This means, I contend, that the project of a steady-state capitalism is impossible and a distraction from what I think ought to the highest priority for ecological economists today - to develop a broad conversation about what the lineaments of a post-capitalist ecological economy could look like. ... full article... http://truth-out.org/news/item/21215-beyond-growth-or-beyond-capitalism ____________________
Many people like Richard Smith are confused about rates and growth of rates.
If any kind of economic system is to last endlessly it must consume the whole time, that is endlessly consume at some moderate rate. The question is whether capitalism can function endlessly without an endlessly-increasing rate of consumption. Increasing consumption must finally become too much consumption, too much by any standard one may choose.
In any kind of economic system consumption must be increasing so long as labor productivity is rising and full employment is maintained, even with a stable population.
Many reasons have been offered to explain why capitalism needs growth, but the main reason is not often mentioned. Consumption growth prevents rising labor productivity from causing unemployment,
We could conceive of a capitalism without endlessly-increasing consumption if we could conceive of capitalism where people have capital. That's one capitalist economic model that doesn't require "suicidal growth." Why is that so inconceivable to Richard Smith?
Barry http://home.earthlink.net/~durable/ ______________
Expecting we will do the right thing, we should plan for a stable population that tries to be a light load on natural systems. One key method to lighten the load we place on nature is the use of extended durability. A stable population using a durable infrastructure would find that inheritance can provide most durable wealth. Inheritance can provide vast wealth in a low-consumption sustainable economy.
Increased durability combined with a stable population will finally deliver enough wealth to provide for each new generation. We will inherit the houses and many other durable items we need. Ownership means the free use of property. The costs of having wealth will be for maintenance, replacement, and improvements. Each generation will not need to build additional houses. The cost of having wealth will not involve expensive acquisitions. The costs will shift to inexpensive stewardship.
We can provide enough durable wealth for each person without a need to consume too much of nature's wealth. Maintenance and operation costs can be reduced to low levels. Increased durability will lower the cost of replacements. Good living will not require much consumption.
We must always provide a steady stream of perishable goods, such as food and fuel, as we might require for our personal living. In moderation nature can provide a free source of wealth to meet our personal needs.
By consuming all we can produce to stay busy we have prevented machines from causing much unemployment. Consumption growth created jobs for a while, but our problems due to our growing consumption and the related pollution are starting to slow growth. Consumption growth could make jobs so long as there was a surplus of free natural resources we could waste. The satiation of demand is seems bad to those who believe making is more important that having.
As increases in labor productivity bring us ever closer to a robot economy income will shift from wages into profit. A more democratic kind of ownership can close the loop on money flow without a need to make jobs and consume more than we need to stay busy.
Our hope of creating lasting full employment is foolish in the face of looming inheritance cutting the need for consumption and robots cutting the human labor needed any small scale production we might still need.
Capitalism could be defined as an economic system that is based on unearned income. One common aspiration among the poor is to become independent, meaning independently wealthy, thus gaining time freedom. It's a good thing the poor want to become capitalists, because nothing else can free us from the dilemma between our need for ever increasing activity and consumption to make jobs, and our need to reduce consumption and activity to become a lighter burden on the planet.
The idle rich are going to be joined by the idle poor, but the idle rich don't want to share any of their unearned income with the workers they replaced with machines and robots. We are all planet parasites who urgently need to use inheritance and unearned income to prevent the artificial needs of the money economy from destroying the physical economy. ____________