An alternative concept is: "Capitalism maximizes" In the past, it maximized through growth. But we can maximize without growth or even decreasing. The challenge is not the economic system, but how to decrease because interests will overlap. I am sure a world with 1/4 of the population, at this stage of our history would allowd more resources for each with sustainable capacity.
People bend the term to their own purposes, but Frank is right in the classic sense. Capitalism is based on the profit motive, without growth, no profits, thus something other than capitalism. Btw, I'm halfway through Needs and Limits and think it's excellent.
Robert Solow, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his theory of growth, said: There is no reason at all why capitalism could not survive without slow or even no growth. ... It is possible that the United States and Europe will find that, ... either continued growth will be too destructive to the environment ..., or that they would rather use increasing productivity in the form of leisure... There is nothing intrinsic in the system that says it cannot exist happily in a stationary state.
Hi, could you please tell me the source of Solow's statement? - "There is no reason at all why capitalism could not survive without slow or even no growth" And, what do you mean by "increasing productivity in the form of leisure"?!
@Alexopolux The source of Solow's statement is Harper's Magazine, March 2008. Solow says it is possible "that they would rather use increasing productivity in the form of leisure." Increasing productivity means that workers produce more per hour: you can use that to produce more in total (as we do now) or to work few hours and have more leisure, as Solow suggests. For more info, google: solow no growth economy.
@DanielAzawitz Hi Daniel. Many thanks for your reply. I will re-check Solow's model and his critiques. It is encouraging that his paper has only 31 pages. I will also check out Harper's magazine.
And yes, of course I know what is productivity, that is why I asked the meaning of "increasing productivity in the form of leisure", which is a contradiction. But now I get it. What Solow proposes has been already proposed in the past, along with early retirement programs, basic income, etc.
This is a nineteenth century critique of a twenty-first century report. An end of growth would mean lower profits, so capitalists would not like it, but it would not mean an end to capitalism. In fact, most of the classical economists believed that capitalism would ultimately lead to a stationary state (=no-growth) economy. Only St. Karl Marx and his followers claimed that capitalism required growth, because they were fanatics battling against the devil.
An alternative concept is: "Capitalism maximizes" In the past, it maximized through growth. But we can maximize without growth or even decreasing. The challenge is not the economic system, but how to decrease because interests will overlap. I am sure a world with 1/4 of the population, at this stage of our history would allowd more resources for each with sustainable capacity.
unisailor 4 months ago
People bend the term to their own purposes, but Frank is right in the classic sense. Capitalism is based on the profit motive, without growth, no profits, thus something other than capitalism. Btw, I'm halfway through Needs and Limits and think it's excellent.
redvajra 2 years ago
@redvajra There would still be profits without growth, but there would be lower profits.
DanielAzawitz 1 year ago
Robert Solow, who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his theory of growth, said: There is no reason at all why capitalism could not survive without slow or even no growth. ... It is possible that the United States and Europe will find that, ... either continued growth will be too destructive to the environment ..., or that they would rather use increasing productivity in the form of leisure... There is nothing intrinsic in the system that says it cannot exist happily in a stationary state.
hymanbookbinder 2 years ago
@hymanbookbinder
Hi, could you please tell me the source of Solow's statement? - "There is no reason at all why capitalism could not survive without slow or even no growth" And, what do you mean by "increasing productivity in the form of leisure"?!
Thanks.
Alexopolux 1 year ago
@Alexopolux The source of Solow's statement is Harper's Magazine, March 2008. Solow says it is possible "that they would rather use increasing productivity in the form of leisure." Increasing productivity means that workers produce more per hour: you can use that to produce more in total (as we do now) or to work few hours and have more leisure, as Solow suggests. For more info, google: solow no growth economy.
DanielAzawitz 1 year ago
@DanielAzawitz Hi Daniel. Many thanks for your reply. I will re-check Solow's model and his critiques. It is encouraging that his paper has only 31 pages. I will also check out Harper's magazine.
And yes, of course I know what is productivity, that is why I asked the meaning of "increasing productivity in the form of leisure", which is a contradiction. But now I get it. What Solow proposes has been already proposed in the past, along with early retirement programs, basic income, etc.
Alexopolux 1 year ago
This is a nineteenth century critique of a twenty-first century report. An end of growth would mean lower profits, so capitalists would not like it, but it would not mean an end to capitalism. In fact, most of the classical economists believed that capitalism would ultimately lead to a stationary state (=no-growth) economy. Only St. Karl Marx and his followers claimed that capitalism required growth, because they were fanatics battling against the devil.
hymanbookbinder 2 years ago
Enjoy your videos. It seems unlikely that the priviledged classes will accept any new ordering of things that diminishes their wealth & power.
randallsellis 2 years ago