David Harvey - Crises of Capitalism

If we end the Fed, how will we control the money supply?

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…capatalism does have it’s flaws. Perpetual growth can’t be sustained indefinitly, not in the current model anyway. We are all securely in the grip of multinational corporations and financial institutions. Make no mistakes about that. What we can do is to refrain from attaching ourselves to a media-induced ideology, because at the end of the day that is what enslaves us all…[/quote]

I have been thinking on this for a couple of hours. I have personally stopped watching television, reading newspapers, and magazines. I get most of my information on world events from PWI, sad I know, but you all filter out the BS. I do listen to the radio on the way home from work. I keep an eye on the stock market. I have finally got set up on Netflix, so I am not bombarded with TV commercials, so I really do not have a need to go shopping and buy stuff I do not need. I do read my Bible, and I spend time reading classic books. I am spending more time with my wife and children.

What I am saying is I am thinking for myself, and not allowing the media to show me what is their ideology. I am making up my own mind. Thanks for your words.

[quote]toddrc wrote:
If we end the Fed, how will we control the money supply?[/quote]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Powerâ?¦To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shallâ?¦coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.

That is how.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…capatalism does have it’s flaws. Perpetual growth can’t be sustained indefinitly, not in the current model anyway. We are all securely in the grip of multinational corporations and financial institutions. Make no mistakes about that. What we can do is to refrain from attaching ourselves to a media-induced ideology, because at the end of the day that is what enslaves us all…[/quote]

I have been thinking on this for a couple of hours. I have personally stopped watching television, reading newspapers, and magazines. I get most of my information on world events from PWI, sad I know, but you all filter out the BS. I do listen to the radio on the way home from work. I keep an eye on the stock market. I have finally got set up on Netflix, so I am not bombarded with TV commercials, so I really do not have a need to go shopping and buy stuff I do not need. I do read my Bible, and I spend time reading classic books. I am spending more time with my wife and children.

What I am saying is I am thinking for myself, and not allowing the media to show me what is their ideology. I am making up my own mind. Thanks for your words.[/quote]

…same here! I ditched my t.v. three years ago, no papers or newsradio, just music, movies and discussions here and there (: Ofcourse it’s impossible to avoid all the news, but i’ve found great relief in the absence of the constant barrage of stupidity, commercials and innane people. Guess i’m in good company…

I don’t understand the claim made about how capitalism cannot support “unlimited growth”?

First question: what does growth mean?

Second question: If it is growth of monetary profits we are talking about and they become “too big” wouldn’t that entice competitors into the market thus helping to “redistribute” profits away from those who were “making an unfair share” of profits?

Capitalism actually is the only economic system that provides a fair way to redistribute wealth!!!

The “unlimited growth” argument begins with a false premise that can only lead to a conclusion that will never be true.

Have any of these so called philosophers even heard of the word logic before?

…in short, by growth i mean growing and emerging economic markets that will compete for natural resources with existing markets upto the point of depleting those resources. That is why i made the caveat, “in the current system” because, altough capatalism brought/brings wealth to many people, it will become unsustainable in the near future…

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…in short, by growth i mean growing and emerging economic markets that will compete for natural resources with existing markets upto the point of depleting those resources. That is why i made the caveat, “in the current system” because, altough capatalism brought/brings wealth to many people, it will become unsustainable in the near future…[/quote]

But this is illogical.

In nature scarcity is a fact of reality.

Capitalism is a system that allows individuals to make trade-offs with respect to their own scale of values as to how they will overcome scarcity and in the process new wealth is created. In the face of scarcity people can still “grow” the economy.

And when economists say “the economy is growing” what they mean to really say is overall people have more choices about scarce goods that they did not previously have (but really this is an oversimplification because not everyone’s “economy” grows at the same rate or will grow at all). It can only grow for the individuals who “economize” their values with respect to savings, production, and consumption.

Capitalism is the system that provides the most efficient means to bring this about since it implies the freedom of association and property exchange.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…in short, by growth i mean growing and emerging economic markets that will compete for natural resources with existing markets upto the point of depleting those resources. That is why i made the caveat, “in the current system” because, altough capatalism brought/brings wealth to many people, it will become unsustainable in the near future…[/quote]

No, it wont.

Because when resources get scarce the market reacts and they are substituted.

You think that capitalism is as limited as socialism, whereas the beauty of free marketz lies in the fact that “society” or “we” do not have to agree. It is enough if some people know the way and outcompete the rest.

No need to wait for the last moron to join the party.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…in short, by growth i mean growing and emerging economic markets that will compete for natural resources with existing markets upto the point of depleting those resources. That is why i made the caveat, “in the current system” because, altough capatalism brought/brings wealth to many people, it will become unsustainable in the near future…[/quote]

But this is illogical.

In nature scarcity is a fact of reality.

Capitalism is a system that allows individuals to make trade-offs with respect to their own scale of values as to how they will overcome scarcity and in the process new wealth is created. In the face of scarcity people can still “grow” the economy.

And when economists say “the economy is growing” what they mean to really say is overall people have more choices about scarce goods that they did not previously have (but really this is an oversimplification because not everyone’s “economy” grows at the same rate or will grow at all). It can only grow for the individuals who “economize” their values with respect to savings, production, and consumption.

Capitalism is the system that provides the most efficient means to bring this about since it implies the freedom of association and property exchange.[/quote]

…i don’t know what you’re talking about, but i’m talking about the resources that are needed to manufacture the goods needed to fuel the consumermarkets, that drives the economy. The system is not interested in developing alternative energy sources [at a high cost] when much cheaper sources are still available. That’s understandable, even if the cheaper sources are finite and polluting…

…however, we’ve known for a long time that alternative energy sources are the only way forward if we want to maintain a semblance of our economic markets. What happens? Big businesses ignore long term strategies for short term profit. Ofcourse, a small, innovative company may come along and sweep us off our feet with an elegant, clean and cheap solution to all our problems…

…say, suppose the Tesla coil is re-invented and humankind is given the gift of [almost] free and limitless energy, would you welcome that or scoff at its socialist slant?

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i don’t know what you’re talking about, but i’m talking about the resources that are needed to manufacture the goods needed to fuel the consumermarkets, that drives the economy. The system is not interested in developing alternative energy sources [at a high cost] when much cheaper sources are still available. That’s understandable, even if the cheaper sources are finite and polluting…

…however, we’ve known for a long time that alternative energy sources are the only way forward if we want to maintain a semblance of our economic markets. What happens? Big businesses ignore long term strategies for short term profit. Ofcourse, a small, innovative company may come along and sweep us off our feet with an elegant, clean and cheap solution to all our problems…

…say, suppose the Tesla coil is re-invented and humankind is given the gift of [almost] free and limitless energy, would you welcome that or scoff at it’s socialist slant?
[/quote]
So much fail in here…

To economize means to make a trade-off with respect to scarcity. When resources become more scarce they become more expensive and people find alternatives or go without.

It does not matter where in the process of savings, production, or consumption this happens. It is as true for the individual consumer as it is for producers. There are no separate laws of economics for producers compared to consumers. They are all connected.

You need to understand that before you decide to have an opinion on economics.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i don’t know what you’re talking about, but i’m talking about the resources that are needed to manufacture the goods needed to fuel the consumermarkets, that drives the economy. The system is not interested in developing alternative energy sources [at a high cost] when much cheaper sources are still available. That’s understandable, even if the cheaper sources are finite and polluting…

…however, we’ve known for a long time that alternative energy sources are the only way forward if we want to maintain a semblance of our economic markets. What happens? Big businesses ignore long term strategies for short term profit. Ofcourse, a small, innovative company may come along and sweep us off our feet with an elegant, clean and cheap solution to all our problems…

…say, suppose the Tesla coil is re-invented and humankind is given the gift of [almost] free and limitless energy, would you welcome that or scoff at it’s socialist slant?
[/quote]
So much fail in here…

To economize means to make a trade-off with respect to scarcity. When resources become more scarce they become more expensive and people find alternatives or go without.

It does not matter where in the process of savings, production, or consumption this happens. It is as true for the individual consumer as it is for producers. There are no separate laws of economics for producers compared to consumers. They are all connected.

You need to understand that before you decide to have an opinion on economics.[/quote]

…the market will adjust yes, but that wasn’t my point you argue against. I see very little adjusting and a lot of clammoring to maintain a increasingly untenable position, for instance: the music industry. Instead of embracing a different model they cling to the existing one for dear life. For an industry that’s built on convenience, a collapse of that industry won’t be devastating to our way of life, but what other areas of business is concerned; i’m not so sure…

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I see very little adjusting and a lot of clammoring to maintain a increasingly untenable position, for instance: the music industry. Instead of embracing a different model they cling to the existing one for dear life. For an industry that’s built on convenience, a collapse of that industry won’t be devastating to our way of life, but what other areas of business is concerned; i’m not so sure…
[/quote]
That is only because you do not recognize what counts as an alternative.

You also only see one “they” – the record companies – you do not see the others whom are adjusting their means of delivery. These people – the actual music artists will survive just fine.

And even still, it is not any particular industry that will collapse (unless a newer technology/industry makes it irrelevant) but rather the competing companies within that industry when they fail to meet the changing realities of the industry.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I don’t understand the claim made about how capitalism cannot support “unlimited growth”?
[/quote]

In our current economic model GDP needs to grow by about 3% per year in order for the economy to be considered “successful.” You would see it on every news medium there is, if the economy wasn’t growing then things would be considered to be going badly. God forbid GDP fell by any number, all hell would break loose; our situation would literally be portrayed in the news that our economy was falling apart. The idea goes all the way back to Wealth of Nations where it was recognized that growth in total GDP meant that overal peoples’ incomes were rising aka capitalism is going well.

Our GDP is currently at the point where it is just over 14 trillion per year. 3% growth this year at 14 trillion means that you need to find 420 billion in new business. In 20 years that means finding around 800 billion per year in new business. Now it might be a little foolish to say that’s impossible to achieve, but what’s a more realistic claim is that type of growth is not sustainable without some serious problems surfacing. Maintaining that level of growth would most likely have a devestating impact on our environment, society, etc somewhere down the line. Considering the trouble we’re having today finding 420 billion in new busniess, imagine down the line when we need to find 3 or 4 trillion in new business every year just to keep this system going.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Blaming this on deregulation is bullshit, what you are saying is freedom doesn’t work and we should all be slaves to the government.
[/quote]

Deregualation and freedom are not the same thing. You are mixing economics with ideology. Do you really see no connection between the financial crisis and the deregulation of the finance industry that took place over the past decade or so?

Also, do you always accuse people that have different views than you as being against freedom? It’s a pretty childish way to disagree with someone.