Re: Does capitalism really need growth to survive?

["Barry Brooks" <barrybrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear PKT

Thanks for all your answers.

As for where this thread went, it drifted away from the question.

I wasn't clear enough about growth, but by implication my question
was about growth in aggregate consumption.  The distinction between
growth and development does not help.  Even if the all growth in consumption
were directed exclusively toward "development" the problems of excess
consumption would still arise.  Development that sustains demand entails net
consumption.

I looked up the GOD theory as suggested by Mathew, which reveals that a lot
of
good scholarship has be devoted to this question, but it seems that, while
most members
of this list are aware of that work, for a few the implications haven't sunk
in
yet. Perhaps they doubt that scarcity, pollution, and conflict are as bad as
unearned income outside of the right class. Or, the need to sustain demand
is etched in
stone, a law of the human nature and the universe like gravity.

The best I could make of the answers is that it would seem that capitalism's
need for growth is based on the following weak arguments and assumptions:
1. fund managers expectations
2. our unchangeable inability to accept the need for population control
3. the assumed need to prevent "workers" from receiving any "social surplus"
(unearned income).
4. confusion about the need for profit as opposed to the need for
appreciation.
5. denial that policies to make more jobs and more profits entail
consumption growth.
6. the assumption that the scarcity of labor is greater that the scarcity of
resources
7. the belief that we can conserve while consuming more.

The idea that we are good because we are productive has been hammered in for
so
long that it would be hard to get people to accept a share of the social
surplus
without feeling guilty, but that would pass away when the load of fake
insecurity
of economic musical chairs was lifted from we wage-slaves.  The rich don't
seem to
feel guilty about taking even more than their share of the social surplus.

These don't seem to be adequate reasons for a continuation of growth when
the
cost, overshoot and dieoff, is so high.  As for the benefits, even the
wealthy
few aren't secure or happy with our crazy and insecure world.  Shopping is
not the
only possible hobby, or the key to happiness.


Why don't we need growth? If unearned income was not for just a few we would
no longer
need growth to make jobs. If we had a stable population we would no longer
need growth
to provide for more people. If we used durability to conserve we would no
longer need
growth to raise our living standards. If earnings could regain the role lost
to
speculation we would no longer need growth to please the investor.

No doubt, the circumstances necessary to support this situation would amount
to a
highly special case.  It is the sea-change we need to arrange.  We do need
something
special.  Does anyone doubt we can do special things?

While we plot to get the last of the oil by hook or crook, who is plotting
what to do when it's gone?  Who is plotting to make it last as long as
possible?

Barry