Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 25
th, 2012 at 6:22pm:
John Smith wrote on Jul 25
th, 2012 at 5:46pm:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 25
th, 2012 at 5:14pm:
perceptions_now wrote on Jul 25
th, 2012 at 5:13pm:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 25
th, 2012 at 5:00pm:
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 25
th, 2012 at 4:49pm:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 25
th, 2012 at 4:44pm:
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 25
th, 2012 at 4:25pm:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 25
th, 2012 at 4:09pm:
Solutions?
It does mean solutions will have to be found to the predicaments we have put ourselves in, yes!
But, then, that is evolution so....
Well, it might be trendy and cool to 'rally against the system, man,' but pragmatic solutions are required when problems are identified.
gO FOR IT THEN!
The only solution (that I can come up with at this stage) is to encourage recycling further, and hope in the future technology can help firms to manufacture products from recyclable material. Because, the way business and money operates, it cannot but 'grow.'
Growth is rooted in the very fundamentals of business.
That has been the way it has been presented, BUT IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY, IN REALITY, OVER TIME, as we are now finding out! How can you operate a business without having 'growth'?
why must you have growth? If the banks make $3 billion profit a year, why is that not enough? why must they screw everything and everyone to try and make that 3 become 6 become 16 ......
Regardless of the profit margins of banks or any company for that matter, businesses must make a profit from their sales. They must receive more money from their sales than they spend on their expenditures. Otherwise, they'll eventually go bankrupt and there won't be anything to sell.
Sure, but why do they need growth?
Businesses existed before capitalism - back when lending money with interest (or ursury) carried a penalty, in some places, of death.
Only the financial sector needs growth - without compound interest, the incentive to loan money disappears.
This is why earlier economic thinkers placed their focus on the state as central lender/planner, but as you've pointed out, this is inefficient as well. Or just plain corrupt.
Without capital, the markets would be stuffed. But without checks and balances, capital will be stuffed. This is why the post-war institutions of the IMF, World Bank, etc, were created: to protect money. If you protect money, you protect states and their debt. If a state's interest bill goes sky-high, everyone is stuffed - even, as we've seen in Ireland and Greece, the system as a whole.
And that's when you get revolutions and wars.
The solution has to involve the global financial system. The Friedmanite Washington Consensus of the past 40 years - the focus on supply (free trade and market rule) - has been a dangerous experiment, but clearly, it's not over yet.
Prevailing's solution of protectionism can't work in the current economic setting. Protectionism worked in the post-war era because the global financial system used a gold standard for currency. This placed limits on the borrowing and spending of states. Also, for what it was, there was a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). As a multilateral framework, GATT was ineffective, but countries did negotiate tariffs bilaterally.
That was the point. On their own, tariffs do nothing except tax imports. With agreements in place, states produce what they're good at. They sell what they've got a surplus of and buy what they need.
This did leave the developing, cash crop economies at a loss, and that was the problem with the old model. Developing states borrowed money from developed (and oil rich) states to develop. This led to the loans crisis of the early 1980s, and the system came crashing down - again, a problem of capital.
In a global economy, only very powerful states can determine their own economies. Mind you, this always involves their satelite states and dependants. US economic policy has always relied heavily on Latin America, Europe, and now, China.
Therefore, the solution can only be transnational. The problem is, capitalism is steered by hegemonic states who will always resist - with force - anyone else grabbing their market share. The Dutch did it, Britain did it, Amerika does it, and China will do it before long. It's called gunship diplomacy, and ultimately, this is where all growth leads - to the systemic imbalances that lead to war.
This is why any attempt at a solution - even if you could get all the world's leaders sitting down at a table - is doomed to failure. If even minute taxes on transnational financial speculation are scoffed at, we're doomed.
Remember how Bob Brown was howled down for suggesting some form of international decision-making body?
We're buggered.
Critique of growth and capitalism number 50,000,000,000.
Forum
Pages: 
