Why does capitalism need 3% growth?

[ItWillNeverWork]

I've often heard that capitalism requires at least 3% growth over time to prevent itself collapsing. Is this true? If so, why? Would it ever be possible to have zero growth capitalism?

 

[TruXta]

Don't see why not. It's supposed to be a zero-sum game after all, so when the rich can't get much richer all they need to do is start killing some competition. Just like they do now.

 

[butchersapron]

I've often heard that capitalism requires at least 3% growth over time to prevent itself collapsing. Is this true? If so, why? Would it ever be possible to have zero growth capitalism?

You know what surplus value is right?

 

[rioted]

You need socialism for sustainable growth!

 

[TruXta]

No you fucking don't.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

You know what surplus value is right?

I have a vague idea yes. It's the difference, according to Marx, between the value created by labour and the profit taken by the purchasers of labour. So how does this fit in with the need for growth?

 

[butchersapron]

Here's 0%.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Here's 0%.

eh?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Not 'according to Marx' btw. Marx obv used the theory of surplus value, but it pre-dates Marx. As well it should - it isn't really a theory, or just a theory; it's the reality. What Marx did was to identify that surplus value was a product of surplus labour - that it wasn't created through enterprise or endeavour but through exploiting the labour of the worker. Capitalists just call it profit or interest.

Anyway, in short, no growth equals no additional surplus value, or profit. Which is why capitalism needs growth.

 

[ernestolynch]

Biggest growth world has ever seen: USSR 1930s

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Old Uncle Joe was a bit of a capitalist on the quiet was he?

 

[Wolveryeti]

Biggest growth world has ever seen: USSR 1930s

And by a similar token all the Nazi death camps demonstrated a very impressive internal rate of return too!

 

[Wolveryeti]

Anyway, 0 growth capitalism is a red herring. If you balanced GDP by including things that people care about (ecology, amenity, utility), nobody would care about the zero growth thing.

 

[TruXta]

Not 'according to Marx' btw. Marx obv used the theory of surplus value, but it pre-dates Marx. As well it should - it isn't really a theory, or just a theory; it's the reality. What Marx did was to identify that surplus value was a product of surplus labour - that it wasn't created through enterprise or endeavour but through exploiting the labour of the worker. Capitalists just call it profit or interest.

Anyway, in short, no growth equals no additional surplus value, or profit. Which is why capitalism needs growth.

I don't think that's true. For the system as a whole, maybe, but local growth can still be positive while the total growth rate is 0 or negative. Or as I said above, one guy can just take out all others.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Investments need to show returns otherwise nobody would invest. Money begetting more money.

Can't capitalism survive solely on inflation? If you have inflation, there is still an incentive to invest, even if your 'returns' are merely keeping pace with value.

Have I missed something there?

 

[ernestolynch]

And by a similar token all the Nazi death camps demonstrated a very impressive internal rate of return too!

You'd support that, being a eugenicist cunt.

 

[krtek a houby]

You'd support that, being a eugenicist cunt.

Was not Stalin a fan of eugenics?

 

[TruXta]

Only of the wrong Lysenkoist kind.

 

[Idris2002]

Was not Stalin a fan of eugenics?

He wasn't actually. Even Lysenkoism, idiotic and catastrophic though it was, depended on paradigmatic assumptions entirely different from those which underpinned eugenics.

 

[revol68]

Biggest growth world has ever seen: USSR 1930s

Aye state capitalism doesn't fuck about.

 

[TruXta]

Except when it totally fucks up of course.

 

[TruXta]

Biggest growth world has ever seen: USSR 1930s

Link for that? Cuz I don't believe it.

 

[krtek a houby]

He wasn't actually. Even Lysenkoism, idiotic and catastrophic though it was, depended on paradigmatic assumptions entirely different from those which underpinned eugenics.

So, eugenics under a different name?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sounds reasonable to me – it was the period when the Soviet Union industrialised at break-neck speed.

 

[TruXta]

Hm. Not so sure, look at Japan post-WW2 for example. Also at longer time-scales the USSR aren't even close to having the biggest growth-rate.

 

[Idris2002]

So, eugenics under a different name?

No, not eugenics at all.

Were you taught by the Christian brothers, or something?

 

[Wolveryeti]

You'd support that, being a eugenicist cunt.

I have never proposed killing people to effect social engineering- unlike you, whose juvenile cheerleeding of the annihilation of a group of people in order to reform society with your chosen group as 'masters' is basically Mein Kampf but with worse economics. What's up with that, bro?

 

[gorski]

Ach, kiddies on the playground again... Stalin, the CEO of a massive CapCorp, who's dickie is bigger and all that... Bless... Try not to break everything, gals and boyyos...

 

[weltweit]

If you imagine the economy as containing just 11 capitalist players and having zero total growth. It is still possible that 7/10 of the players are making profits and the remaining 3/10 perhaps making big losses. The overall total effect on the market is zero.

And that is what actually occurs on the average, if you look at the members of a stockmarket, there are winners and losers. People who pick the winners do well, people who pick the average or the tracker funds do only averagely and those who pick bad stocks do badly.

Capitalist players can still make profit with zero growth. It just is not as simplistically easy as putting all your eggs in a tracker fund.

 

[weltweit]

PS: that was a typo. I meant 10 players NOT 11 and I can't edit my posts!