Unlimited Wealth? - Interesting belief...

[Fires of History]

I find that in my conversations with capitali$ts, both online and on the realside, that there is one common thread used to justify their relentless faith: unlimited wealth.

It is quite true that since the Renaissance, capitali$t forms of economy have created a tremendous surplus of material wealth. But this doctrine of 'unlimited wealth' is short-sighted.

Capitali$tic forms of economy are as old as the Crusades, and some have said older. Agreed. And this theory has worked well so far for some. Yet the idea of 'unlimited wealth' has two major flaws:

1. It is dependent on continually expanding markets.
2. It is best coupled with a continually rising population.

The material success of capitali$m over the past centuries is undeniable. Yet to think that such a system will last 'forever' is wishful thinking.

First, there will come a point when there are simply no new markets to open. It might take a while, but the idea that the success of capitali$m will continue in a closed-system is a misunderstanding of the economic mechanisms that make such a system work. When the day comes that all the 'third world' countries are finally 'developed,' and all the markets tapped, capitali$m will greatly lose its steam.

In addition, the idea that the population will continue to rise and rise, and therefore continue to create larger and larger markets of consumers, is a denial a great deal of scientific research. This planet simply will not tolerate much more, and a great 'leveling off,' some have said 'dying off,' is sure to come.

The capitali$tic system is continually creating more and more wealth at this stage in history, sure. But the belief that such a system will last 'forever' is complete ignorance. When the day comes that there are no new markets to open, resources have been destroyed, and the population is no longer able to explode at such an alarming rate, we will see a new system emerge. There is no telling what system that might be, maybe a system likened to bartering in the middle ages, perhaps a modified form of Socialism, who knows. But it surely will not be the system we know today.

But it is clear that the current system, for all its 'good,' is creating a situation for great tragedy in the future. The day will come when our devastation of non-renewable resources, our disregard for the sustainability of the very planet we call home, and the continued denial of the need for change will come to haunt us. And the day will come when historians call this capitali$tic era the True Dark Ages. Nothing is 'unlimited.'

[Guest]

Reagan Lives:

With all due respect, FoH, I think it is you that is being shortsighted.

Not too long ago there was a thread concerning the "ideal" capitalist system. I replied that there is no "ideal" that can be described, since capitalism is about constant innovation and evolution. It is based on the assumption that we can't predict the future. We can't predict population growth patterns. We can't predict natural resource consumption/deterioration. We can't predict rainfall. We can't predict what the market price of hog futures will be. We can't predict the opening weekend box office gross of Episode II. Not accurately, anyway.

To say that the finite number of markets and (somewhat less) finite amount of natural resources on this planet present a danger to the long-term future of capitalism is shortsighted and closeminded. If and when either of those barriers present themselves, capitalists will figure a way to deal with them. I don't know what the way will be, but I'm pretty sure that it won't be worldwide socialist revolution.

My faith in capitalism is not faith in the infinite sustainability of present conditions. Capitalism is designed to deal with problems as they arise, and to this point it's done a pretty goddamn good job. Doomsday prophesizing about the fate of the present capitalist system reflects the socialist idea that a quick permanent fix can be found for all the problems that might ever plauge mankind from now until the sun swallows up the earth. Your two enumerated "problems" are good examples of the problem with such problems. If there's two things that a cursory study of human demographic history can teach us, it's that:
1) markets are not static
2) people who worry themselves about population growth usually end up getting all worked up over nothing (see Malthus and Ehrlich).

You wrote that we will "see a new system emerge." Probably, in the sense that today's American capitalism began as a "new system" emerging from the Depression. Don't hold your breath on Medieval bartering or a new round of socialist tomfoolery... whatever innovations we make to account for new constraints, you can bet your bottom dollar that currency will continue to function as a trade equalizer and value-storage-unit (the latter will become especially important if, as you predict, resources become scarce), and that property rights will be maintained. And that capitalism will continue to evolve and adapt, because that's what it's designed to do.

[Fires of History]

Interesting...

"We can't predict population growth patterns."

Of course not. I couldn't tell you what the exact number will be. However, it took almost all of human history, until 1804, for our numbers to reach 1 billion. About 150 years later, in 1960, we arrived at 3 billion. Just 40 years after that, we reached 6 billion. Estimates are between 8 (low) and 12 (high) by 2050. People think things suck now. Do you honestly believe that the planet isn't heading towards a population crisis? But go ahead, put your head back in the sand...

"We can't predict natural resource consumption/ deterioration."

Once again, of course not. We will not know the exact day we run out of oil, nor will we know the exact moment coal, and other resources, are exhausted. However, virtually every geologist in the field acknowledges that oil production will peak between 2005 and 2010, and there will be a severe depletion of oil reserves at least by 2050, if not sooner as demand for oil continues to increase while reserves decrease. Over this next century, the era of cheap oil will come to an end. You should read up on 'Hubbert's Peak,' and related info HERE (http://www.oilcrisis.com/).

"If and when either of those barriers present themselves, capitalists will figure a way to deal with them."

How is that? There won't be many resources left to sell. And, just wait and see what happens when the largest foundations of the biggest economies- oil- slowly disappears.

"Doomsday prophesizing..."

Ha, yeah, that's what it's usually called when science recognizes a coming crisis. Better to ignore the facts and not change when we could do so slowly and wait until change is forced drastically.

"1) markets are not static"

Agreed, which is exactly the reason why said markets are in for a stormy future. How will markets continue to 'progress' in a non-static environment?

"And that capitalism will continue to evolve and adapt..."

Agreed, that was my point. The system we know now will not exist in the future.

[Fires of History]

Another point I forgot about this whole 'unlimited wealth' idea is:

Who cares if there is 'unlimited wealth' if the vast majority of it is in the hands of the wealthy few? If wealth is so 'unlimited' why do so many starve everyday, why do so many have so little?

Love this quote:

"We have 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality...we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization." -George Kennan, US Cold War Planner, 1948.

[reagan lives]

I think you missed my point. At least, I note that you didn't respond to it, which I hope means that you missed it.

Things like population growth and oil depletion do NOT hearken the end of the current economic order. I'm glad, in fact, that you brought oil up. It is finite and nonrenewable. Someday we'll run out. That day won't be anytime soon, because we really have no idea how much oil there is in this rock, but odds are that it will happen sometime. That would be a bad thing, as we depend on oil for a lot of our energy needs. The socialist answer to this problem, naturally, is to try and guess how much oil there is and how many people there are and figure out a consumption plan that will allow us to extend our oil resources as far as we can. The capitalist solution is that the problem will be dealt with when it becomes a problem. We have a long list of "alternative energy" proposals sitting and taking up space in high school science textbooks. None of them are fully "developed" because there's no need to develop them...as anyone will freely admit, there's nothing that resembles an oil shortage at the present time. If such a shortage does arise, how long do you think it will take Shell or anyone else in the private sector to "develop" fuel cells or some other plan? You might say that this is just what Shell wants, so they can maintain their capitalist exploitative ways even after their cash cow is dead. I'm sure that this is exactly what Shell would like, just as I'm sure that the private sector solves problems like this one a damn sight better than any government ever has. Oil will run out. This will create a market opportunity. Whoever seizes that opportunity will save mankind, and also become stinking rich. There's nothing wrong with this.

I noticed that you took my staments "we can't predict population growth" and "we can't predict resource consumption/depletion" as expressions of doubt over whether or not these things are happening or will happen. Shortsighted, once again. These are not binary things, they occur on a spectrum. And there's no way to forecast how quickly they'll happen in the future, in fact, there's really no way to know how quickly they're happening now. Only the market knows. Trust the market.

"How will markets continue to 'progress' in a non-static environment?"
What the fuck are you talking about? This is the sort of double-speak that I expect from people like vox. How does anything "progress" in a STATIC environment?? "Static" is the antithesis of progression. I don't know what you mean or what you're getting at, perhaps you could be a little more clear.

"'And that capitalism will continue to evolve and adapt...'

Agreed, that was my point. The system we know now will not exist in the future."
Yes, but as I said, don't hold your breath for the abolition of property rights. The market will save us, but it will also save itself.

[reagan lives]

And one more thing...we're talking about two separate issues here. What I just responded to is what I consider to be the real substantive point of this thread...the long-term sustainability of capitalism. The "unlimited wealth" issue is another thing entirely, and given your last post I'm not sure you understand what it means.

When you start referring to distributive economics in terms of "pieces of the pie," and your wiser friends tell you that "wealth is unlimited," they don't mean that there's enough resources on this rock for everyone to own forty acres, a mule, a yacht, a publishing company, a solid gold mansion, a rocket car, and the Denver Broncos. What they mean is that "wealth" is a SUBJECTIVE measure of value. Therefore, there's no "conservation of wealth"...that is, it can be increased without resource expenditure. A simple example: you have a watch that you like. I, too, like your watch. So I offer to buy it from you. Perhaps you've never really thought about how much you'd sell it for, but here we are. We bargain, and arrive at the price of $100. You've decided that you like my $100 better than your watch. I've decided that I like your watch better than my $100. So we trade, and now we both have things that we like better. The aggregate wealth of humanity has been increased. Ta-da.

This, clearly, is a highly stylized and mundane example, but you get the point.

[Falange]

Although I have some criticism of capitalism, I would have to say that, for the most part, wealth is created by the genius of individual minds.

True, that genius creates products that are often silly, useless and even detremental, it is better than having a committee of dour, know-nothing commissars tell you what to do all the time.

[RedRevolutionary87]

no products are not created by genius, capitalist products are scrap, and the profit comes from unpaid labour. if one is smart, in capitalism that doesnt matter, the only way to become rich is to scheme, exploit, or inherit.

[Communist Dominion]

"capitalism deals with problems as they arise!" yes but in the long run the effect is negitive, these limited naturel resources are not as limited as you may think, but capitalism has controel over the scarcity of them, they want some items to be scarce to boost the overall value of them, they care nothing about the need for the produce for the people meerly what extra profits can be taken from it,
Capitalism is not effecient as has been said, its the biggest polluter, largest moral polluter etc etc, how is this effecient? the planet cannot taker the strain of the exploitation of you fat cat capitalists.