Wayne Stollings wrote:
What actual reference source makes such a definition? Not the encyclopedia, dictionary, or any text books I have read. If my source actually makes the claim, please quote it, but if you believe it infers that definition that is another matter.
This is a good definition, again from the same references:http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/ar ... 08_C000053
Again, notice that the point that capitalism merely refers to private ownership of the means of production is wrong. It gets worse when you consider state capitalism.
No, you can have growth without profit and you can have profit without growth. They often go together, but it is not a requirement as has been claimed.
You cannot have growth without profit, unless by growth you are referring to something else, like feeling good about yourself as your business is falling apart.
You cannot have non-growth without profit because your profit is the net income of the firm, which means its wealth grew. That's painfully obvious.
Perhaps you are referring to comparisons of sales across two years. In which case, you can have profit without growth as your revenues decline from year to year while remaining higher than your costs, but if you cannot reverse the trend, then your profits will reach zero.
Yes, but having profits does not mean one is growing, just that the sale price to cost ratio is more in your favor. That is not always the case with growth because the additional overhead costs generated may result in a negative impact on net profit.
Any additional overhead costs are supposed to be part of your total cost. Your net profit is the difference between your total revenues and your total costs.
If you need to pay for additional costs after filing tax documents, then you need to add them to your costs for the next fiscal year.
If you want to maintain or increase your profits for the next fiscal year, especially to pay for those additional costs, then you have to increase either prices of goods sold or production. Given competition, you will very likely do the latter.
Except when there is a global recession or depression and the expanding markets are largely gone. The only markets that will always expand with population are those required for survival.
Indeed, which is why capitalism is not sustainable. As I explained to you many times, capitalism requires growth, and that essentially leads to expanding markets. If resource availability compounded by environmental damage and global warming cannot meet the demands of those markets, then prices start to go up, made worse by unregulated financial speculation (another quality of free market capitalism). And when resource availability starts dropping, the situation worsens.
Which really has nothing to do with the discussion at all.
Actually, they do, as those are your expanding markets, and deflates your simplistic view of supply and demand.
You can do that without growth. You have started with a false assumption and it confuses you. Companies can provide raises without growth if they choose to make less profit. This is not uncommon in a workforce with specific skill sets. This is why companies in bad financial shape often hire leadership with much higher costs than the norm. You can also provide a better ROI even without growth, just by reducing costs. That is why the stock market is showing records when unemployment is so high. You just have trouble doing both at the same time. It is not impossible, just harder.
Less profit is not the same as no profit.
You can reduce costs but only to a certain point, after which you need to raise production. It gets worse when your competitor decides to reduce costs by increasing production. In which case, he can meet expanding markets, which you can't. And when he does start reducing costs, he does so while getting a larger market share than you do. This will entice people to invest in his business and not in yours even as the ROI may be the same.
In which case, don't expect the phenomenon of "the stock market...showing records when unemployment is so high" to last. That capitalist system will eventually fall apart.
Connecting them is far from the requirement as you have stated. If they are required, why does it not state that as such and not require the assumption?
Because you have to figure it out yourself. Why is there a need for economic growth (i.e., an increase in GDP) for various capitalist economies? Why do businesses want to profit? Why the references to automation and the desire for higher-paying jobs?
Don't expect to be spoon-fed on this issue. You need to look at more comprehensive sources that are not found online.
Yes, economic growth requires growth. Capitalism does not.
The first sentence is a circular argument.
Capitalism requires growth for reasons I've explained to you earlier.
Don't assume that given a depression, recession, businesses losing money, capitalists cutting down on wage costs, etc., then capitalism doesn't require growth. It's not as if participants in such a system deliberately want these to happen.
Again, not a requirement of capitalism.
Again, a requirement of capitalism, as the same "masses" are essentially the consumers of goods manufactured and sold.
Yes, but expanding production, taking out loans, or providing an increasing ROI is not required. If production is tuned to the market demand and is capable of meeting said demand there is no need for expansion. If there is no need for expansion there is no need for capital loans. If the ROI is sufficiently high there is no need to make it higher. There may be a desire to do so and expand, but that is not a requirement.
You're referring to a state capitalist system where producers work with each other and are "tuned to the market demand and is capable of meeting said demand," which is why "there is no need for expansion" except given an increase in demand.
But that's not what we're seeing, no? There is increased pressure for more surplus resources, if not a middle class lifestyle, even in countries like North Korea and Cuba, kept in check by dictatorial control. And even as these two countries and others experience what you might call "additional overhead costs," other countries have to help them by sending food, medicine, oil, etc.
Globally, we are also seeing a global middle class, with more people in BRIC and emerging markets wanting more beef, pork, eggs, medicine, electricity, cars, appliances, electronic gadgets, infrastructure to support them, and more.
Perhaps in some computer-generated fantasy world where producers are perfectly "tuned" to demand which doesn't increase significantly might be true, but the real world is far different from what you imagine.
In the end, what will stop that world of "expanding production, taking out loans, or providing an increasing ROI" will not be producers/overlords who will work in perfect sync with demand and even keep that demand in check but resource limitations coupled with long-term effects of environmental damage and global warming.
You keep thinking profit is growth, which means you lack the basics of business economics which is required for such a discussion.
But it is for obvious reasons!
To go back to your previous examples, when the stock market is going up, then that means people are profiting from sales of stocks. What else happens when you buy shares at a certain price and get to sell them at a higher price? And what do you think those who bought stocks want to happen? Hope that the market goes down?
When firms reduce costs by laying off people, then their net profit goes up. But they can't do that continuously, especially if their consumers essentially include more people who are now unemployed!
Do you see? Everyone wants to see economic growth, and that ultimately means more profits.
So? Capitalism has been around a lot longer than forty years unless you are saying the requirement for growth is a recent addition to capitalism.
No. What I'm saying is that U.S. oil production started peaking only two years after the article was published, global oil production per capita peaked eleven years later, and conventional oil production peaked in 2005. Meanwhile, the requirement for growth has increased readily, with increasing demand from BRIC and emerging markets during the past two decades or so:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC
In which case, one is better off not fantasizing about some steady state global economy with a central government taking full control of production and demand of goods.