Can capitalism survive without constant growth?

[Jim Kata]

I heard a report that says that the Earth may have passed its carrying capacity. Which means the life systems of this planet are now in decline and can no longer sustain themselves. I read that 30% of the great barrier reef has disappeared over the last thirty years.

My question is can capitalism work as a zero to minimal growth, sustainable system, or is growth required for the capitalist system to work? The assumption that a country like the United States or any country can have 3% GDP growth till the end of time is foolish since we are living in a world in which resources are more and more scarce and areas for the expansion of markets are becoming more and more rare.

What are some sustainable economic models?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Look up steady state economics, there has been a lot of thought about this issue but I'm unsure of any solid proposals as yet. Also it's worth mentioning that some economists argue that growth can be infinite because we could decouple economic growth from physical resources e.g information technology, entertainment etc. Personally I'm skeptical of these claims.

 

[ImaLooser]

is growth required for the capitalist system to work?

That's what Marx says, but I never read his argument. I don't see why. If the system contracts, it contracts.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's what Marx says, but I never read his argument. I don't see why. If the system contracts, it contracts.

But in the process of growth you use up resources that don't come back when you contract.

 

[russ_watters]

Resources are used and potentially used up in any system, whether expanding or contracting. So that has nothing to do with capitalism.

I don't see why capitalism necessarily requires growth, however I think growth is a essentially a rule of nature (again, having nothing to do with capitalism). As long as technology advances, our labor will continue to add value to any economy. Whether that results in actual growth depends on efficiency. It is conservation law applied to economics.

Also, I'd be skeptical of any claim that we've exceeded the carrying capacity of Earth. The claim is often made wit a political and/or crackpot motive behind it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Resources are used and potentially used up in any system, whether expanding or contracting. So that has nothing to do with capitalism.

I was more thinking of renewable resources that can only support a certain amount of people before they start deteriorating: rain forests for example.

 

[Darwin123]

Resources are used and potentially used up in any system, whether expanding or contracting. So that has nothing to do with capitalism.

I don't see why capitalism necessarily requires growth, however I think growth is a essentially a rule of nature (again, having nothing to do with capitalism). As long as technology advances, our labor will continue to add value to any economy. Whether that results in actual growth depends on efficiency. It is conservation law applied to economics.

This is not true. Growth is not a law of nature. Growth is not a law of biology. It isn't even a law of human economics. If growth is a law at all, then it is a law of capitalism.
It sounds like you are arguing that there is no such thing as a carrying capacity.
The paleontological record indicates that all species of plants and animals eventually go extinct. There is no case of a species that keeps on growing without limit. There are some of the really long lived families of animals, like cockroaches. However, even these species have not grown without limit.
Comparative anatomy and the entire study of evolution support the idea that organisms eventually run out of resources. They may specialize in various niches, making use of renewable resources that are around. However, there is nothing in nonhuman nature that suggests growth can continue forever.
Most "primitive societies" have periodic fits of growth. However, they usually have some programmed cycle in their society that collapses their economy before carrying capacity is reached.
I am thinkin right now of the Maring. They have periods of explosive growth where they raise as many pigs as possible. However, when the pigs start digging up their gardens, it is interpreted as a sign that the ancestors are angry and they go to war. The war itself doesn't really bring the population down sufficiently. However, the war indirectly leads to female infanticide which brings the population down.
For a description of the Marang and others.
Marvin Harris, "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches" (Vintage, 1975)
The Marang would probably like to raise an unlimited number of pigs and raise an infinite number of children. However, there always ends up top be limit. It may largely be unconscious, but the result is that they explosively retract and start growing again.
This is true of other primitive societies. They reach a limit, they reach a limit. They usually have some type of retraction, which could include a war, before they reach carrying capacity. If they waited for the carrying capacity to be exceeded, then they would soon be extinct.
There are lots of societies that went extinct. Archeology has revealed all sorts of societies, some relatively advanced, that have fallen. There are lots of ancient, abandoned cities from all over the globe.
Please notice that Marx is also wrong. None of these societies develop a state where "to each according to what he needs and from each according to what he has." Economic cycles seem pretty common for all sorts of cycles.
I don't think economic cycles can be avoided.

Also, I'd be skeptical of any claim that we've exceeded the carrying capacity of Earth. The claim is often made wit a political and/or crackpot motive behind it.

There are also crack pot theories going around about "growth being a law of nature" that exists "outside of capitalism." If you have scientific evidence about "growth being a law of nature" outside of highly industrialized societies, then please feel free to give an example.
Furthermore, carrying capacities exist. You said that you don't believe that we have neared the carrying capacity. If there is a carrying capacity, then we will eventually reach it. You seem to be implying that it is a "law of nature" that there is no such thing as a "carrying capacity".
Perhaps you could expand on your "growth being a law of nature." Please tell us what nature. What referred scientific journals are available where I can read about these laws. Tell us about the experiments.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, but you aren't saying the Earth could support 7 billion capitalists or 12 billion socialists, are you?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sure, but you aren't saying the Earth could support 7 billion capitalists or 12 billion socialists, are you?

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. IMO the issue at hand here isn't capitalism itself but the idea of economic growth which is an inherent part of modern capitalist culture.

 

[czelaya]

Correct if I'm wrong, but capitalism doesn't need growth for it to exist. Under the present system we issue currency that is debt based. That's the reason why there has to be growth in the economy for it be sustainable.

Furthermore are countries like the US really capitalst? Now I'm sure, for the most part, there has never been a "pure" system of any economical idealogy. Overall, the US has strayed away from capitalism heavily. Both parties have slowly adopted a system of government intervention with the economy via subsidization, bailouts, and granting special priviliges to corporate interest.

 

[russ_watters]

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. IMO the issue at hand here isn't capitalism itself but the idea of economic growth which is an inherent part of modern capitalist culture.

I'm getting confused. Are you saying capitalism requires growth and if so, could you explain why? Also, saying growth is part of capitalism's culture implies it isn't a part of other systems, like socialism. Is that what you mean? That would be quite a shock to me! And is the culture necessarily part of the functioning of the system?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm getting confused. Are you saying capitalism requires growth and if so, could you explain why?

Nope, not saying it does require growth.

Also, saying growth is part of capitalism's culture implies it isn't a part of other systems, like socialism. Is that what you mean? That would be quite a shock to me!

Nope what I said was growth is part of our modern capitalist culture, not that it is part of capitalism necessarily.

And is the culture necessarily part of the functioning of the system?

No not necessarily, though trying to untangle two systems that have been linked in practice for a long time can be a nightmare.

 

[russ_watters]

Is growth a part of modern socialistic culture?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Is growth a part of modern socialistic culture?

Yup. But why are you framing this as capitalism vs socialism (admittedly the OP is partially to blame for focusing on the former)? Aside from the fact the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive as I pointed out in my first post here this should be a discussion of growth vs steady state economics.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, it is because of the framing of the OP and subsequent replies. The wording implies a necessary link between capitalism and growth and that the link does not exist for other systems. The reality, instead, would appear to be that growth is a component of HUMAN culture, having nothing to do with specific economic systems. The OP's question would then need to be reworded to ask if civilization can continue and no discussion of capitalism would be involved.

Seems to me that the focus on capitalism is a red herring.

 

[russ_watters]

Or, perhaps this is Marx's fault?:

That's what Marx says, but I never read his argument. I don't see why. If the system contracts, it contracts.

 

[jim mcnamara]

This is a WHO projection on world population in the year 2100
http://esa.un.org/wpp/Other-Information/Press_Release_WPP2010.pdf

The estimate is 10 billion, because there is some evidence that fertility rates are converging toward a value that would indicate a steady state value of ~10B.

If we care to assume the above is reasonable, then why do we worry if a particular model (pick you own term for this) for economics will persist due to reaching K, the carrying capacity. If population shoots past K then lots of people will die off quickly. If population growth ramps down steadily, then it will come to an equilibrium.

See the Logistic growth model here, which is what WHO is proposing:
http://people.richland.edu/james/lecture/m116/logs/models.html

If there is a huge die off then the likelihood of things remaining as they are is lower than if human population reaches K gracefully. Since WHO presents a logistic growth estimate I do not see a major issue with 'what will happen if...'

The only good answer is that stochastic process (or maybe Murphy's Law) can and will at some point trash our current economic system. And modern culture. It does not appear that population growth will do that. At least not forseeably.

 

[Jim Kata]

Marx's explanation as I heard David Harvey explain, which I vaguely understand goes something like this. In das Kapital volume ii Marx does a gedanken experiment in a society with just two classes workers and capitalist. He argues that demand comes from capitalist paying workers who then spend their money on goods and demand comes from capitalist buying means of production so total demand comes from means of production and the wage bill. The total supply that a capitalist creates in surplus is profit. Marx argues the demand for the surplus is generated by the capitalist. That is the capitalist create the surplus and create the demand for the surplus. In order for this to work it has be an expansive system by which you pay off yesterday's debts with today's expansion, a credit system. So the accumulation of capital is also the accumulation of debt.

Whether you believe this or not I still find it hard to believe that a steady state economic system would resort to speculative economics in such a large way.

I think the life cycle of capitalism is like the fusion cycle of a star. At first it has access to lots of available resources to spur growth like a young star has lots of easy fuel. Then it uses up this easy fuel and starts burning more exotic fuel more fictional speculative forms of capital like synthetic credit default swaps then it runs out of fuel and dies.

 

[Darwin123]

Yes, it is because of the framing of the OP and subsequent replies. The wording implies a necessary link between capitalism and growth and that the link does not exist for other systems. The reality, instead, would appear to be that growth is a component of HUMAN culture, having nothing to do with specific economic systems. The OP's question would then need to be reworded to ask if civilization can continue and no discussion of capitalism would be involved.

Seems to me that the focus on capitalism is a red herring.

I did not frame my reply in terms of socialism versus capitalism. My reply was based on your statement that "growth is a law of nature."

The OP framed his argument equating capitalism with growth. The OP may not have been scientific. Neither was your reply. You seemed to accept his equation without question. I don't know if there is a "scientific" way to compare capitalism with communism.

There was a question underlying the OP that may be addressable by science. The question is whether any social system (not socialist!) can have unlimited growth.

Communist and socialist societies in the industrialized world have promoted growth. From Stalin's five year plans to Maos great revolutions, they have worked hard to expand the economic production of the society. It seems to me there is at least as much pollution and destruction of resources as in capitalist societies. I may post such studies later. However, I can post at least as many studies showing how capitalist societies pillage the environment.

In fact, the words communist, socialist and capitalist don't really refer to societies. They refer to governments. Governments don't affect the detailed interactions between people. On the level of local interactions between people, and local transactions, governments don't do all that much. In terms of cooperative action involving large groups of people, governments make a difference. However, governments can't repeal the laws of physics. A large corporation can end up doing the same things as a communist government. In fact, a "anarchist" or "libertarian" group of people can consume and pollute just as much as people led by a capitalist or a communist government.

Primitive tribes bang their heads against limits to growth, which is why I mentioned a book describing the Marang. I don't know if one would call the Marang, or the Yanamano, or the Mayans communist or a capitalist. Primitive societies are interesting as their cultures don't always fall into the dichotomy of "communist" or "capitalist". The Marang grow trees, and we build missiles. As a fan of the space race, I prefer missiles. However, can we really keep on building missiles forever?

A capitalist government can ban the teaching of evolution, but they can't stop evolution or natural history. A communist government can promote Lysenko heredity, but that won't make Mendelian heredity any less valid. The government can't decide what is a "law of nature". An economist can't decide what is "a law of nature." Nature decides what is a "law of nature." Scientists should be searching for these "laws of nature" based on physical evidence.

The OP was making statements about capitalism not being right. However, right and wrong is not a scientific question. The biological questions have to be asked in terms of physics and chemistry, not Marx versus Jesus.

The real issues that the brought up, which most readers understood, concerned economic growth. There is no physical law that distinguishes between wealth as concentrated in a few or distributed among the many. You were the one who made the comment that implied that there is no limit to growth.

There are many questions one could ask which have nothing directly to do with capitalism versus communism. Is there such a thing as carrying capacity that an environment places on a population of human beings? Are we currently near this sustainable carrying capacity? Will the human species survive if growth expands beyond the sustainable carrying capacity?

Your answer implied that there is no such thing as a carrying capacity for human beings. You did not mention either capitalism, socialism, or communism. You said that only kooks and jerks thought there was any limit to growth. You stated that there is a law of growth that is part of nature.

I merely asked you to support your facts. Show us some study by a physical or biological scientist that shows that growth is a law of nature. Please don't refer to economists, as we all agree that is a soft science. Find us an actual study by a physicist, a chemist, a paleontologist or any science that involves physical fact that shows that there can be unlimited growth. Show us how energy will not run out, how fisheries don't collapse, that the oceans can't be acidified by CO2 or that man made global warming can't occur at any time. If these things are limited, then show us how we are not anywhere near these limits.

As a retired physicist, I am really interested in "growth as a law of nature." Please provide references.

 

[Pythagorean]

Many of the core aspects of capitalism cannot simply fail or be removed (well, not without the unlikely event of world domination). It's a system that, similar to evolving biological systems, seeks to minimize cost functions (efficiency) and propagates by appealing to human nature (marketing).

The aspect of capitalism that will not survive is that which gives too much power to one entity (similar to the reason capitalism was born in the first place). The "too big to fail" financial institutions are currently such entities. They need to be broken up by sector so that they can't all bet on important things like food, gas, and housing at the same time. I.e., we need to take away their 'too big too fail' status. It's unlikely that any politician will, in the immediate future, move towards breaking up these companies in a meaningful way, so we get regulation. But regulation is like security in hacking. Hackers will always find a way (and financial hackers are currently the best equipped with the research to exploit "bugs" in the rules).

If a good security program against these organized corporate hackers isn't put in place via regulation (or the companies are broken up to make more competition) we run the risk of continued economic instability, which leads to more social instability (Occupy Wall Street) which, if it ever reaches critical mass, could have serious consequences and bring about more dramatic change.

 

[frish]

That's what Marx says, but I never read his argument. I don't see why. If the system contracts, it contracts.

Not only 'capitalism and socialism' are poorly defined (which country [except N. Korea] is socialistic these days? )-- but even notion of growth is ill defined.

If population grows, then there is a need for more goods.

Economist mean by growth 'larger GPD' (in PPP dollars) but I suspect that GROWTH is considered desirable because it brings in more taxes so governments can pay on DEBT ..

There does not seems to be much difference between rhetorics of socialisms and capitalisms in the way these systems would deal with shrinking resources. Traditional methods, limiting population growth and beyond that -- wars are tested and universal human response to scarcity --to starvation.

Socialism - in theory at least - is more likely to preserve egalitarian society - and so may handle
the reduction in standard of living in a more peaceful manner.

But capitalistic (and democratic) society can also redistribute and tax wealth (of those who own
resources) to feed those who just gave their hands (and brains) ...

SO

first we would have to answer :
Can mankind continue?
and then define what we mean by capitalism, socialism, communism, etc

 

[H2Bro]

As a retired physicist, I am really interested in "growth as a law of nature." Please provide references.

I highly suggest you investigate the work of Geoffrey West. Dr. West used to head the Los Alamos High energy lab and has since turned his interests towards complex systems, namely, growth of biological systems.

Here is a nice introduction to his work: http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html

We can take a few things from his talk:
First, all biological systems tend towards growth.
Second, some biological systems tend towards exponential and therefore unsustainable growth, leading to collapse. All businesses and empires have followed this route.
Third, some biological systems tend towards stable growth and do not collapse. This is the route followed by cities.

I think you will greatly enjoy this lecture, and I highly suggest you read up on some of his published works. It is awesome to see a physicist come in and 'clear the decks' in social sciences.

first we would have to answer :
Can mankind continue?
and then define what we mean by capitalism, socialism, communism, etc

Definitions are a good starting point. I see there is some confusion in this thread about exactly what capitalism, socialism, and growth might mean.

Let me suggest you read chapter 15 of Joseph Schumpeter's book, "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy." PF may have a general disdain of social scientists but Schumpeter is probably the best general social theorist that ever lived (important contributions in both economics and sociology that are not just foundational, but still relevant).

We can conceive of two general categories of the social organization of production, one commercial and one socialist. Commercial society is characterized by the use of markets to coordinate the efforts of buyers and sellers to reach spontaneous organization of the supply and demand of goods. A subset of possible commercial societies is capitalist, which specifically means the introduction of banks as lenders of credit and a monetary system regulated by interest, itself regulated through supplies of government bonds.

Socialism, on the other hand, has production and distribution controlled by a central authority. Here private property figures less prominently and 'markets' are not the primary means of coordinating suppliers with buyers and vice versa, but a central authority is. Banks might figure in a socialist mode of production but they are not necessary, since the authority doing the lending and the authority doing the borrowing are one and the same.

even notion of growth is ill defined.

If population grows, then there is a need for more goods.

We can't equivocate population growth with growth in total consumer demand, nor do either of these equate to 'GDP' or what one might call 'total economic activity'

Growing populations require more goods but they also produce more goods. Externalizing our energy demands on fossil fuels in technology means that additional populations can always produce more goods than are required to sustain themselves, so long as the fuel lasts.

Economic growth can mean a few different things. We normally think of it as increases in GDP, but increases in GDP don't necessarily mean we are consuming much more resources - the development of financial instruments have drastically increased total GDP but don't actually use much hard material.

We can also talk about growths in the value of goods and services provided, with an emphasis on services. Growth in 'value' - meaning the subjective benefits of utilizing some service or thing - can continue almost indefinitely, but the easiest types of value to grow this way are the hardest to monetize. Google and Facebook have provided supremely vast amounts of value but this is difficult to monetize directly.

The easiest value to monetize is the classical consumer goods or industrial goods. Inventing a new helicopter or toilet or what have you provides value to the user, but the user can't get it without directly paying. Value that is easily monetized is usually resource expensive with the exception of consultation services.

Socialism - in theory at least - is more likely to preserve egalitarian society - and so may handle
the reduction in standard of living in a more peaceful manner.

But capitalistic (and democratic) society can also redistribute and tax wealth (of those who own
resources) to feed those who just gave their hands (and brains) ...

Socialism is by far the least likely to preserve egalitarian society in a situation of declining resources for the reason that production and supply of all goods are coordinated by a central authority. Members of this central authority have the power to collect for themselves all the best toys and supplies, and they do exactly this, even in times of abundance.

Capitalism has the advantage that the system as a whole is not directly in the control of anyone person. This is also the biggest disadvantage, because we essentially have to wait until the system blows itself out before we have much hope of changing it.

I think its essential to realize that capitalist commercial society is far and above the optimal means of organizing the supply of resources to maximize total growth every year. The reasons for this can go on and on, and if your curious we can go there. But the real point is, it is a system of structured incentives that always reward the highest return on investment (i.e. growth of a fixed capital quantity), and therefore nearly impossible to reign in before it over extends itself.

If you watch the talk by Dr. West you might keep this in mind when he explains how every business in history has failed.

 

[marty1]

I heard a report that says that the Earth may have passed its carrying capacity. Which means the life systems of this planet are now in decline and can no longer sustain themselves. I read that 30% of the great barrier reef has disappeared over the last thirty years.

My question is can capitalism work as a zero to minimal growth, sustainable system, or is growth required for the capitalist system to work? The assumption that a country like the United States or any country can have 3% GDP growth till the end of time is foolish since we are living in a world in which resources are more and more scarce and areas for the expansion of markets are becoming more and more rare.

What are some sustainable economic models?

Just because the GDP of a country is lower does not mean that the product of particular individuals does not exceed that. There may be fewer and fewer people with 200% growth and others with a loss. Capitalism is functioning nontheless.

 

[Darwin123]

self out before we have much hope of changing it.

I think its essential to realize that capitalist commercial society is far and above the optimal means of organizing the supply of resources to maximize total growth every year. The reasons for this can go on and on, and if your curious we can go there. But the real point is, it is a system of structured incentives that always reward the highest return on investment (i.e. growth of a fixed capital quantity), and therefore nearly impossible to reign in before it over extends itself.

Alright. Maybe this is all true. You are saying that capitalism always has structured incentives that reward the highest return for the highest gain. Further, any system with such incentives eventually over extends itself. Then there are three questions.

1) What has happened after the over extension of capitalism?
You said that businesses and empires end up collapsing, although the society drives on. However, people in the U.S. and others seem to be trying to establish a global capitalist society.


All the Republicans seem to think that way, at least. However, they don't seem to acknowledge that there are environmental problems. Romney wants to downsize or eliminate the EPA. It is too socialist for him.

2) What will happen to the global capitalist system when the resources, including pollution sinks, are overextended?


While capitalism always has such incentives, socialism does not always have such incentives. You pointed out that socialism isn't usually egalitarian. However, you also pointed out that it doesn't give incentives for the highest gain. The OP was rambling about the advantages of socialism over capitalism. I addressed his other issue, about the ability to sustain growth. However, your point about over extension brings back the issue of how stable can a socialist economy be. So I have to ask the question.

3) Does a socialist system always over extend itself?

I think the answer to the third question is, "yes". However, I would like to hear your opinion on it. My opinion is that socialist systems always end up either collapsing or otherwise replacing itself with a capitalist-like society. By capitalist-like, I mean having the incentives for the highest rate of growth.
Socialist systems that don't put incentives on highest gain are destroyed by the systems that do. So socialist systems that survive have to eventually place incentives for the highest gain. Like China. So they end up overextending itself anyway.


So the fourth question:
4) Will the human species soon go extinct?

I as an individual like living in a world where expansion seems unlimited. However, it doesn't look viable in the long run.

 

[frish]

H2Bro says:
Socialism is by far the least likely to preserve egalitarian society in a situation of declining resources

But this is not supported be empirical data:


That is not at all clear and not supported by data. After Russia adopted capitalistic model, number of
magnates emerged - who definitely are 'more equal' then population at large and -- in contrast to post-Stalinist but
pre-capitalistic regime, are able to deal with 'their property' as they please.
Export it to London, buy real estate abroad etc etc.

"Members of this central authority have the power to collect .."
but their power is limited bu political pressure
(if we consider somewhat democratic country).

That is a general rule (not a law) for all post-communistic countries.
Lorenz curve (income inequality curve) for USA (a capitalistic country)
shows less equality then European 'socialistic countries (Norway, Sweden ..)

You may say we are not as yet in era of declining resources but I do not see
likely change if crisis will depend and even more people in US would become unemployed.
They may loose their homes and become very poor - under the cold dictate of the market.

Socialism has a program and strong bias against such trend. It pays the price in not being efficient. There are no homeless - but people may live 8 per room. I am not advocating any system. Just coming back to the question how would these two systems respond to a real decrease in resources and declining standard of living.


"Definitions are a good starting point"
I agree. right now - still - the use of the word socialism and communism are used differently
in the USA, in Europe and e.g. post-communistic countries and Russia.
Communism is now (and perhaps forever) contaminated with dictatorship.
It became synonym with Stalinist, while it was once 'a promised land' utopia.
Meaning of all these terms was shifting with time and place. We need some quantitative measures.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

IMO it would be best if members defined what form socialism they mean when they use the word. Some people seem to be equating it to Stalinist communism and others not so.

 

[Jim Kata]

I did not mean to turn this into a compare and contrast of Socialism and Capitalism. I guess it was to be expected. It is far easier to dismiss someone whose opinion of Capitalism is less than glowing by thinking of them as leftist Commie instead of doing an actual critique of the System. Note, I never mentioned the words Socialism or Communism in my OP.

I do not want to get bogged down in what is Socialism, Capitalism, and Communism. Let's just say whatever you want to call the predominant form of economics now practiced across the world, Corporate Socialism, Neo Feudalism, Capitalism, ... it's an amoral system that is not mutually beneficial to society as a whole. What's good for GM is not necessarily good for the country.

The answer for why Wall Street didn't predict the 2008 housing crash was systemic risk. To me this implies that they treat systemic risk as an extrinsic. That is, they do not take into consideration that their actions might crash the entire economy. I guess the fossil fuel industry treats global warming in much the same way. It's just some variable that they don't need to take into consideration. The incentivising of short term gains over long term sustainability is idiocy.

The responses to this thread seem to fall into one of two categories. One is that Capitalism is the best system there is and the end is inevitable so just hang on for the horrifying decline. The other response wants to get into the semantics of the meaning of growth, sustainable, and Capitalism turning this into a question of linguistics.

Ryan was the only one who attempted to answer my questions.

The questions were is capitalism sustainable?

If so, how and why?

If not, what are some sustainable steady state alternatives?

Please don't just answer a return to the dark ages or something like that.

To clarify again, I'm not a Marxist. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were totalitarian political regimes and international corporations are a form of economic totalitarianism where a few people make all the decisions that may affect us all. I hate totalitarianism in all its forms political and economic.

 

[frish]

Jim Kata
Putting that ill-defined word 'capitalism' (mis)lead people to discuss alternatives.

Perhaps formulating the question thus:

Is decision A or decision B more likely to lead to a catastrophe of the type described in Revenge of the Gaia
in next N years (in 2100)?

The A or B can modify the current system of most countries, which are a mixtures of the 'pure states' socialism or capitalism.

We want to avoid conclusion like
"Capitalism is the best system there is and the end is inevitable so just hang on for the horrifying decline"

since the current system (e.g. of USA) can lead to decline or it can survive the current lean, hard time and lead to
sustainable era of cheap clean energy (=CCE) from gen IV reactors.

The US presidential elections, Peter Russel says, are example of metastable state, where small disturbance can lead to vastly different futures.

The A and B choices may be as simple electing Mitt or Barry president.

A. Mitt (that seems to be one view he never changed) is more likely to start new round of arms race -> more scarcity and so on in a vicious circle.
B. If they elect Barry - it will still be capitalism (if we do not believe extreme election rhetoric's) --- but it may lead to success in abolishing nuclear arms and and allow more international cooperation, which may solve current problems and lead to "sustainable era of cheap clean energy form gen IV reactors"= era of CCE.

So, my answer is Yes, it may. But it would help to spell out the alternatives.

'it may' or it may not.
After reading about the USA house science committee
rackjite.com/tag/broun-akin-bible-thumpers/ -
http://pm.8u.cz/pay etc. I am having doubts about the democracy and
wisdom of theamerican people...

 

[ImaLooser]

Marx's explanation as I heard David Harvey explain, which I vaguely understand goes something like this. In das Kapital volume ii Marx does a gedanken experiment in a society with just two classes workers and capitalist. He argues that demand comes from capitalist paying workers who then spend their money on goods and demand comes from capitalist buying means of production so total demand comes from means of production and the wage bill. The total supply that a capitalist creates in surplus is profit. Marx argues the demand for the surplus is generated by the capitalist. That is the capitalist create the surplus and create the demand for the surplus. In order for this to work it has be an expansive system by which you pay off yesterday's debts with today's expansion, a credit system. So the accumulation of capital is also the accumulation of debt.

Whether you believe this or not I still find it hard to believe that a steady state economic system would resort to speculative economics in such a large way.

I think the life cycle of capitalism is like the fusion cycle of a star. At first it has access to lots of available resources to spur growth like a young star has lots of easy fuel. Then it uses up this easy fuel and starts burning more exotic fuel more fictional speculative forms of capital like synthetic credit default swaps then it runs out of fuel and dies.

Thank you for your summary.

Well, what is a "steady state economic system?' It could be a system that targets zero net growth. In that case it could be a capitalist system. Even the system we have now could function like that. The federal government would simply change its targets.

It could mean a system whose primary goal is to remain unchanged. In this case all forms of progress would be banned.

I think Marx's argument is completely bogus. He sees profit as a form of theft, and his argument is emotional.

Somewhat better is the idea that a fiat currency requires growth to pay off the interest. That doesn't convince me. There's always bankruptcy, so the interest isn't always paid off. Companies borrow because they believe they can use that money to make a profit, but it doesn't always work that way. I have been told by a number of well-informed people that the semiconductor industry has zero net profit. It still attracts investors because such feel that their acumen gives them a better-than-average chance.

I think the growth orientation has more to do with a growing population than it does with any particular philosophy. I never heard that the Soviet Union was anti-growth. I seem to recall Mao's Great Leap Forward which was a growth-oriented policy if there ever was one. I'd say it has more to do with human goals and psychology and capitalism has little or nothing to do with it.

It is traditional for companies to pay nothing for the damage they do to the environment. But in the USSR had even more environmental degradation, so that doesn't seem to have anything to do with capitalism either. People could screw up the world no matter what economic system they are under.

 

[ImaLooser]

I did not mean to turn this into a compare and contrast of Socialism and Capitalism. I guess it was to be expected. It is far easier to dismiss someone whose opinion of Capitalism is less than glowing by thinking of them as leftist Commie instead of doing an actual critique of the System. Note, I never mentioned the words Socialism or Communism in my OP.

I do not want to get bogged down in what is Socialism, Capitalism, and Communism. Let's just say whatever you want to call the predominant form of economics now practiced across the world, Corporate Socialism, Neo Feudalism, Capitalism, ... it's an amoral system that is not mutually beneficial to society as a whole. What's good for GM is not necessarily good for the country.

The answer for why Wall Street didn't predict the 2008 housing crash was systemic risk. To me this implies that they treat systemic risk as an extrinsic. That is, they do not take into consideration that their actions might crash the entire economy. I guess the fossil fuel industry treats global warming in much the same way. It's just some variable that they don't need to take into consideration. The incentivising of short term gains over long term sustainability is idiocy.

The responses to this thread seem to fall into one of two categories. One is that Capitalism is the best system there is and the end is inevitable so just hang on for the horrifying decline. The other response wants to get into the semantics of the meaning of growth, sustainable, and Capitalism turning this into a question of linguistics.

Ryan was the only one who attempted to answer my questions.

The questions were is capitalism sustainable?

If so, how and why?

If not, what are some sustainable steady state alternatives?

Please don't just answer a return to the dark ages or something like that.

To clarify again, I'm not a Marxist. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were totalitarian political regimes and international corporations are a form of economic totalitarianism where a few people make all the decisions that may affect us all. I hate totalitarianism in all its forms political and economic.

I don't think that capitalism and sustainability have much to do with one another. If the consensus is sustainability, then that is what will happen, and it won't matter whether the system is capitalist or not. If there is no such consensus, then there will be no sustainability.

 

[H2Bro]

I apologize if my post was drifting off topic, it seemed in-line with previous posts, however. I would like to make the point that, in a topic asking 'if capitalism can continue, is it sustainable, can we sustain indefinite growth...etc' A very logical starting point is defining precisely what you mean by capitalism, growth, and sustainability.

This isn't like talking about the Boltzmann constant or another completely unambiguous concept, people encounter the terms capitalism and sustainability in their every day lives quite frequently and generally develop different ideas or connotations about them than how they are used in academic settings. More importantly, these terms develop different meanings in the minds of everday folks according to their profession, disposition, and especially politics, so there is no singular 'layman usage'. So, when I offer a precise definition of capitalism, its not because I think that's what we should talk about, rather, that is a necessary precursor to having a mutually intelligible discussion without talking about different things or past each other. Its not just semantics (nor linguistics, unless you want to argue about pronounciation).

The question 'is capitalism sustainable' has a few interpretations, I'll do my best to hack out an answer for each I can think up.

'Can our current economic mode of organization continue indefinitely into the future?'
No, absolutely not. One basic way of looking at this is that the mantle does not convect enough hard metals up into accessible continental crusts to replace our current rate of consumption. Recycling has hard limits because processes like casting and alloying are often non-reversible. We can try 'asteroid mining', but not indefinitely, because this requires insane amounts of energy in the form of fossil fuels. These fuels are currently being diverted towards families 2nd and 3rd cars, because this resource is allocated by market mechanisms (i.e. whoever can pay for it) and not socialist mechanisms (i.e. where such resources will give the greatest societal value [see the important of definitions now -snark-])In straight material terms, and for straight material reasons, I think the answer is no.

'Can a market-oriented society that utilizes banks for lending and raising capital continue indefinitely into the future?'
Sure, I don't see any reason why not. You see, I think the market mechanisms are terribly efficient, and a big explanatory factor in the eastern-blocs dissolution was their coordination problems. So long as this kind of market organization is used for coordinating production and consumption of services and goods that are renewable / replenishable or at least not dwindling at terrifying rates, I think its a very good plan for society. Perhaps at some point in the future we will have enough 'big data' streams that can aggregate individual wants geographically and temporally and coordinate these with distributors and producers to coordinate the economy even better than markets. But until then, prices are likely our most effective signal mechanism.

Banks are also a very important social institution. Without such a thing as debt it would be nearly impossible to start big projects or take risks on the payoffs of future inventions, i.e. how can I start up a research lab that hasnt produced any value yet without a loan? Banks are dangerous when they mix functions, like speculations and savings, but before 1980 this wasn't a problem in the US (and still isn't a problem in Canada).

Now for sustainability...
Now, a lot of people use sustainable to mean 'can it go on for a fairly long time without crashing', but this isn't really what I think sustainable means. Sustainability, in a more technical sense, asks whether a process can continue by solely utilizing energy derived from Earth's daily solar input combined with geothermal emissions. We can call this the daily energy budget for Earth. Earth has acquired a respectable savings account of energy in the form of hydrocarbons locked up in the crust, produced over aeons by bacteria that built up complex organic compounds utilizing, you guessed it, the daily energy budget.

As a society we are burning through fossil fuels pretty darn quick. This isn't really taking a loan out, rather, our genetic grandparents left us a hefty inheritance and, like some 22 year old, are buying ferraris and hookers left and right. The inheritance simply won't last forever.

So, is capitalism sustainable? No, it isn't. Capitalist development is predicated on returns. We can't get returns on the daily energy budget of Earth because of conservation laws. We CAN get returns on energy production by utilizing our energy budget to construct contraptions that extract energy from our savings account. This is precisely what began the industrial revolution, btw. The moment we started dipping into our savings account, our population, standard of living, rate of growth, all absolutely exploded.

So, our current model isn't sustainable in and of itself, simply because it eats up huge savings far in excess of our daily budget. What capitalist development CAN do, I believe, is get us to a point technologically where we can produce ample standards of livings within our daily budget, i.e. let's get efficient PV, significantly net-positive fusion, well insulated homes, small or 0 commutes, etc. So far, all the returns we have gained from accessing our savings account have been used to develop better and more viscious means of accessing our savings account, meanwhile our actual RoI is crashing horribly (turn of the centry you could get 100b of oil for 1b of energy input, in Alberta today that's more like 3 to 1). If we start diverting a sizable amount of our extacted savings into methods for more efficiently capturing energy from our daily budget, we will be in much better shape when crash time comes. If we are very good at it, maybe there won't be a crash time.

Metaphorically, we can use our inheritance to live freely and wildly for a few awesome years buying ferraris and hookers. Or, we can make some smart investments to live off the interest in later years. Right now our global economy is based on the hookers-and-blow model, and as I mentioned before, the persistence of incentive structures and the entrenched authority and power of those who benefit most from them make it difficult if not impossible to transition out of this mode without outright colllapse. At which point, we might be too broke in terms of cheap energy to make those wise investments.

p.s. apologies for the length.

 

[H2Bro]

When I walk through a walmart or similar store I see directly the great tragedy of the modern age.

Utilizing our one-time one-shot inheritance of cheap energy to produce plastic disposable crap that is useless within a couple years. Even worse, we burn through rocket-launches worth of fuel for the benefit of having it made in a far off land, so retailers get a cost savings of a few cents, an capture the market by underselling the competitors.

I could not imagine a more colossal or tragic waste of a finite resource.

 

[frish]

Hey Bro
You definition is too narrow.
What about?
sustainable era of cheap clean energy form gen IV reactors"= era of CCE

Alos, can we put sime time range on. Like till 2100. Otherwise we need to consider
exticyion of Sun and 'ultimate fate of universe'

 

[H2Bro]

Hey Bro
You definition is too narrow.
What about?
sustainable era of cheap clean energy form gen IV reactors"= era of CCE

Alos, can we put sime time range on. Like till 2100. Otherwise we need to consider
exticyion of Sun and 'ultimate fate of universe'

It's not clear what you're talking about.

 

[BWV]

so what exactly are the limits of growth (in the developed world) over the next 100 years?

For energy, in the US we have about a quadrillion MCF of natural gas reserves and within the next decade solar PV will become economic.

fresh water is an energy problem - given cheap enough energy and you can create as much as you want

other mineral resources are either abundant (i.e. iron) or substitutable(rare Earth's) or eventually can be gotten from space

the avenues for growing per capita wealth:

- Manufacturing will progress to the point where the only costs for "stuff" are energy and materials

-advances in health care enabling people to live longer healthier lives

 

[frish]

It's not clear what you're talking about.

Well - You say:
a process can continue by solely utilizing energy derived from Earth's daily solar input combined with geothermal emissions. We can call this the daily energy budget for Earth.

That seems to be to strict limit on 'sustainable' . If mankind can live from an energy source for
few hundred years - without problems -- then I would call that sustainable life.

The gen IV nuclear reactors ww.gen-4.org/Technology/evolution.htm do offer such a source,
so - once we learn how to build them, we have additional sources of energy.

BTW, I did listen to dr West TED lecture. Very interesting. Thanks for the tip.

Peter

 

[H2Bro]

so what exactly are the limits of growth (in the developed world) over the next 100 years?

That's a really tough question to just answer from the hip. My guess would be, obtaining enough liquid fuels cheaply enough to maintain current modes of economic activity. Right now our entire supply and transport infrastructure is based on gasoline / diesel engines. Fuel prices that keep growing will make a lot of activity unfeasible, i.e. importing oranges from florida if you live in New York. It can be done, but the price of oranges will go up, people will stop buying, or look for alternatives.

This goes across the board, especially with manufacturing. But there are flip sides to this - manufacturing could return to North America on a big scale, food production could be local, people might eat (god forbid) seasonal foods instead of assuming mangos and kiwis in winter are the norm. It's tough to say what the limit on TOTAL growth is, because as some industries decline, others grow up (You can read up on Creative Destruction, also from Schumpeter), what affects total growth is, I suppose, the market capitalization of various firms in decline or ascension - but even market cap is not based on real asset value, but estimated value.

Another possible roadblock to growth is economic inequality. If the majority of people can't afford the majority of goods because they can hardly get by, it's tough to grow new high tech businesses. You can get around this with a massive extension of household debt, but look where that got us in 2008. One very very Rich person simply doesn't buy enough bread-and-butter consumer goods to boost aggregate demand more than a dozen middle class folks.

other mineral resources are either abundant (i.e. iron) or substitutable(rare Earth's) or eventually can be gotten from space

Are rare Earth's substitutable? My understanding was that, because they are not, China has a strategic monopoly on them. There are economic theories saying that as the costs of extraction of certain resources increase, industries move to utilize different ones. Problem is there is not an unlimited variety of materials to make things like trusses out of.

Getting things from space is also problematic unless the price of metals gets really, really high, and the price of liquid fuels somehow goes down as well. Right now, if there was a 1kg nugget of Gold floating conveniently in a low Earth orbit, it would cost more money to send something up to bring it down than the gold is worth. It goes without saying that iron or REM's are even less feasible.

the avenues for growing per capita wealth:

- Manufacturing will progress to the point where the only costs for "stuff" are energy and materials

I guess you mean the only difference is that humans will not need to be recompensated for their efforts, because as it is the only costs of manufacturing are energy, materials, and labor. This is unlikely because ultimately people build and maintain those robots. The factory can get by with less people, but it puts more people out of work as well, so demand for those products can drop unless they are re-skilled. Also note that automation is the primary reason for worker productivity increases over the last few decades, so its less a matter of everyone producing more than it is where a similar amount of goods being produced by less people.

Here's where marxism comes in. The wages you pay to workers need only recompensate them for the education investments they undertake to get those jobs, therefore the rises in wages are not commensurate with rises in productivity. That's great for manufacturing owners, terrible for the majority of workers, and as you may have noticed income inequality is a huge barrier for growth.

-advances in health care enabling people to live longer healthier lives

Then we damned well better increase the retirement age!

 

[H2Bro]

That seems to be to strict limit on 'sustainable' . If mankind can live from an energy source for
few hundred years - without problems -- then I would call that sustainable life.

It is a very strict definition indeed. I'd call that 'hard sustainability' as opposed to something that can just last beyond the next 10 generations or so.

BTW, I did listen to dr West TED lecture. Very interesting. Thanks for the tip.

Peter

Dr. West is probably my favorite physicist that doesn't really do physics.

 

[Pythagorean]

The responses to this thread seem to fall into one of two categories. One is that Capitalism is the best system there is and the end is inevitable so just hang on for the horrifying decline. The other response wants to get into the semantics of the meaning of growth, sustainable, and Capitalism turning this into a question of linguistics.

Ryan was the only one who attempted to answer my questions.

The questions were is capitalism sustainable?

If so, how and why?

If not, what are some sustainable steady state alternatives?

I don't believe my answer fell into either of those two categories. My answer was that the core aspects of capitalism are sustainable, but the implementation of capitalism would have to evolve. I mostly talked about the how and why, though. And didn't explicitly answer your questions piecewise.

To your last question, there is no steady state. Steady-state is death. There are stable dynamics, but transitions must occur with an evolving society. But I don't see capitalism going anywhere without some major (and unlikely) behavioral revisions in human nature. The thing about capitalism is that it can encompass the transitions; it makes the most of them by being an adaptive (and competitive system).

 

[Jim Kata]

Thank you H2Bro for your analysis on sustainability. Your assessment that the current system which relies almost entirely on non renewable resources is unsustainable is right. You also hint at the core of the problem which is really the harder question to answer. People may say greed and avarice is just human nature, and I'm not claiming humans are altruistic, but it misses the primary driving force of human nature and that is incentives. IMO if humans are incentivised to do good they will do good, and if they are incentivised to do bad they will do bad. Why were there so many sub prime mortgages? The system incetivised this kind of lending. Why does Wall Street engage in so much dangerous speculation? The incentives of the system. So for long term sustainability the system needs to be changed from one which incentivises short term profit at the expense of sustainability.

H2Bro also hit on some of the solutions I've been thinking about. A kind of localization of the economy where communities become much more self sustaining, i.e. buy local. Another thing I was thinking about was maybe redefining the definition of corporation. Corporations want personage. They want to be vested with the right's and privileges of citizenship. Well then, they should also have to fulfill the obligations of citizenship. Such as, maybe tying their corporate charters if not to environmental neutrality at least to mitigated environmental impact through a carbon trade or something.

In order to protect against capital flight, you would probably have to resort to some extreme measures.

What are some suggestions to changing the incentives of the current economic system which promotes profits at the expense of all else?

Yes, I agree you can wait for the market to fix the problems on its own, but I don't think you would like to live through the the market's fixing of them. I mean when we run out of fossil fuels we can just return to the dark ages, but I would prefer if people had planned ahead instead of just waiting for the market to sort it out.

 

[BWV]

But these discussions presuppsose two very dubious propositions, A) that some group of people has the ability to successfully allocate resources in a more efficient manner than free markets in liberal societies and B) political processes will recognize this, discerning the "right" answer from competing plans and give this group the power to implement their plans (usually disregarding formalities like due process and other constitiutional liberties)

 

[Jim Kata]

But these discussions presuppsose two very dubious propositions, A) that some group of people has the ability to successfully allocate resources in a more efficient manner than free markets in liberal societies and B) political processes will recognize this, discerning the "right" answer from competing plans and give this group the power to implement their plans (usually disregarding formalities like due process and other constitiutional liberties)

Do we actually have free markets? It seems to me that many of the vital resources such as fossil fuels and commodities are controlled by a small group of companies and firms. In fact I am always a bit dubious of people and companies that preach the evangel of the free market since a lot of times it is these very same people who come begging for the government dole in the form of subsidies and bailouts when it is their turn to face market discipline. If you believe in free markets fine, but be willing to live by them and die by them. I know this is not possible because of systemic risk, but then what is the free market's response to systemic risk?

 

[frish]

Jim Kata: You say

Do we actually have free markets?
If you believe in free markets fine.

What are some suggestions to changing the incentives of the current
economic system which promotes profits at the expense of all else?


And by that you are leading us into same semantic trap, which you prepared with 'capitalism'.
========================================================
Indeed::

1) Free market. If USA would finally catch up, and following EU, starts charging tax on CO2 emissions,
leaving it to companies how they accomplish that - is it still a ' free market'? Some (including me) would say yes - since they just pay for what they took from the 'commons'. Other would say it is a subsidy for non-polluting producers.
Koch brothers would spend billions to prove that it is wrong to subsidize renewables.

So - If you believe in free markets you are hopeless victim of right wing sloganeering.

2) Which promotes profits ... . Every company goes after profits and that is OK.
Example: if society would introduce carbon tax then companies would minimize CO2 pollution IN ORDER TO increase their (final) profit (profit after taxes).

So--- in conclusion -- this 'debate is so fuzzy -- that I am seeing little sense to continue,

BUT - and I hope you will appreciate it, I will offer my final conclusion.
+++++++++++++++++++
Capitalism may be sustained for few more decades - but in the long run only socialism is sustainable.
Why ? Becouse goal is not 'most efficient' or optimal distribution of resources - but (as socialism says) it is to make people happy.
As resources are getting scarce, those who own land, mineral resources, water ..
tend to get rich and those who live through the work of their hands (proletariat) are getting unemployed,
as described e.g. here:>

Andrew McAfee: Are droids taking our jobs?
> http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_mcafee_are_droids_taking_our_jobs.html
> and in book
Vonegut: Player piano.

This is not Ludism. There will be some new jobs in health, services and research, but most of useful work will be done by robots.
Since people are not that stupid any more, they will insist that products will get shared. They will not start dying of hunget in order to maintain 'optimal distribution' of goods.

So - final sustainable state will be 'to each according to his needs' -- but if anyone would dare
call it communism s/he will be persecuted or prosecuted or both.

 

[BWV]

Do we actually have free markets?

no country has ever been perfectly free markets, but what we have has worked just fine to make the Western world and several Asian countries rich

It seems to me that many of the vital resources such as fossil fuels and commodities are controlled by a small group of companies and firms.

Some places yes, some no. The markets for energy in the US and Canada are pretty open, with hundreds of companies producing energy. Eight years ago the expert consensus was that North America was running out of natural gas and now, thanks to technology no one anticipated, we have 100+ year supply.

In fact I am always a bit dubious of people and companies that preach the evangel of the free market since a lot of times it is these very same people who come begging for the government dole in the form of subsidies and bailouts when it is their turn to face market discipline.

Sure companies look for handouts and special protections from government, but that does not justify a blanket ad hominem argument

If you believe in free markets fine, but be willing to live by them and die by them. I know this is not possible because of systemic risk, but then what is the free market's response to systemic risk?

now you are jumping off topic. systemic risk refers to the interrelation between banking systems and money. Given that the financial sector is unique in its ability to affect money supply, some regulation is required.

 

[BWV]

To be clear, socialism generally refers to state ownership of the means of production - a definition that hardly anyone who calls themselves a socialist these days really believes in, the idea being thoroughly debunked in economic circles and in practice by everyone who has ever tried it. The key problem is that no entity can either obtain or process the information required to run a centrally planned economy because the information is dispersed among its individual members. Furthermore this entity would require near-dictatorial powers as it would have to regulate and control nearly every aspect of a citizen's life. (this was Hayek's criticism, i.e. the Road to Serfdom or The Use of Knowledge in Society)

Capitalism is not inherently incompatible with a generous social welfare system - and basically every socialist political party in existence today believes in a regulated free market with generous welfare policies

 

[ImaLooser]

As a society we are burning through fossil fuels pretty darn quick. This isn't really taking a loan out, rather, our genetic grandparents left us a hefty inheritance and, like some 22 year old, are buying ferraris and hookers left and right. The inheritance simply won't last forever.

So, is capitalism sustainable? No, it isn't. Capitalist development is predicated on returns. We can't get returns on the daily energy budget of Earth because of conservation laws.

It is possible to get return on investment without excessive consumption of resources. Hollywood movies, computer games, etc.

 

[256bits]

It is possible to get return on investment without excessive consumption of resources. Hollywood movies, computer games, etc.

Possibly.
Just take the internet though for example. It is an energy hog and not as 'green' as would be expected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/t...ts-of-energy-belying-industry-image.html?_r=0

Worldwide, the digital warehouses use about 30 billion watts of electricity, roughly equivalent to the output of 30 nuclear power plants, according to estimates industry experts compiled for The Times. Data centers in the United States account for one-quarter to one-third of that load, the estimates show.

Just thought I would throw that into counter any belief that being green does not have an impact upon resource usage.

 

[nitsuj]

Sure, but you aren't saying the Earth could support 7 billion capitalists or 12 billion socialists, are you?

lol, I'll take that.

Of course it can, if I presume socialists are fine with eating less and not messing with the chemical balance of Earth much.

joking aside it's a weak connection; that capitalism is cannibalistic. In fact I think the opposite. capitalism is a going concern, no different than an individual business that must be able to "adapt" to changes in the "environment" (pun).

This is nothing new to capitalism, we maybe so lucky that capitalism will continue to provide...for a profit of course .

The "Pandora's Box" in capitalism is "for profit". Of course states govern this as best they can, balancing the ideals of capitalism / socialism.

That said isn't the OP asking from a consumer product perspective, and for that I'd say we may not always have "more" but we will always have "better", and that's thanks to capitalism & that is economic growth.

 

[mheslep]

But in the process of growth you use up resources that don't come back when you contract.

Yes, some resources like fossil fuels don't come back.

In the process of growth improvements come about, like telephones, computers, LED lighting, vaccines, efficient farming, better batteries, the air plane, plural societies. Improvements, being ideas, can't be used up and don't go away with contraction.

 

[nazarbaz]

Something seems to elude most posts : the very existence of capitalism is related to the scarcity of natural resources. That's why "capitals" are not equally distributed in society for the classical theory of economics. Capitalism is essentially an engine that creates more "wealth" from less resources. The capacity to adapt is its biggest strength : it uses any means available to generate riches.
The capitalism we know is only a case of a much larger domain : economical systems. Its ideologies and oppositions (like that of government and individual) are superficial. To quote Gilles Deleuze, it's an "axiomatic of decoded streams" that uses whatever it finds to grow and multiply. To some extent, the system is not built on the sustainibility of resources but on the ability to create new ones : money is the most important example. So now we create money from money in a world of symbolic machines that rely less on physical inputs than on imagination : and that is the real and imminent problem.