What is the production and distribution controlled by? My knowledge of economics is basically supply and demand. Which tells me that production and distribution is limited by the supply and/or demand.
In the materialistic world we live in, I find it hard to believe that people have a limited demand. Based on that thinking, it is the supply which dictates what people have access to.
Production is driven by the expected demand. If people can't purchase your wares at the price you sell them, you will soon be out of business. It is governed by our technological efficiency, the cost of ressources and the wealth of the consumers.
Distribution, however, is not directly bound to these things, although they can have some influence. The distribution is largely politically controlled and reflects to which degree the common people or the elite control the system. Back in the early days of capitalism in england, the industrialists were so great at cutting their expenditures and increasing their profits, that they were actually killing off their worker base at a rate greater than replenishing.
It was quite obvious to all of them, but no single one industrialist could do anything about it, since they were bound by the inner logic of the system; to survice as a producer means to be better than average - therefore lowering your competetive strength through better treatment of your workers would soon leave you without a business..
What happened then? The government enacted laws that protected against child labour and put a maximum level at the hours one was allowed to work pr day. Now this was in the interest of the Total Capital, since it secured it's work force, but none of the Single Capitals could do it, since that would mean lowering their competetive strengths..
This is a good example of why we in the west typically have (have had) strong governments. A more equal distribution of the ressources is a way to protect the system, which is
driven to concentrate wealth which eventually erode the whole structure itself. Equality is therefore not the workings of supply/demand, although the supply determines the overall level of afluence (not it's distribution). They merely reflect it. Equality is a socially and politically negotiated, and it is no surprise, that the more equal contries are typically those with a large state and a high level of taxation.
I disagree with it in that people should be given equal opportunity- which is really what I would like to accomplish.
A most noble viewpoint that I wholeheartedly agree with. What I was talking about, however, was what is - not what should be. People are inherently different, and I don't think that you ever can, or indeed should, overcome that. Therefore I would posit, that we shouldn't
make people equal, we should ensure that inherited wealth and connections play as little a role as possible, in determining a persons future succes. Equal and free access to education and healthcare seems to be a fundamental in this regard. I am sure you agree here
Now you write this, which I find very interesting:
We have a growing economy no matter what. The population continues to grow. Eventually, we will reach a point where we have hit the maximum possible population that Earth can support.
We have had a growing economy only for the last few hundred years (noticeable growth). But for hundreds of thousands of years, humans have lived under the same conditions as the previous generations and not had any growth.
The capitalist economy needs to grow for three reasons:
1.
Increasing productivity: The competition in the market necesitates increasing productivity, since the competetion drives the profitrate towards zero. In order to stay above average and not be consumed by better capitalists, you need to increase profits, which is often done through increased productivity. Increased productivity have the interesting effect though, that you can do the same with less people. If you automate a factory a lot of people get unemployed, and if you don't want to lose their disposable income (which is necessary to keep production going), you have to have growth in order to create new jobs.
2.
Increasing Population: This one presents itself in much the same way that increasing productivity does. With more people wanting the same standard of living as everyone else, you will have to increase production to keep everyone satisfied and the system functioning. Increase in production at a rate lower than the rate of increase in population, means that the average standard of living falls.
3.
Credit: The way credit is issued into the system is as debt that increases exponentialy. If the rate of growth is lower than the rate of interest, the interest will accumulate and take up a greater and greater portion of the disposable national income. The more money being used to pay interest, the less is available to investments and production. A debt based economy, needs to grow faster, or at the same rate, as the interest rate, or it will eventually subcomb to the burden of debt.
Now this is why an economy need to grow. But will it always grow? This is determined by the following.
In order for a economy to grow, the profit gained (P) must exceed the cost of ressources used in production (C), the amount of money used on interest (R) and the money used in repairing old infrastructure, investments and such (I). (The letters are not official or anything, just an easy way to describe it).
So for an economy to remain stagnant:
P = C + R + I.
In order for it to grow, P must exceed it. Now, if the problem is that we have too few ressources, and we go to space for them, the value of I and C would rise dramatically. People would simply not have the money to buy it. If the materials in C and I are to come from more expensive sources, the amount of capital diverted to these areas need to increase, meaning less is available elsewhere. Therefore, more expensive ressources means less production, which means less economic activity and recession until a new equilibrium is found, at which suply and demand are equal again.
What is the production and distribution controlled by? My knowledge of economics is basically supply and demand. Which tells me that production and distribution is limited by the supply and/or demand.
In the materialistic world we live in, I find it hard to believe that people have a limited demand. Based on that thinking, it is the supply which dictates what people have access to.
Production is driven by the expected demand. If people can't purchase your wares at the price you sell them, you will soon be out of business. It is governed by our technological efficiency, the cost of ressources and the wealth of the consumers.
Distribution, however, is not directly bound to these things, although they can have some influence. The distribution is largely politically controlled and reflects to which degree the common people or the elite control the system. Back in the early days of capitalism in england, the industrialists were so great at cutting their expenditures and increasing their profits, that they were actually killing off their worker base at a rate greater than replenishing.
It was quite obvious to all of them, but no single one industrialist could do anything about it, since they were bound by the inner logic of the system; to survice as a producer means to be better than average - therefore lowering your competetive strength through better treatment of your workers would soon leave you without a business..
What happened then? The government enacted laws that protected against child labour and put a maximum level at the hours one was allowed to work pr day. Now this was in the interest of the Total Capital, since it secured it's work force, but none of the Single Capitals could do it, since that would mean lowering their competetive strengths..
This is a good example of why we in the west typically have (have had) strong governments. A more equal distribution of the ressources is a way to protect the system, which is
driven to concentrate wealth which eventually erode the whole structure itself. Equality is therefore not the workings of supply/demand, although the supply determines the overall level of afluence (not it's distribution). They merely reflect it. Equality is a socially and politically negotiated, and it is no surprise, that the more equal contries are typically those with a large state and a high level of taxation.
It will happen. Maybe not across the vast reaches of space but, we will be extracting resources from space in some economically meaningful way. (I don’t count the lunar soil brought back during the Apollo missions to be economically meaningful.)
And this is of course, where I disagree with you. It is simply not economical to do so, and I highly doubt that it ever will be, given the physics of it. The enormous cost of going into space to acquire ressources would drain the economy of the capital needed to buy the ressources in the first place, thereby negating the whole idea.
I am human and can therefore say that it is within human nature to want to grow. If I don’t have to put limitations on myself then why should I? We will use the power of our minds to continually push the boundary.
Yes like any other organism you want to grow. But like any other organism you are bound by the laws of physics and the law of dimnishing returns. It is obscured by the price mechanism, but is certainly also in effect for humans.
Also with regards to your quote:
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Was obviously false, and I don't mean to say that we have reached the highest levels of technology obtainable. We are, however, approaching the limits of thermodynamics in many places and the rate of improvement has faltered the last many decades. Technology doesn't overcome the laws of physics, the abide by them and try to utilize them..
Well this is it for now
I am eagerly awaiting your next reply.
- Systems.
) , I realized what I wrote above, and I refused to continue down that path. .
)
