company stops making profits its looses investment, cuts jobs and so on, creating systemic risk, a non profit economy avoids that. Not only that but it avoids bubbles, speculation, mass unemployment/layoffs and so on.

You have not shown that a socialist system does this. All you have shown is that the socialist system will rely upon the profitable companies to subsidise the unprofitable ones, declare that its better when more companies are profitable than not, and then say its a problem to make profits,

[RGacky3]

Surplus value=profit-- that's what it is: The value of the finished product is greater than the sum of its parts.

You seem to be under the impression that "profit" is defined as something which is stuck in the backpocket of the capitalist. But that is incorrect.


I'm using the actual economic definitin of profit, not the theoretical one, if you gain surplus value, then give that money in compensation its not acounted as profit.


Which means nothing... Everyone has different needs, and multiple different needs. People choose what they need most urgently first and so on.
Still need to describe how the socialist system meets these needs.


Parecon is one model, people can make requests for what they need and so on, even a market system can work under this model, but you don't need profit for that, you just see what industries expand and which ones contract, but I'd much prefer replacing a market system with one where each individual has the same say in the production of what is needed such as consumer groups, who decide democratically what the priorities are.


It was also probably irrelevent since topic was more on the consumers of the non-profit rather than its labor.


I was discussing more the systemic impact of profit vrs non-profit.


Yes. But there needs to be a way to measure whether all this road building is proper and needed, and whether the road is the proper size and built in the proper area ect. Profits is the way to measure that.


No they arn't, most road companies are non profit, and 100% subsidised by the public, while giving their product for free, how much is needed is decided by democratic representatives.


All economic activity is a risk- even in a socialist system. And that is because nobody can se the future. The capitalist system uses profit as a measurement as to whether the risk is worth it. What does the socialist system use?


Thats a false premis, profit is not used as a measurement of whether the risk is worth it, because it totally ignores systemic risk.


Another question: How is success or failure measured? I mean, a company which is operating at a loss and is being subsidised-- maybe its in its predicament because of bad management ect. Would this not be a problem for the socialist system?


It could be, success or failure is measured democratically, if people are happy with something and they feel they need more of it they'll fund it more, if the management is screwing up they'll switch the manegement out.

But if its operating at a loss thats not neccessarily a problem if its doing something that society needs and is affordable.


You have not shown that a socialist system does this. All you have shown is that the socialist system will rely upon the profitable companies to subsidise the unprofitable ones, declare that its better when more companies are profitable than not, and then say its a problem to make profits,

There are many different systems, Parecon, Inclusive democracy, syndicalism, and so on.

But heres what I want to know, how can you maintain a 3% growth annually? How is that possible without the economy imploding, also what about all my points about the side effects of purpetual growth and purpetual profits? You hav'nt addressed any of those. Or how the profit motive actually destroys the economy.

[Baseball]

Parecon is one model, people can make requests for what they need and so on

Oh... so if you need a pair of tweezers you place an order to the tweezer factory...

So how does the tweezer workers differentiate amongst various orders being placed?


but I'd much prefer replacing a market system with one where each individual has the same say in the production of what is needed such as consumer groups, who decide democratically what the priorities are.

Yes, priorities as defined by the group, not the individual.




No they arn't, most road companies are non profit, and 100% subsidised by the public, while giving their product for free, how much is needed is decided by democratic representatives.

Roads are not built or maintained for "free."
And what I was saying was there needs to be a rationalization to build the road, and one to build it where it is.



Thats a false premis, profit is not used as a measurement of whether the risk is worth it,

Of course it is.


because it totally ignores systemic risk.

Given that the capitalists risks HIS money, that is a "false premise."



I
t could be, success or failure is measured democratically, if people are happy with something and they feel they need more of it they'll fund it more, if the management is screwing up they'll switch the manegement out.

In order for people to make a democratic decision, there needs to be a set of criteria and knowledge which can be evaluated. Upon what basis will people make their "democratic decision"?


But if its operating at a loss thats not neccessarily a problem if its doing something that society needs and is affordable.

It would be affordable because somebody else is subsidizing it because they are making decisions which create a profit.
It also completely leaves out the capacity for improvement in production.





But heres what I want to know, how can you maintain a 3% growth annually? How is that possible without the economy imploding, also what about all my points about the side effects of purpetual growth and purpetual profits? You hav'nt addressed any of those. Or how the profit motive actually destroys the economy.

The argument isn't that capitalism is perfect. Its that it is better than socialism.

[RGacky3]

Yes, priorities as defined by the group, not the individual.


Priorities are allways defined by the group, in Capitalism though its the group with money.


Roads are not built or maintained for "free."
And what I was saying was there needs to be a rationalization to build the road, and one to build it where it is.


They are driven on for free, of coarse there is a retionalization but that rationalization is made without the profit motive, thats what I'm saying.


Given that the capitalists risks HIS money, that is a "false premise."


No, its not a false premis, because systemic risk is very real, and so are externalities.

Also, HIS money is a moral statement not an economic one.


The argument isn't that capitalism is perfect. Its that it is better than socialism.

You mean its better than any alternative, but why can't you defend it? You can find slight problems in socialism (which are historically unfound), but you cannot defend the very basis of capitalism. Why don't you address whats in this thread rather than trying to argue something eles?

[RGacky3]

Baseball, defend the issue at hand, rather than arguing totally seperate subjects.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2041000]Priorities are allways defined by the group, in Capitalism though its the group with money.

In tyrannies, true. Which is a reason why socialism has always veered toward tyranny.

And that is not a "slight" problem.




They are driven on for free, of coarse there is a retionalization but that rationalization is made without the profit motive, thats what I'm saying.

And it would be wrong to think that that is so.





Also, HIS money is a moral statement not an economic one.

How is it NOT an economic one? Socialists usually complain that the capitalist is only interested in profits.

[RGacky3]

Baseball



Baseball, defend the issue at hand, rather than arguing totally seperate subjects.


Defend Capitalism for once.

[StockholmSyndrome]

I've posted this Keynes quote in a couple threads recently. I feel it is pretty relevant to this thread and can bridge the gap between those who say we need capitalist growth and those who say we need development for social need.

"When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease ... But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight."

I should say that this isn't a direct quote from Keynes but paraphrasing of his essay "The Economic Possibilities of Our Grandchildren" taken from Robert Skidelsky's Keynes and the Ethics of Capitalism