No.104118
People on the left say capitalism requires endless growth, yet the populations of developed countries is decreasing. The leftists say that this bad for our economy and we need more people. What is "good" growth and is this different than simple population growth?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104119
>>104118
Because the same people who used usury to destroy the worth of money, exchanged it with fiat, and are replacing wealth with debt, are also the suppliers of the population numbers. Why? because the end of the usury cycle means the destruction of a nation, and lying about population numbers gives the leverage to destabilize the nation with migration warfare, in an attempt to keep the indigenous people from killing the ones who have destroyed their nation. It's all by design and in the works for over a century on economic level, and millennia on the grand scale. We are at war, we always have been.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104170
>>104118
Capitalism requires endless growth because stagnation (in size/profit/growth/etc) equals death in that sacred 'free market'.
Besides the obvious necessity for constant growth, what the fuck trajectory can you possibly come up with that would actually work in a competitive 'free' marketplace? Do you think other companies would simply play nice when their competitor says "hey guys, maybe we should slow the fuck down and not destroy the environment/create huge wealth disparity/whatever reason, can you be nice and not take complete advantage of us while we do so?"
Also what is this meme you're saying about "leftists" thinking that we need more people to make the economy work? Are you talking about American LIberals? Any good leftist would be for direct democratic control of their workplace, possibly on a national level depending on your particular economic fetish, which in and of itself would at least begin to steer capitalism in the right direction, right towards the grave.
Richard Wolff has some things to say about this. If you're not familiar, watch his shit on youtube. If you are familiar, watch it again because you didn't get it the first time.
>>104119
>the same people who used usury
The capitalist class, right?
>We are at war
Yes, a class war has been raging since feudal times
>indigenous blah blah
…oh wait you're trying to say this is the jews…. how juvenile. The capitalist class rules us all and is comprised of various types of monied assholes, not just jews.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104175
>>104118
Keynesians and leftists are concerned about slowing/decreasing of working-age population because they need your wealth to fund Social Security Ponzi scheme. Socialism works until you run out of other people's money.
>>104170
>what the fuck trajectory can you possibly come up with that would actually work in a competitive 'free' marketplace? Do you think other companies would simply play nice when their competitor says "hey guys, maybe we should slow the fuck down and not destroy the environment/create huge wealth disparity/whatever reason, can you be nice and not take complete advantage of us while we do so?"
Most environmental issues stem from failure to properly enforce property rights. Wealth disparity is a nonissue. Pricing mechanism places a limit on scarce resources and therefore limits the scale of production. Diseconomies of scale.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104177
>>104175
>muh thatcher quote
Money is a meme. Read Marx.
What do property rights have to do with transatlantic shipping of cheap Chinese made commodities that fuel modern capitalism & contribute most to our emissions problem? How is having an ultra-bourgeoisie class that hoards wealth, concentrates business clout and keeps the rest of us down while playing by a different set of rules not a problem?
Back to OP's question, how can a company participating in the economics of modern capitalism survive without constant growth? How would they not be subsumed into a conglomerate or be out-competed into oblivion?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104180
>>104177
Marx is a meme, read money.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104183
>>104177
>Money is a meme.
Money, wealth, purchasing power, the point remains.
>What do property rights have to do with transatlantic shipping of cheap Chinese made commodities that fuel modern capitalism & contribute most to our emissions problem?
Firstly, you have to establish that emissions are a problem and that they are caused by the parties you say. Disregarding this and assuming that man-made climate change is a thing and that causality can be established, then: any time a party is injured by a pollutant, that can be considered aggression. U.S. courts have failed to enforce property rights when it comes to factory smoke, for example, traveling onto people's farmland, ironically for the same reason that leftists now support climate change regulation: the "common good", or "public good"–except in those times, the "public good" was allowing factories to dump pollutants onto anyone's property to facilitate industrial growth, benefiting one party at the expense of another. Individuals and firms who believe that manmade climate change/pollutants produced by a certain party are interfering with their capacity to use their private property can go to the courts, and the threat of litigation will encourage businesses to invest in pollution-reducing technologies, or at the very least, keep pollution confined to their own property.
>How is having an ultra-bourgeoisie class that hoards wealth, concentrates business clout and keeps the rest of us down while playing by a different set of rules not a problem?
The "rules" are enforced by governments which have established monopolies over the use of coercive force.
>How can a company participating in the economics of modern capitalism survive without constant growth?
By making more money than they lose?
>How would they not be subsumed into a conglomerate or be out-competed into oblivion?
You are assuming for some reason that having one company in a field is the most efficient configuration of a given market. Do you think that in the absence of government, McDonald's would replace and out-compete all restaurants?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104184
>>104118
nonwhite people (people who vote left) = good
white people = bad
this is what they think
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104189
>>104183
>that paragraph
NAP lolbert bullshit. also stop conflating american liberals with leftists, they are worlds apart
>mcdonalds
yes, in the absence of gov't regulation they (or a competitor) would 100% find the best way to undercut competition and become the only source for garbage food. Cheap low quality meat, perhaps not even meat or some animal feed-grade filler, maybe a monopoly on shipping and suppliers/routes due to amount of raw product ordered & shitty underhanded megacorp practices because they have fuck you money and can literally do whatever they want. Why not a private McMilitia to enforce and maintain their monopoly on materials/logistics?
This is the lolbert/ancrap utopia; a wholly unregulated marketplace where businesses and monied individuals can do whatever the fuck they want
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104190
>ITT: brain-dead commies think markets are zero-sum games.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104191
>>104190
>that flag
nice participation trophy faggot
i don't think a confederate should be consulted on matters of economics
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104192
>>104184
Anon, the majority of "white" "people" vote left. You shouldn't just call this huge, diverse group just one word.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104193
>>104191
Fortunately for us all, no one will ever ask for your advice on the matter.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104194
>>104189
>NAP lolbert bullshit
not an argument
>yes, in the absence of gov't regulation they (or a competitor) would 100% find the best way to undercut competition and become the only source for garbage food
Is this a joke? Please explain to me how they would "undercut competition". In your hypothetical world, people will unilaterally prefer McDonald's over Wendy's, Carl's Jr., Burger King, regardless of the quality of the food and regardless of whether or not they serve meat?
>maybe a monopoly on shipping and suppliers/routes due to amount of raw product ordered & shitty underhanded megacorp practices because they have fuck you money and can literally do whatever they want.
So you're saying that the money McDonald's can offer shipping companies outweighs the opportunity cost from closing off all other buyers permanently and gaining a public reputation for being complicit with coercive attempts to gain monopoly?
>Why not a private McMilitia to enforce and maintain their monopoly on materials/logistics?
Because presumably the overwhelming majority of people would not be okay with someone arbitrarily using a McMilitia to claim ownership over someone's property, call it a "lettuce shipping route", and then shoot everyone on it?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104299
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104316
>European Union (*Excluding Britain)
I like whoever made this graph.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104322
>>104191
kill yourself faggot cunt bitch
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104323
This post Prior to reading the thread, based only on the OP and my own thoughts:
I don’t know. I don’t think it’s capitalism that requires endless growth. I think it’s capitalists that require endless growth. The demands of the so-called elite are not that expensive… until you consider that capitalism uses elite lifestyles as a carrot to beat people into conformity with. As a consequence of that, not only does “everyone” want a top flight lifestyle, the people who HAVE top flight lifestyles are perpetually beset by barbarian hordes breaking down their gates by actually achieving it.
Capitalist leaders thus either make peace with the whole culture (not common) or they perpetually need some new extravagance to waste resources and become unhappy about. This is the eternal growth need, AFAIK. It’s not capitalism, it’s people, though I suspect capitalism might exacerbate it through utilizing the tendencies that create it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104324
>>104118
>Why do people say capitalism requires endless growth?
Because governments utilizing Keynesian economics require endless growth in order to not collapse under their own weight, and people who are either ignorant of what's going on or flat out part of the machine always blame capitalism for any fault the government causes. If not for this endless growth, shareholders of megacorps won't get richer (since eventually in a truly capitalist society, the population will stabilize and labor will be at a level where, while there may be a slight surplus of unskilled labor, most labor is skilled or semi-skilled, and said unskilled labor is not competing with 500 other applicants for a job at Wal-Mart). When most people think of capitalism, especially those on the left, they think of Mr. Moneybags trying to squeeze every last coin out of poor orphan Jimmy. They don't think about Mr. Moneybags giving Jimmy an apprenticeship and getting him trained up so he can run the company when Mr. Moneybags is in his old age and wants to travel or just flat out retire. They don't think about how Mr. Moneybags has to appeal to a certain core audience for his sales and thus it behooves him to spend some money here or there to maximize the output of his limited work pool, etc. Part of the reason they don't have to think about that is because, under governments, Mr. Moneybags is allowed to keep getting richer and richer because they allow him to unsustainably import third worlders to do the jobs much cheaper than the native populace could ever do it for (see the fact that Oil Rigs won't even import Spics to work offshore any more because East Asians are cheaper than Spics). Governments actively encourage this relationship because they've all taken out massive loans that can never be paid back unless growth continues basically indefinitely, except every time the population catches up, they take out more loans, and at least for the last two decades they've been importing 3rd worlders faster than skilled trades jobs can be created, meaning these 3rd worlders take unskilled labor jobs and further bog down the economy, but the numbers still project growth so they continue to take out loans to do shit.
tl;dr- Shareholders want more money -> Shareholders are also high ranking officials in government (or frat boy friends of government high ranking officials) -> Government therefore wants more growth/more money -> Government starts massive programs that cost the tax payer but bring back more money to shareholders -> Government can't afford massive programs -> Take out loans -> Have to import 3rd worlders to keep labor at a surplus so continuous growth doesn't stop (even when it's coming to a crawl even with the importation of 3rd worlders) -> Government covers it tracks by blaming Capitalism -> Some dumb bitch insists that Capitalism's insatiable hunger is why her and Muhammed III want the government to pay for all of their shit, since she can't afford to keep shitting out kids and he refuses to wear a condom.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104325
I think democracies tend to require endless growth for political reasons, too.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104326
>>104325
They do when your democracy is built around the lowest common denominator (which I realize is 99.99% of democracies, but I like to believe that 0.01% of land owner of a certain size-based democracies and the like are somewhat better).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104327
>>104326
>but I like to believe that 0.01% of land owner of a certain size-based democracies and the like are somewhat better).
They are, without a doubt. The problem is that they don't stay that way. The political expediency of expanding the suffrage tends to encourage politicians towards seeking the lowest common denominator, even if the initial suffrage is only granted to property-owning males.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104329
>>104324
Forgot flag. Also OP, read this post >>104324 , he gets it right.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104330
>>104324
One tidbit I forgot to mention in that post is the fact that it really is only government that can import 3rd worlders like in the example I mentioned, since I know someone will bring it up. In a free society, a company can still bring on 3rd worlders in certain circumstantial incidents, and a company might rely on 3rd world labor for certain aspects of their production. However in a free society, the company in question largely has to offset many of the costs of bringing on labor from a 3rd world country. They have to address (read: pay to mitigate) the language barrier, the housing barrier, the fact that the local population might just refuse to sell food and basic necessities to the 3rd worlder, etc. In a sense, the company in a free society must pay the associated costs of bringing some foreigner to come work for them, including the social costs of firing locals to hire foreigners. A government has to do none of this, since they can just import the unskilled third worlder and proceed to let them run wild (in some cases quite literally). Any damages caused by the third worlder will be taken out of the taxpayer's pocket at gunpoint, in the current world model. It might behoove a company to simply keep the local population employed or to replace the local population with automation creating a win-win for everyone, since in these ways they don't have to pay both the financial and social costs of hiring the "cheaper" foreigners.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104331
>>104183
There's actually a funny case with this. Before the creation of the EPA, several factories in the US were actually shut down because a farmer was able to prove that the pollutants killed one of his cows or something similar. With the creation of the EPA, companies only had to show that they were following the guidelines put in place by the federal agency to win a court case instead of having to prove they weren't killing Farmer Joe's pigs.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104332
>>104189
>yes, in the absence of gov't regulation
Taco Bell seems to have accomplished this just fine with the presence of "gov't regulation." In fact, 5,698,630 people every day seem to not care that they're getting a product from Taco Bell that doesn't even meet the guidelines for what can be called meat.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104336
>>104118
Because big government and big banking print unlimited money and expect you to work to justify its value by paying back loans.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.104630
>>104170
>Capitalism requires endless growth because stagnation (in size/profit/growth/etc) equals death in that sacred 'free market'.
How are stagnant markets dead? Real estate market in Japan has been stagnant for 30 years but still functions.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.