Political Crossfire Forums

[Harbinger]

Throughout the 20th century, our economy transformed itself from a large collection of small businesses into a small collection of large businesses. Large companies destroyed or consumed their competition and made self-employment within cities so impractical that employment was the only option. Small businesses were forced out of cities into rural areas and the inter-city working class was born and, along with it, wage control, unemployment and welfare.

Today, companies have gotten so huge that they've out grown the entire domestic economy. Yet, they seek further growth through international trade, selling cheaper imported goods to US consumers. Major retailers constantly lobby Congress to remove trade protections which they call "barriers". Without trade protections, domestic producers would be forced to close and the working class of America would be forced to compete with the slave wages of workers in third world countries. Of course, big retailers don't care about any of that. They see themselves as players in a global economy.

The problem here is that a principle which has long been accepted as fundamental to the practice of Capitalism is being taken too far. The problem is growth. The whole idea of expanding a business like growing farm crops has never been challenged, that I know of anyway. It's common knowledge in biology that plants and animals that grow too large tend to decimate their environments. Elephants are known to do this today but, large dinosaurs like the sauropods must have eaten hundreds of pounds of vegetation a day and left huge piles of excrement lying all over the place. They had long necks which allowed them to reach high leaves but, I think it also allowed them to breath above the thick swarms of insects they must have attracted. What a fitting comparison to modern day super-businesses. They certainly are the most efficient means of overpopulating an nation. My point is that nature limits the sizes of plants and animals for good reason and that's what we need in our economy. Businesses should be limited in size in order to preserve the opportunities for individuals to employment themselves and reduce the need for government welfare programs and taxes.

Check this:
Wake Up America

[Free Thinkr]

Read me. When you're finished, I think you'll have a much better understanding of the problem, and why it is your proposed solutions are unworkable. Very entertaining read, BTW; highly recommended.

[ubikk]

Interesting post.

I think that the main point to take from your essay is that a free-market cannot effectively exist in an economy where there are too few businesses that get too large. The effectiveness of the market is reduced. It becomes something other than a free-market system. A 'limited-market system' to coin a term. I would tend to agree with that assessment.

[fourtysixandtwo]

Harbinger wrote: Throughout the 20th century, our economy transformed itself from a large collection of small businesses into a small collection of large businesses. Large companies destroyed or consumed their competition and made self-employment within cities so impractical that employment was the only option. Small businesses were forced out of cities into rural areas and the inter-city working class was born and, along with it, wage control, unemployment and welfare.

Today, companies have gotten so huge that they've out grown the entire domestic economy. Yet, they seek further growth through international trade, selling cheaper imported goods to US consumers. Major retailers constantly lobby Congress to remove trade protections which they call "barriers". Without trade protections, domestic producers would be forced to close and the working class of America would be forced to compete with the slave wages of workers in third world countries. Of course, big retailers don't care about any of that. They see themselves as players in a global economy.

The problem here is that a principle which has long been accepted as fundamental to the practice of Capitalism is being taken too far. The problem is growth. The whole idea of expanding a business like growing farm crops has never been challenged, that I know of anyway. It's common knowledge in biology that plants and animals that grow too large tend to decimate their environments. Elephants are known to do this today but, large dinosaurs like the sauropods must have eaten hundreds of pounds of vegetation a day and left huge piles of excrement lying all over the place. They had long necks which allowed them to reach high leaves but, I think it also allowed them to breath above the thick swarms of insects they must have attracted. What a fitting comparison to modern day super-businesses. They certainly are the most efficient means of overpopulating an nation. My point is that nature limits the sizes of plants and animals for good reason and that's what we need in our economy. Businesses should be limited in size in order to preserve the opportunities for individuals to employment themselves and reduce the need for government welfare programs and taxes.

Incorrect, you are trying to impose a third party in the grand circle of life. Ironic isnt it that all those dinosaurs are DEAD. Note all the smaller animals that have taken their places. Nature limits the size of those animals with death, with natural selection which takes place in our own society, when one thing becomes to large it can collapse on itself, or other, smaller companies that can specialize towards the consumers needs can form small niches in society. Remember with capitalism and only capitalism will every job be completed that needs doing as long as there is money at the end of the road.


I love capitalism :-D .

[Kindred]

Harbinger wrote: Throughout the 20th century, our economy transformed itself from a large collection of small businesses into a small collection of large businesses. Large companies destroyed or consumed their competition and made self-employment within cities so impractical that employment was the only option. Small businesses were forced out of cities into rural areas and the inter-city working class was born and, along with it, wage control, unemployment and welfare.

Today, companies have gotten so huge that they've out grown the entire domestic economy. Yet, they seek further growth through international trade, selling cheaper imported goods to US consumers. Major retailers constantly lobby Congress to remove trade protections which they call "barriers". Without trade protections, domestic producers would be forced to close and the working class of America would be forced to compete with the slave wages of workers in third world countries. Of course, big retailers don't care about any of that. They see themselves as players in a global economy.

The problem here is that a principle which has long been accepted as fundamental to the practice of Capitalism is being taken too far. The problem is growth. The whole idea of expanding a business like growing farm crops has never been challenged, that I know of anyway. It's common knowledge in biology that plants and animals that grow too large tend to decimate their environments. Elephants are known to do this today but, large dinosaurs like the sauropods must have eaten hundreds of pounds of vegetation a day and left huge piles of excrement lying all over the place. They had long necks which allowed them to reach high leaves but, I think it also allowed them to breath above the thick swarms of insects they must have attracted. What a fitting comparison to modern day super-businesses. They certainly are the most efficient means of overpopulating an nation. My point is that nature limits the sizes of plants and animals for good reason and that's what we need in our economy. Businesses should be limited in size in order to preserve the opportunities for individuals to employment themselves and reduce the need for government welfare programs and taxes.

The 'growth fetish' has been challanged at length, over some considerable time.


http://www.growthfetish.com/
http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/daly.htm
http://dieoff.org/page88.htm
http://dieoff.org/page37.htm
https://www.ec.gc.ca/seminar/RC_e.html

[Kindred]

fourtysixandtwo wrote: Harbinger wrote: Throughout the 20th century, our economy transformed itself from a large collection of small businesses into a small collection of large businesses. Large companies destroyed or consumed their competition and made self-employment within cities so impractical that employment was the only option. Small businesses were forced out of cities into rural areas and the inter-city working class was born and, along with it, wage control, unemployment and welfare.

Today, companies have gotten so huge that they've out grown the entire domestic economy. Yet, they seek further growth through international trade, selling cheaper imported goods to US consumers. Major retailers constantly lobby Congress to remove trade protections which they call "barriers". Without trade protections, domestic producers would be forced to close and the working class of America would be forced to compete with the slave wages of workers in third world countries. Of course, big retailers don't care about any of that. They see themselves as players in a global economy.

The problem here is that a principle which has long been accepted as fundamental to the practice of Capitalism is being taken too far. The problem is growth. The whole idea of expanding a business like growing farm crops has never been challenged, that I know of anyway. It's common knowledge in biology that plants and animals that grow too large tend to decimate their environments. Elephants are known to do this today but, large dinosaurs like the sauropods must have eaten hundreds of pounds of vegetation a day and left huge piles of excrement lying all over the place. They had long necks which allowed them to reach high leaves but, I think it also allowed them to breath above the thick swarms of insects they must have attracted. What a fitting comparison to modern day super-businesses. They certainly are the most efficient means of overpopulating an nation. My point is that nature limits the sizes of plants and animals for good reason and that's what we need in our economy. Businesses should be limited in size in order to preserve the opportunities for individuals to employment themselves and reduce the need for government welfare programs and taxes.

Incorrect, you are trying to impose a third party in the grand circle of life. Ironic isnt it that all those dinosaurs are DEAD. Note all the smaller animals that have taken their places. Nature limits the size of those animals with death, with natural selection which takes place in our own society, when one thing becomes to large it can collapse on itself, or other, smaller companies that can specialize towards the consumers needs can form small niches in society. Remember with capitalism and only capitalism will every job be completed that needs doing as long as there is money at the end of the road.


I love capitalism :-D .

You may love capitalism but it is a process of accumulation which, in a finite system, has its limits. Infinite growth within finite systems is obviously an impossibility. There should be a recognised 'optimal scale' to marco-economic activity, much as there is in micro-economic activity.

[lolninjaz]

Kindred wrote:
You may love capitalism but it is a process of accumulation which, in a finite system, has its limits. Infinite growth within finite systems is obviously an impossibility. There should be a recognised 'optimal scale' to marco-economic activity, much as there is in micro-economic activity.

That blew my mind, man. What? If you are talking about finite wealth, I've heard some credible sources say wealth is created, not necessarily taken from someone else.

For instance, you go outside, chop down some tree, and make a wooden box outta it that sells for more than the would to make the box, you just created wealth! I think. I'm no economist.

I think a lot of people think there is a finite amount of money floating around, and if jim-bob owned %100 of it, you wood have to take from him to have money for yourself. But that situtation gets us into monetary policy, something I know even less about than general economics.

[Kindred]

lolninjaz wrote: Kindred wrote:
You may love capitalism but it is a process of accumulation which, in a finite system, has its limits. Infinite growth within finite systems is obviously an impossibility. There should be a recognised 'optimal scale' to marco-economic activity, much as there is in micro-economic activity.

That blew my mind, man. What? If you are talking about finite wealth, I've heard some credible sources say wealth is created, not necessarily taken from someone else.

For instance, you go outside, chop down some tree, and make a wooden box outta it that sells for more than the would to make the box, you just created wealth! I think. I'm no economist.

I think a lot of people think there is a finite amount of money floating around, and if jim-bob owned %100 of it, you wood have to take from him to have money for yourself. But that situtation gets us into monetary policy, something I know even less about than general economics.


I'm talking about resources and natural capital. There is a finite stock of resources from which humanity can draw; capitalism is a system which relies on accumulation; the two are at odds.

[LeopardPM]

Kindred wrote: lolninjaz wrote: Kindred wrote:
You may love capitalism but it is a process of accumulation which, in a finite system, has its limits. Infinite growth within finite systems is obviously an impossibility. There should be a recognised 'optimal scale' to marco-economic activity, much as there is in micro-economic activity.

That blew my mind, man. What? If you are talking about finite wealth, I've heard some credible sources say wealth is created, not necessarily taken from someone else.

For instance, you go outside, chop down some tree, and make a wooden box outta it that sells for more than the would to make the box, you just created wealth! I think. I'm no economist.

I think a lot of people think there is a finite amount of money floating around, and if jim-bob owned %100 of it, you wood have to take from him to have money for yourself. But that situtation gets us into monetary policy, something I know even less about than general economics.


I'm talking about resources and natural capital. There is a finite stock of resources from which humanity can draw; capitalism is a system which relies on accumulation; the two are at odds.

sorry Kindred, but are you saying that the edges of the universe have been detected? Resources are ultimately UNLIMITED in the grand scheme - what IS limited are the resources which are on earth, or in the solar system. Resources outside earth are in our grasp, if we desired to spend the effort in obtaining them... and we will one day once we start seriously depleting the earths resource base. It will be market forces and prices which finally tell us when the right time will be for us to start searching and recovering extra-earth resources.

[lolninjaz]

LeopardPM wrote:
sorry Kindred, but are you saying that the edges of the universe have been detected? Resources are ultimately UNLIMITED in the grand scheme - what IS limited are the resources which are on earth, or in the solar system. Resources outside earth are in our grasp, if we desired to spend the effort in obtaining them... and we will one day once we start seriously depleting the earths resource base. It will be market forces and prices which finally tell us when the right time will be for us to start searching and recovering extra-earth resources.

I think he raises a good point, with the market forces and all.

[Kindred]

lolninjaz wrote: LeopardPM wrote:
sorry Kindred, but are you saying that the edges of the universe have been detected? Resources are ultimately UNLIMITED in the grand scheme - what IS limited are the resources which are on earth, or in the solar system. Resources outside earth are in our grasp, if we desired to spend the effort in obtaining them... and we will one day once we start seriously depleting the earths resource base. It will be market forces and prices which finally tell us when the right time will be for us to start searching and recovering extra-earth resources.

I think he raises a good point, with the market forces and all.

Are you serious :lol: Space travel on that scale will not be available in the time frame that we require it (between 50 and 100 years). It does not sound wise to rely on human beings breaking the speed of light and travelling hundreds of years to the closest stars in order to get resource we depleted on earth in order for continued human subsitence. Seriously, you're being absurd.

[LeopardPM]

Kindred wrote:
Are you serious :lol: Space travel on that scale will not be available in the time frame that we require it (between 50 and 100 years). It does not sound wise to rely on human beings breaking the speed of light and travelling hundreds of years to the closest stars in order to get resource we depleted on earth in order for continued human subsitence. Seriously, you're being absurd.
LOL!
Please think a bit about it... its all about prices and how they work. If a resource starts becoming more scarce, its price will rise until one of three things happen: (1) We discover a substitute which is cheaper and thus more plentiful, (2) Prices rise to a point in which other, more expensive, methods of obtaining the resource become viable, (3) they rise so far that it is simply too expensive to use the resource at all so we stop demanding the resource.

Here is an example:
Take iron, for instance. it is rather plentiful on earth, but lets say that we started using it all up. The less 'easy access' iron available, the higher its price will rise. As the price rises, deeper mining becomes profitable and we bring into the market the more expensive iron. As more iron is used, it continues to become more expensive to find and mine it until either we decide it just isn't worth it anymore (the price of iron competes with all other goods and services, like food and medical care, and if the iron is so expensive that to purchase it would mean to NOT purchase food, which good do you think be purchased?), OR, it becomes profitable to send out spaceships to mine the moon or asteriods. This process continues ad infinitum... the other planets, the next solar system, etc.

Your argument amounts to saying, "We can't fly, we will never fly - Orville and Wilbur Wright are absurd!". There is nothing about known physical laws which prevent us from traveling to other worlds (yes, at a high cost currently, but the costs of all things tend to decrease over time as new technologies are discovered - its the human way!), or to other solar systems. Yes, sure, IF chemical rockets are the end all be all of space flight and we never discover anything better, then it will take multigenerational colony ships to reach our neighboring star systems... BUT IT IS POSSIBLE!

This goes for ALL resources, including oil (energy), and land. There is no need for some kind of governmental intervention to make sure we don't run out of oil or something - the market corrects for shortages and resource depletion quite effectively, and much better than any government.

[LostSoul3412]

Kindred wrote: I'm talking about resources and natural capital. There is a finite stock of resources from which humanity can draw; capitalism is a system which relies on accumulation; the two are at odds.

It depends on who is doing the accumulation. The market itself does not need to accumulate more resources, the only thing that needs to happen is the consumer's desire to accumulate those resources.

[LostSoul3412]

Harbinger wrote: Throughout the 20th century, our economy transformed itself from a large collection of small businesses into a small collection of large businesses.

Nothing was transformed; our economy simply grew bigger. There were big businesses and small businesses; just as there are both today.

Harbinger wrote: Large companies destroyed or consumed their competition and made self-employment within cities so impractical that employment was the only option. Small businesses were forced out of cities into rural areas and the inter-city working class was born and, along with it, wage control, unemployment and welfare.

I would invite you to walk through the streets of any major city, and you will notice there utter lack of franchaises. Your statement is incorrect.

Harbinger wrote: Today, companies have gotten so huge that they've out grown the entire domestic economy. Yet, they seek further growth through international trade, selling cheaper imported goods to US consumers.

Is this bad? Mercantilism was proven to be highly ineffective in the 1600's, and was replaced with Capitalism. No country can be self-sufficient; and in mordern economics a world market should be our goal, not our worry.

Harbinger wrote: Major retailers constantly lobby Congress to remove trade protections which they call "barriers". Without trade protections, domestic producers would be forced to close and the working class of America would be forced to compete with the slave wages of workers in third world countries.

And why should businesses be concerned? The government has ultimately forced the American labor market to be more expensive than the competition, and I cannot blame other companies for outsourcing.

Harbinger wrote: Of course, big retailers don't care about any of that. They see themselves as players in a global economy.

"What's in it for me?"

On the issue of outsourcing...

"Profit."

Harbinger wrote: The problem here is that a principle which has long been accepted as fundamental to the practice of Capitalism is being taken too far. The problem is growth.

Problem? The goal cannot be the problem, because when you eliminate the goal, you eliminate the drive. To destroy the end is to make the means useless; rendering both wasteful. To eliminate growth from Capitalism is to cut the head from the serpent, and deliver us from a Capitalist economy itself.

Harbinger wrote: The whole idea of expanding a business like growing farm crops has never been challenged, that I know of anyway.

Trust-busting.

Harbinger wrote: It's common knowledge in biology that plants and animals that grow too large tend to decimate their environments.

If it is common knowledge, then why are your making a point of it? Obviously, it is not.

Harbinger wrote: Elephants are known to do this today but, large dinosaurs like the sauropods must have eaten hundreds of pounds of vegetation a day and left huge piles of excrement lying all over the place. They had long necks which allowed them to reach high leaves but, I think it also allowed them to breath above the thick swarms of insects they must have attracted.

And yet, the dinosaurs naturally met their end and were replaced; just as monopolies are within Capitalism.

Harbinger wrote: What a fitting comparison to modern day super-businesses.

Indeed, the natural cycles of Capitalism correlate to the cycles of nature itself. Both of which are merely that; cycles.

Harbinger wrote: They certainly are the most efficient means of overpopulating an nation.

Incorrect, the most effective means of overpopulation is reproduction.

Harbinger wrote: My point is that nature limits the sizes of plants and animals for good reason and that's what we need in our economy.

Nature also balances itself out in due time; just as Capitalism does.

Harbinger wrote: Businesses should be limited in size in order to preserve the opportunities for individuals to employment themselves and reduce the need for government welfare programs and taxes.

Your comparision shares no connection. Physical size of a business is irrevelent. I could be working out of my garage, yet have over $2 billion in company assets. Size does not matter, only profit.

[Harbinger]

Free Thinkr wrote: Read me. When you're finished, I think you'll have a much better understanding of the problem, and why it is your proposed solutions are unworkable. Very entertaining read, BTW; highly recommended.

Well, I "toiled" through the first page, which took me almost an hour. The extra-ordinary effort required to disseminate his entire book could take me weeks or even months. I might even have to translate it into contemporary American English before attempting to reading it. So, I skipped to the Conclusion where he ultimately admits he opposes trade protections.

I don't agree with his tethered bull analogy of the working class nor do I agree with his description of the purpose of trade protections. And he's flat wrong about both sides of the issue having a common end. The conflict here stems directly from a clear difference in the priorities and concerns of the parties on each side. Those who advocate protections advocate the welfare of the general public while those who oppose them advocate their own insatiable greed.

Tariffs are merely an implementation of international trade protections. International trade protections aren't intended to improve our wages or our quality of life. They are only intended to protect domestic trade regulations which do improve our wages and our quality of life. We have necessary laws that keep our economy fair and just. Without strong international trade protections, our domestic trade regulations would be too heavy a burden for domestic businesses to shoulder in the face of foreign competition. Therefore, removing or even lowering international trade protections would require that we remove or reduce domestic trade regulations (i.e. wage laws, labor laws, safety laws etc). That, of course, would represent the destruction of our economy and ultimately the republic itself.

Here's something you should read:
Wake Up America

(I'll even adding this to my OP)

[Free Thinkr]

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Read me. When you're finished, I think you'll have a much better understanding of the problem, and why it is your proposed solutions are unworkable. Very entertaining read, BTW; highly recommended.

Well, I "toiled" through the first page, which took me almost an hour.
And kudos for that; most are unwilling to commit to even that much.

Quote: The extra-ordinary effort required to disseminate his entire book could take me weeks or even months. I might even have to translate it into contemporary American English before attempting to reading it. So, I skipped to the Conclusion where he ultimately admits he opposes trade protections.
He utterly and completely demolishes the notion of trade protections being a benefit to society. What I did was read the book one chapter at a time (there's an adjustable frame on the right side) when I had the chance (usually, when I got home, I'd read that while posting on this forum). It took me about a week and a half. It's in contemporary American English, though.

Quote: I don't agree with his tethered bull analogy of the working class nor do I agree with his description of the purpose of trade protections. And he's flat wrong about both sides of the issue having a common end. The conflict here stems directly from a clear difference in the priorities and concerns of the parties on each side. Those who advocate protections advocate the welfare of the general public while those who oppose them advocate their own insatiable greed.
That's not so at all. You are falling victim to a fallacy: that free marketers have no concern for the state of society.

Quote: Tariffs are merely an implementation of international trade protections. International trade protections aren't intended to improve our wages or our quality of life.
Yes they are. Often the case is made that we need to "protect" our labor force by instituting tariffs, for example.

Quote: They are only intended to protect domestic trade regulations which do improve our wages and our quality of life.
That too. The idea is that, since we our hindering domestic trade, we must hinder international trade as well.

Quote: We have necessary laws that keep our economy fair and just.
Few of these regulations is fair or just. Expedient would be the better term.

Quote: Without strong international trade protections, our domestic trade regulations would be too heavy a burden for domestic businesses to shoulder in the face of foreign competition. Therefore, removing or even lowering international trade protections would require that we remove or reduce domestic trade regulations (i.e. wage laws, labor laws, safety laws etc). That, of course, would represent the destruction of our economy and ultimately the republic itself.
Too heavy a burden? What are you saying, we'd quit working altogether? How would we buy foreign goods?

Quote: Here's something you should read:
Wake Up America

(I'll even adding this to my OP)
Looks to me like we're exporting industry. I don't see the problem. It's not like there's some set number of companies, and if they are sold to foreign investors, those jobs can never be replaced.

[Harbinger]

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
I don't agree with his tethered bull analogy of the working class nor do I agree with his description of the purpose of trade protections. And he's flat wrong about both sides of the issue having a common end. The conflict here stems directly from a clear difference in the priorities and concerns of the parties on each side. Those who advocate protections advocate the welfare of the general public while those who oppose them advocate their own insatiable greed.

That's not so at all. You are falling victim to a fallacy: that free marketers have no concern for the state of society.

How can you blame me? Free marketing is economic anarchy. People who advocate anarchy tend to be deviants and thugs who just want the freedom to rape and pillage without consequence. Why should I expect free marketers to greet me hugs and kisses?

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Tariffs are merely an implementation of international trade protections. International trade protections aren't intended to improve our wages or our quality of life.

Yes they are. Often the case is made that we need to "protect" our labor force by instituting tariffs, for example.

And they're obviously wrong. Tariffs have no direct impact on wages or any other aspect of the domestic economy.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
They are only intended to protect domestic trade regulations which do improve our wages and our quality of life.

That too. The idea is that, since we are hindering domestic trade, we must hinder international trade as well.

Right, to regulate anything is to hinder it in some way.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
We have necessary laws that keep our economy fair and just.

Few of these regulations is fair or just. Expedient would be the better term.

I guess it all depends on your definitions of fairness and justness.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Without strong international trade protections, our domestic trade regulations would be too heavy a burden for domestic businesses to shoulder in the face of foreign competition. Therefore, removing or even lowering international trade protections would require that we remove or reduce domestic trade regulations (i.e. wage laws, labor laws, safety laws etc). That, of course, would represent the destruction of our economy and ultimately the republic itself.

Too heavy a burden? What are you saying, we'd quit working altogether? How would we buy foreign goods?

First question: Yes, compared to other economies, our regulations are a heavy burden. Second question: No, but we'd be working for pennies on the dollar and I'm pretty sure that would lead the American people to revolt against the government. You bet I'd be one of them. Third question: Tourism.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Here's something you should read:
Wake Up America

(I'll even adding this to my OP)

Looks to me like we're exporting industry. I don't see the problem. It's not like there's some set number of companies, and if they are sold to foreign investors, those jobs can never be replaced.

You can't replace a job as long as it's being filled by someone in another country. As long as goods sold in America aren't Made in America, we aren't exporting anything but our "capital" (our wealth and our government).

[Kindred]

Quote: LOL!
Please think a bit about it... its all about prices and how they work. If a resource starts becoming more scarce, its price will rise until one of three things happen: (1) We discover a substitute which is cheaper and thus more plentiful, (2) Prices rise to a point in which other, more expensive, methods of obtaining the resource become viable, (3) they rise so far that it is simply too expensive to use the resource at all so we stop demanding the resource.

Prices are one thing, but human innovation and knowledge are not limitless. En mass Travelling at the speed of light is not only an unrealistic expectation for our generation, but for the next 40 generations. We are that far away from it.



Quote: Here is an example:
Take iron, for instance. it is rather plentiful on earth, but lets say that we started using it all up. The less 'easy access' iron available, the higher its price will rise. As the price rises, deeper mining becomes profitable and we bring into the market the more expensive iron. As more iron is used, it continues to become more expensive to find and mine it until either we decide it just isn't worth it anymore (the price of iron competes with all other goods and services, like food and medical care, and if the iron is so expensive that to purchase it would mean to NOT purchase food, which good do you think be purchased?), OR, it becomes profitable to send out spaceships to mine the moon or asteriods. This process continues ad infinitum... the other planets, the next solar system, etc.

I understand perfectly well the pseudo-science of free marketeers. What you’re talking about, however, is sci-fi space fantasies :lol:

At any rate, it’s not only about depleting resource in/of themselves, but depleting the systems which those resources are a part of. In other words, it’s about destroying the environment to such a point that either humans can no longer occupy earth (the extreme estimates of global warming for example provide such a scenario. Why isn’t the market responding again?- because we have a discount rate for future generations), or that those who do are faced with such a low quality of life, due to our selfish actions, that they suffer on a daily basis.

Quote: Your argument amounts to saying, "We can't fly, we will never fly - Orville and Wilbur Wright are absurd!".

And your argument amounts to us taking an irrational gamble on the welfare of future generations, rather than simply making those changes currently. It’s totally irrational, really.


Quote: There is nothing about known physical laws which prevent us from traveling to other worlds (yes, at a high cost currently, but the costs of all things tend to decrease over time as new technologies are discovered - its the human way!), or to other solar systems. Yes, sure, IF chemical rockets are the end all be all of space flight and we never discover anything better, then it will take multigenerational colony ships to reach our neighboring star systems... BUT IT IS POSSIBLE!

It is possible, but it is not plausible within several generations, nor is it wise or prudent to risk the welfare of future human beings on an irrational whim.

Quote: This goes for ALL resources, including oil (energy), and land. There is no need for some kind of governmental intervention to make sure we don't run out of oil or something - the market corrects for shortages and resource depletion quite effectively, and much better than any government

Why isn’t the market responding to the current destruction of the atmosphere- a destruction that may cause harm and suffering, death and destitution to billions of people.

I hope you will one day re-read this post and see how pathetic you sound. You care more about your silly ideology than you do about humanity, and I think that's pretty damn sad.

[Kindred]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Kindred wrote: I'm talking about resources and natural capital. There is a finite stock of resources from which humanity can draw; capitalism is a system which relies on accumulation; the two are at odds.

It depends on who is doing the accumulation. The market itself does not need to accumulate more resources, the only thing that needs to happen is the consumer's desire to accumulate those resources.

Capitalism without growth is not capitalism at all.

But let me open this up a little and speak a little more generally:

“The market cannot by itself register the cost of its own increasing scale relative to the ecosystem. Market prices measure the scarcity of individual resources relative to each other. Prices do not measure the absolute scarcity of resources in general” -Herman Daly

In other words if we are going to make decisions which revolve around the central tenet of sustainability, they are probably going to have to be made politically.

At any rate, the unsustainable ethos you and others like you advocate actually undermines your own argument over large temporal scales.
This is because, the very tenets which property rights advocates (and hence free market environmentalists) adhere to, is violated in the procedure itself. For example, the preferences of future generations (as well as some members of current generations; namely the very young), low income earners, and other species (assuming they have a moral standing at all) are either not taken into account, or have proportionally less of a voice in current markets. Such an omission of preferences is precisely what the sustainability ethic, an outcome based ethic, attempts to include. Therefore, free market environmentalists are confronted with an ‘internal contradiction’, in that their preferred institution (the market) does not have the “procedural virtue” which its adherence ascribe to it


As J.B Foster puts it:

"Nature…..is not a commodity produced to be sold on the market according to economic laws of supply and demand. Nor is it a market organized according to the laws of individual preferences…..The environment can be rationally considered a “condition of production” for the economy. However, it cannot be fully incorporated into the circular flow of a commodity economy…….any attempt to allow the “tyranny of the bottom line” guide our relation to nature in its entirety would be disastrous (Bellamy Foster 2002, pg. 30)"

The reason nature can’t and moreover shouldn’t be codified into market processes, Bellamy Foster argues, is that rather than solving problems, entrance into the market may attenuate them because the capitalist economy knows no boundaries to expansion and accumulation outside of its self. Bellamy Foster hence states “it is not so much the failure to internalize large parts of nature into the economy that is the source of environmental problems, but rather that more and more of nature is reduced to mere cash exchange nexus and is not treated with broader, more ecological principles” . While it may seem somewhat of a stretch to jump from the former reasoning to the latter, Bellamy Foster goes on to implicitly reference an economic logic described years earlier by influential economist Harold Hoteling

Hoteling developed a model of ‘efficient’ resource use, which explained in some detail under what economic conditions resources are likely to be conserved or depleted. The author explains that the owner of a resource has two general options; 1) extract and sell the resource, after which profits should be put into the bank in which they will earn interest, or 2) leave the resource to appreciate in value. The economically rational decision is to extract the resource when, and only when, the potential profits from leaving the resource as it is are less than the current interest rate. In other words, if the potential profit from leaving the resource in the ground and extracting it in the future are calculated to be greater than the current profit from extraction plus interest over time, the resource should be conserved, at least for the time being. Using such logic, it is apparent that extinction and habitat loss may not be because markets ‘fail’ to take the environment into account, but rather that they do, and such depletion is the result of economically rational behaviour on the part of private resource owners.

It is with this theoretical backing that Ballamy Foster makes the claim that “songbird species are facing extinction because their relative prices are too low” and that the result of internalising forest ecosystems into market equations results, ‘in most cases’, in the loss of forest ecosystems, as “the market sees forests, not as ecosystems, but as consisting of so many million or billion board feet of standing timber”
Under Hoteling’s 1931 model, an old growth forest which has reached maturity and is hence not growing at a fast rate may be considered economically unviable. In an economic sense, it is logical to remove the forest, sell the timber, and invest the profit in a bank to gain interest. Apportionment of some of the profit to plant faster growing tree species which may appreciate in value as fast, or faster than money in the bank (depending on the current interest rate) would further create a regular return on the resource. To some extent the ramifications of such thought are being seen in Australia, where the decline in available domestic native forest resources has provided the commercial stimulus for trebling the rate of farm forestry plantation to 80,000 ha annually by 2020, But what of ecosystems which do not even have conspicuous capital assets in the form of timber, or minerals?

For example grassland ecosystems do not have much economic worth (as captured in private markets) outside their potential tourist value (which one would assume is quite low due to the lack of aesthetic appeal of grasslands when compared to old growth forests and marine ecosystems), or the value created through using the land for pastoral, agricultural or developmental activities. All of these activities greatly degrade, if not completely destroy grassland environment in Australia (and naturally elsewhere). What is of particular importance to this debate, is that most of the degradation in the recent past has occurred on private lands as they are opened up to development. This observation only adds credence to the idea that internalization of ecosystems into market equations may not always be the solution to our environmental problems.


Recent studies have also highlighted the economic rationale behind preserving natural systems. Costanza et al., (1997) estimated that the value of natures services lie in the range of $US16 to $US54 trillion annually ($US18 to $US61 trillion updated to 2000 figures), with a rough average of $38 trillion (Balmford et al., 2002) which is roughly equivalent to world GDP, being approximately $40 in 2004 (World Bank, 2005). If such calculations are even remotely close to the value of the world’s natural capital, then surely is would be uneconomical to continue to alter landscapes at the rate humanity currently does. Balmford et al. (2002) furthered the specificity of this research with reference to six different biomes, and found that sustainable management yielded between 14% and 75% (depending on what ecosystems was being examined) greater total economic value returns than altering the ecosystem to fit human needs (whilst ignoring sustainability).

When these statistics are extrapolated to include all similar biomes, the authors conclude that a single year’s habitat conversion costs human beings $250 billion. According to the authors, a major reason why such blatantly uneconomic practices continue is because much of the economic value of environmental services and assets are not captured private markets (Balmford et al., 2002). However, as many argue, some environmental assets and services simply cannot, and in some case should not be codified into market terms. There are moral reasons why we shouldn’t, but there are also very real technical problems with such conversions.

[LostSoul3412]

Kindred wrote: Capitalism without growth is not capitalism at all.

Again, it would depend on who is doing the growing. Capitalism is a consumer-based society, so as long as the consumer can grow their capital, the market as a whole will continue to grow.