|
Sorry for the delay, but I decided to review what you said, and I think you are referring to articles like these:
which explains every point you raised, such as companies having similar technologies, becoming more profitable (which means there's less competition), little need to innovate, etc.
The problem is that the article refers only to the U.S. economy, and probably the U.S. consumer market, where there is not much growth in demand for goods and services.
For the world economy, however, the demand is soaring because of . This is what I mean by an expanding market: that class is expected to make up almost half of the world's population by next year, and reach almost 5 billion a decade after.
This market, consisting of BRICS and over forty emerging economies, has a combined population that exceeds those of OECD markets, and is hungry for all sorts of middle class conveniences, from not just cars but even EVs, and not just appliances but also all sorts of smart gadgets, processed food, and more.
According to economists like Reich, since the early 1990s various U.S. businesses have set up partnerships with counterparts in some of these countries while others have been purchased. Meanwhile, more companies from these countries have begun to dominate markets, starting with Japan, followed by the Asian tigers, and now China.
Many of these economies are capitalist, and frequently banks and investors refer to their GDP growth, sales of various products of businesses located there, etc., and these are sometimes linked to stock market, currency, and bond performance, credit ratings, etc.
At the same time, many of these economies have young populations, with many graduating from school and eager to work in expanding businesses, and becoming part of the same growing global middle class that wants cars, smart phones, houses, etc. Investors who fund expanding businesses that provide these middle class conveniences plus needs ranging from medicine to processed food expect high returns.
This explains my point of why capitalism requires growth: workers (and consumers), business owners competing with each other and finding opportunities in expanding consumer markets, investors who want better returns, all want to earn more, and to do that they need to be more productive, sell more goods and services (so that they can buy goods and services that they need and want), and even borrow more from banks (which need to lend more so that they can earn more). All that credit is churned back into the system to capitalize more production and consumption. And given the size of the population in the developing world, the demand is definitely there.
Now, this phenomenon is likely irrelevant to someone insulated in the U.S. and operating a small business in competition with a few others in a small city, and where credit is made possible through a military-backed petrodollar, but that doesn't mean that it's not taking place. There is growth, competition, market expansion, and more worldwide, and the possibility that the global economy will become multi-polar is significant. As it is, many products that our insulated U.S. entrepreneur is using is made in countries like China or involve extensive supply chains crossing thousands of km and many countries. Those supply chains and JIT systems involve growth on an incredible scale, and probably even coupled with economies of scale (imagine trying to, say, meet the needs of a third of the global market, whether it involves zippers or hard drives).
And then there's planned obsolescence. It's easy to imagine that businesses don't have to be innovative because they have similar technologies and costs, but what happens one they deal with competitors from other countries, and what happens if they want the business cycle to continue? That means they are forced to innovate, coming up with products that are "new and improved" or some "game changer" so that consumers will come back for more. Again, this points to the drive for growth.
Thus, the claim that growth is not a requirement for capitalism might apply to certain circumstances, e.g., late capitalist economies with aging populations like those found in OECD countries (and, in the case of countries like the U.S., probably mitigated by immigration), but not in the "real world," and by that I literally mean "world." That is, a large portion of the world's population that is young and hungry for needs and wants that counterparts have in industrialized countries. And logically investors in the latter will capitalize on that as that is their career (to invest and re-invest).
Finally, how is this related to the thread title? Well, in order to meet that very large consumer market, we will need resources that will definitely go way beyond what the biosphere allows. And yet capitalists will ignore that because what else would they do? That's the very occupation of capitalists: to capitalize on opportunities to earn more by producing and selling more.
With that, collapse is inevitable on a significant scale involving multiple crises, and likely driven by a combination of the effects of and ecological damage, including the effects of global warming.
One more point: I got angry after I read several phrases that to me were personal attacks or insults (like questioning my reading comprehension), and I wanted to reply with the same, but decided not to do so, and instead posted this, which I hope is considered civil. I guess my conclusion is that it was a misunderstanding. You are correct, but I think you are talking about the U.S. economy. I was referring to the global economy, which I think is very different.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Next! 
