5 ms·

I think you're missing the point. If I could summarise: Capitalism generates capital. Yay for us, we now have lots of capital. But once you've generated all

by 1stop 11y ago

I think you're missing the point. If I could summarise: Capitalism generates capital. Yay for us, we now have lots of capital. But once you've generated all the capital, and maximised all the profits to the point of driving surplus value to 0. What then? * Also a major nitpick, most of that billion were brought out of poverty in China in the 1950s at the peak of Maoism/Communism... so you're point is kind ironic, no? The majority of the remainder were also in China during DengXiao ping driven state run capitalism or "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics"... So even if you weren't missing the point, the point you are making is still very moot.

patrickaljord 11y ago
> But once you've generated all the capital, and maximised all the profits to the point of driving surplus value to 0. What then? You're assuming you will be able to keep this capital forever. History demonstrates that most of even the richest families don't stay such after 3 or 4 generations. Ask any Family Office managing finances for HNW investors and they'll give you examples. * Decreasing marginal utility of wealth. * Difficulty investing as wealth increases. Capital accumulation lowers rates, incentivizing individuals to spend (h/t Reisman) * Empathy and philanthropy (one can't just ignore this, it's human action all the same). * The calculation problem builds in inefficiencies as organizations grow (h/t Peter Klein). Intergenerational differences in ability and goals and the squandering of inheritances. Entrepreneurship and innovation. Punctuated equilibrium (h/t Schumpeter).
- 1stop 11y ago
  That doesn't actually matter to the point at hand. My point was we've got all the surplus value there is to be had. The fact that we'll probably squander that too, or it will decrease in value, only strengthens the questions... so what do we do after that?
  - patrickaljord 11y ago
    After what exactly? People will keep exchanging goods and services voluntarily in a free market for a long time. That's like worrying about what we'll do to deal with over-population on Mars. Let's focus on trying to get there first?
sebastianconcpt 11y ago
All the profits? like in a zero-sum game? Wealth creation through creativity, like we do every time, that's what we do next. This article was wasted time
- 1stop 11y ago
  The article is echoing a pretty well trodden train of thought on the ultimate conclusion of capitalism. Which no one has seriously been able to refute. Wasted time is a bit harsh. Catchy one liners "Wealth creation through creativity" might help you sleep at night, but seriously, our creative endeavours have never produced anywhere near the amount of capital the resource sector has... What happens when we either get so efficient at resources that they cost nothing, or we run out of the resource?
  - adventured 11y ago
    It's trivially easy to refute the conclusion in fact. Fortunately history has already provided the refutation, dozens of times, and history will continue to prove that Capitalism is the only system that works long-term. All other systems rot and collapse, requiring constant reform back towards Capitalism (see eg: Sweden since the 1980s, UK since 1970s). There isn't a single example in world history of Socialism, Fascism, or Communism working. Every example of heavy welfare state systems has resulted in eventual stagnation and decline. There is no ultimate conclusion to Capitalism, the system continues to create more prosperity, and capital continues to seek higher forms of productivity and profit, which perpetually raises the standard of living for any nation that deploys Capitalism with its well understood requirements (which include a strong judicial system, property rights, et al). New innovations and breakthroughs perpetually lead to new industry and expansion, creating perpetually greater numbers of jobs (which is why America doesn't only have 500,000 jobs available today; and America isn't even a properly functioning Capitalist nation, it's a poorly functioning highly regulated mixed economy).
    - jedharris 11y ago
      So Sweden, Denmark and Norway have stagnated and declined? Can you be more specific? More generally, Malthus had much more historical support for his thesis (that population would quickly grow to consume all the food available). But the rules changed.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
"Also a major nitpick, most of that billion were brought out of poverty in China in the 1950s at the peak of Maoism/Communism." If you're talking about the "Great Leap Forward" years (late 50s-early 60s), somewhere between 18 and 45 million Chinese people died, most of them by starving to death. The Chinese economy did not grow during that period. It shrank. That's an odd definition of "brought out of poverty".

by 1stop 11y ago

patrickaljord 11y ago

> But once you've generated all the capital, and maximised all the profits to the point of driving surplus value to 0. What then? You're assuming you will be able to keep this capital forever. History demonstrates that most of even the richest families don't stay such after 3 or 4 generations. Ask any Family Office managing finances for HNW investors and they'll give you examples. * Decreasing marginal utility of wealth. * Difficulty investing as wealth increases. Capital accumulation lowers rates, incentivizing individuals to spend (h/t Reisman) * Empathy and philanthropy (one can't just ignore this, it's human action all the same). * The calculation problem builds in inefficiencies as organizations grow (h/t Peter Klein). Intergenerational differences in ability and goals and the squandering of inheritances. Entrepreneurship and innovation. Punctuated equilibrium (h/t Schumpeter).

1stop 11y ago
That doesn't actually matter to the point at hand. My point was we've got all the surplus value there is to be had. The fact that we'll probably squander that too, or it will decrease in value, only strengthens the questions... so what do we do after that?
- patrickaljord 11y ago
  After what exactly? People will keep exchanging goods and services voluntarily in a free market for a long time. That's like worrying about what we'll do to deal with over-population on Mars. Let's focus on trying to get there first?

sebastianconcpt 11y ago

All the profits? like in a zero-sum game? Wealth creation through creativity, like we do every time, that's what we do next. This article was wasted time

1stop 11y ago
The article is echoing a pretty well trodden train of thought on the ultimate conclusion of capitalism. Which no one has seriously been able to refute. Wasted time is a bit harsh. Catchy one liners "Wealth creation through creativity" might help you sleep at night, but seriously, our creative endeavours have never produced anywhere near the amount of capital the resource sector has... What happens when we either get so efficient at resources that they cost nothing, or we run out of the resource?
- adventured 11y ago
  It's trivially easy to refute the conclusion in fact. Fortunately history has already provided the refutation, dozens of times, and history will continue to prove that Capitalism is the only system that works long-term. All other systems rot and collapse, requiring constant reform back towards Capitalism (see eg: Sweden since the 1980s, UK since 1970s). There isn't a single example in world history of Socialism, Fascism, or Communism working. Every example of heavy welfare state systems has resulted in eventual stagnation and decline. There is no ultimate conclusion to Capitalism, the system continues to create more prosperity, and capital continues to seek higher forms of productivity and profit, which perpetually raises the standard of living for any nation that deploys Capitalism with its well understood requirements (which include a strong judicial system, property rights, et al). New innovations and breakthroughs perpetually lead to new industry and expansion, creating perpetually greater numbers of jobs (which is why America doesn't only have 500,000 jobs available today; and America isn't even a properly functioning Capitalist nation, it's a poorly functioning highly regulated mixed economy).
  - jedharris 11y ago
    So Sweden, Denmark and Norway have stagnated and declined? Can you be more specific? More generally, Malthus had much more historical support for his thesis (that population would quickly grow to consume all the food available). But the rules changed.

Turing_Machine 11y ago

"Also a major nitpick, most of that billion were brought out of poverty in China in the 1950s at the peak of Maoism/Communism." If you're talking about the "Great Leap Forward" years (late 50s-early 60s), somewhere between 18 and 45 million Chinese people died, most of them by starving to death. The Chinese economy did not grow during that period. It shrank. That's an odd definition of "brought out of poverty".