4 ms·

> This idea that capitalism is all growth is a very simple-minded and inaccurate view of capitalism. It's also the death of firms. It's stagnation. Its fortunes

> This idea that capitalism is all growth is a very simple-minded and inaccurate view of capitalism. It's also the death of firms. It's stagnation. Its fortunes squandered, in addition to fortunes built. Capitalism incentivizes increased economic output, which incentivizes increased energy consumption. Barring regulations to internalize the externalities of co2 emissions, this means it incentivizes increased fossil fuel consumption. Yes, some companies die, and that's part of capitalism as envisioned by Adam Smith, but the companies that survive are the ones that are able to produce products cheaper, usually by producing more, by consuming more energy. > Sometimes, our mental frames are traps rather than tools for understanding the world. This essay makes me think that this person is quite trapped, unable to absorb or explain climate action of the past 30 years. > Don't get me wrong, I don't think that capitalism is the be-all end-all system, but these critiques are so weak as to block any chance at actually fixing the many many problems of capitalism. We have failed to do anything about climate change within the system of capitalism in the past 30 years, so isn't it the people who refuse to consider the possibility that it's a problem that capitalism is unable to address who may be trapped in a mental frame?

nightski 4y ago
Energy is the lifeblood of humanity. We can't demonize it, the only path forward is to embrace it and find a way to utilize the near infinite energy available to us in the universe in a fashion that is environmentally safe. Also capitalism is about efficient allocation of capital. It really doesn't require growth of the economy as a whole (imho). Sure it encourages innovation and growth of new ideas, but that is usually at the expense of stagnating and old ideas.
- resoluteteeth 4y ago
  > Energy is the lifeblood of humanity. We can't demonize it, the only path forward is to embrace it and find a way to utilize the near infinite energy available to us in the universe in a fashion that is environmentally safe. I didn't say that energy was bad. What I wrote was > Capitalism incentivizes increased economic output, which incentivizes increased energy consumption. Barring regulations to internalize the externalities of co2 emissions, this means it incentivizes increased fossil fuel consumption. I think you may have overlooked the part in italics. In other words, capitalism incentivizes energy consumption. This is okay. But it's now important to regulate co2 emissions in a way where energy that does not produce co2 emissions is consumed. (However, the reality is that capitalism is also having difficulty doing that.)
  - nightski 4y ago
    I guess I was just saying that humans incentivize energy consumption, not capitalism. Capitalism maybe just facilitates it since that is what people want? That was my premise.
    - fuzzfactor 4y ago
      >the nature and logic of capitalism, understood as a system directed at the accumulation of capital. Capitalism is about a lot more than accumulation of capital. How about deployment of capital? Markets? >Capitalism is a grow-or-die system. If accumulation declines, the result is economic crisis. The answer of the system is to boost accumulation. Doesn't have to be >speak of economic growth as a principal problem, and of the need for a steady-state economy as a solution This I agree with but it's easier to conceptualize with a stable world population flourishing at a level where renewable resources are abundant. >For capitalism, accumulation of capital is everything This is a repeating theme, at one extreme A political frame of mind may be socialist, communist, democratic, or things like that whether or not there is capitalism involved. Even though people say there is always money in politics, there doesn't have to be either. Any of these different political systems could exist or function without money if people tried hard enough. It surely would be a way different civilization, so unfamiliar to us that it would be shocking. But maybe not that unfamiliar to more than one of the lost civilizations of many bygone millennia. Now for capitalism you really do need money, other people's money to be specific. It's economic, not absolutlely required to be political either even though that's how it turned out to most people's experience. As we see in democratic, socialist, and communist political systems, there are so often greedy capitalists who accumulate but do not leverage to produce or add real value. All suffer as the wealth needed to feed the accumulation is sucked out of the overall "economy". Yeah, you need money to be a capitalist, but so many times almost nobody has enough so they mostly really "need money badly" for survival even if they are not greedy by nature. OTOH many major worthwhile projects could never be achieved without excessive accumulation, which should ideally be leveraged into value added. Greed is the fundamental problem to me more than capitalism itself, that's where the accumulation amounts to value consumed rather than value produced. One is positive, the other negative, once you get a critical mass of greed you can be sure many major worthwhile projects will never be achieved. Regardless, different currencies have different environmental impacts. It's not just the energy and raw materials that went into your EV that makes it have a bigger carbon footprint relative to the motor fuel savings. The money you have to earn and the work you have to do to pay for the thing bring the total up even more when it comes to environmental cost. The same consumer item can have a way different cost for different people.
gruez 4y ago
>Capitalism incentivizes increased economic output You think the central planners in USSR or PRC didn't care about economic output?

nightski 4y ago

Energy is the lifeblood of humanity. We can't demonize it, the only path forward is to embrace it and find a way to utilize the near infinite energy available to us in the universe in a fashion that is environmentally safe. Also capitalism is about efficient allocation of capital. It really doesn't require growth of the economy as a whole (imho). Sure it encourages innovation and growth of new ideas, but that is usually at the expense of stagnating and old ideas.

resoluteteeth 4y ago
> Energy is the lifeblood of humanity. We can't demonize it, the only path forward is to embrace it and find a way to utilize the near infinite energy available to us in the universe in a fashion that is environmentally safe. I didn't say that energy was bad. What I wrote was > Capitalism incentivizes increased economic output, which incentivizes increased energy consumption. Barring regulations to internalize the externalities of co2 emissions, this means it incentivizes increased fossil fuel consumption. I think you may have overlooked the part in italics. In other words, capitalism incentivizes energy consumption. This is okay. But it's now important to regulate co2 emissions in a way where energy that does not produce co2 emissions is consumed. (However, the reality is that capitalism is also having difficulty doing that.)
- nightski 4y ago
  I guess I was just saying that humans incentivize energy consumption, not capitalism. Capitalism maybe just facilitates it since that is what people want? That was my premise.
  - fuzzfactor 4y ago
    >the nature and logic of capitalism, understood as a system directed at the accumulation of capital. Capitalism is about a lot more than accumulation of capital. How about deployment of capital? Markets? >Capitalism is a grow-or-die system. If accumulation declines, the result is economic crisis. The answer of the system is to boost accumulation. Doesn't have to be >speak of economic growth as a principal problem, and of the need for a steady-state economy as a solution This I agree with but it's easier to conceptualize with a stable world population flourishing at a level where renewable resources are abundant. >For capitalism, accumulation of capital is everything This is a repeating theme, at one extreme A political frame of mind may be socialist, communist, democratic, or things like that whether or not there is capitalism involved. Even though people say there is always money in politics, there doesn't have to be either. Any of these different political systems could exist or function without money if people tried hard enough. It surely would be a way different civilization, so unfamiliar to us that it would be shocking. But maybe not that unfamiliar to more than one of the lost civilizations of many bygone millennia. Now for capitalism you really do need money, other people's money to be specific. It's economic, not absolutlely required to be political either even though that's how it turned out to most people's experience. As we see in democratic, socialist, and communist political systems, there are so often greedy capitalists who accumulate but do not leverage to produce or add real value. All suffer as the wealth needed to feed the accumulation is sucked out of the overall "economy". Yeah, you need money to be a capitalist, but so many times almost nobody has enough so they mostly really "need money badly" for survival even if they are not greedy by nature. OTOH many major worthwhile projects could never be achieved without excessive accumulation, which should ideally be leveraged into value added. Greed is the fundamental problem to me more than capitalism itself, that's where the accumulation amounts to value consumed rather than value produced. One is positive, the other negative, once you get a critical mass of greed you can be sure many major worthwhile projects will never be achieved. Regardless, different currencies have different environmental impacts. It's not just the energy and raw materials that went into your EV that makes it have a bigger carbon footprint relative to the motor fuel savings. The money you have to earn and the work you have to do to pay for the thing bring the total up even more when it comes to environmental cost. The same consumer item can have a way different cost for different people.

gruez 4y ago

>Capitalism incentivizes increased economic output You think the central planners in USSR or PRC didn't care about economic output?