How will capitalism survive in a world of limited resources?

[So]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: So
I think the action of permanent colonization by 'citizens' of any nation will, more or less, nationalize the body they squat on.

It would be funny if a group of colonists collectively renounced their citizenship, and formed a nation while on another planet. Of course, we could always cancel the shipments of supplies... 😀

Realistically, it will probably develop much along the lines that the Americas did. People will move from the home nations, be loyal to their parent countries, and then after they are self sustaining, some thing or another will lead them to revolt. Wether or not they will succeed is another matter entirely, but it certainly is possible that with careful governing and a conscious choice to bring them into government, the way that the US adopted new states, revolution might be avoided.

 

[StageLeft]

WTF, the world has a limited number of resources now, and always has (and always will) and capitalism works fine. I almost wonder if you're asking how communism can work with limited resources.

 

[aircooled]

we'll just die and let our kids deal with it...

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Gannon
This is a question I have for anyone here...

How will capitalism survive in a world of limited resources? Well I want everyone who backs such a way of life (i.e. believing that it will never change) and belives the incentive-for-profit and material goods system of economics to tell me what happens when theres not enough resources to give everyone the same standard of living despite things like merit and 'hardwork'?

:roll:

the whole point of any economic system is to distribute limited resources. so your question answers itself.

capitalism is the most equitable way yet of distributing limited resources in a somewhat equitable way. the key is incentive.

what incentive do i have to do my best the best that i can. capitalism gives the greatest risk / reward.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Gannon
This is a question I have for anyone here...

How will capitalism survive in a world of limited resources? Well I want everyone who backs such a way of life (i.e. believing that it will never change) and belives the incentive-for-profit and material goods system of economics to tell me what happens when theres not enough resources to give everyone the same standard of living despite things like merit and 'hardwork'?

Wars. Lots of wars, for absolute and total control and dominance of resources. The world will end in total annihilation, due to wars over the last of the few precious scarce resources. That's all.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

the universe is big, plenty of stuff to go around for everyone

and to the op... everyone is not equally capable, and will not acheive the same standard of living. thats a fact so get over it already

 

[jer0608]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

While some factors beyond control of an individual - merit, ability and propensity toward work are still the PRIMARY factors in success/standard of living. Social mobility in a capitalistic society illustrates this perfectly - those factors outside of a persons' control such as race, age, ethnicity, physical limitations - can be overcome by individuals possessing the PRIMARY factors of success.

More specifically, the primary factors are ability and propensity toward work in a capacity that society deems meritorious. In a capitalistic society, this merit is based solely on how much value (generally money) the person is perceived to bring to their employer. For example, a costume designer on a movie set may exhibit the same level (or greater) of technical expertise and dedication to hard work as the lead actor. However, having that designer's name in the credits is not going to have the impact on box office receipts that the actor's billing will. Hence, the actor makes fifty times as much. An employee's "merit" becomes even more subjective when he/she works in public service. Their standard of living can then become primarily a function of political priority.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: hjo3
Why wouldn't it? How does a resource deficit necessitate a system other than capitalism? Some will have and some won't. That's how it always is.

So the tenets of the idealogy that 'anyone can become rich' through merit or hardwork through capitalism, and that capitalism works based on meritocracy is pure bs.

Capitalism doesn't care about hard work. Capitalism only cares about goods and services that are wanted/needed. Just because I'm the best damn acid covered butt plug manufactorer in the world doesn't mean anyone is going to want, and thus pay for, my wares.

 

[amoeba]

I feel OP is confused about the meaning of capitolism. Capitolism thrives on limited resources. Its rather communism that must have unlimited resources as a prerequisite.

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: hjo3
Why wouldn't it? How does a resource deficit necessitate a system other than capitalism? Some will have and some won't. That's how it always is.

Because it aims right at the core of capitalism: That if you have the ability and merit you will be able to become wealthy. My point is in a world of limited resources this is in fact an impossiblity for most people because the worlds resources limited. Given a planet with everyone of equal ability, people are forced by limitations on resources by natural law to into inequity.

So the tenets of the idealogy that 'anyone can become rich' through merit or hardwork through capitalism, and that capitalism works based on meritocracy is pure bs.

You really need to stop and think about what you are saying. We live in a world of limited resources right now. Capitalism is working. You do notice that gas prices have gone up? That is because there is a short supply. Is capitalism failing? Nope. Capitalism adjusts.

 

[CptObvious]

I'm not an economist, so this is just personal B.S. 🙂. But the way I see it, capitalism needs a big bottom class (i.e. cheap labor) to thrive. When labor costs go up (implementing worker rights, minimum wage laws) then we get our cheap labor for manufacturing from other countries. As long as cheap labor is plentiful (and technology keeps costs down) then I think the system is sustainable.

Theoretically, it would be impossible for everyone to become wealthy. Although, in this country we're approaching a standard of living where at least most people can afford a habitable place to live and live into old age. As long as that's the case I don't think you'll be seeing any coup d'etat in the U.S. soon.

 

[JDub02]

no such thing as limited resources ... human ingenuity is limitless. the whole argument gets thrown out the window.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: CptObvious
I'm not an economist, so this is just personal B.S. 🙂. But the way I see it, capitalism needs a big bottom class (i.e. cheap labor) to thrive. When labor costs go up (implementing worker rights, minimum wage laws) then we get our cheap labor for manufacturing from other countries. As long as cheap labor is plentiful (and technology keeps costs down) then I think the system is sustainable.

That's an interesting insight. Essentially, that implies that Capitalism is classful, having a "capitalist producer/owner" class, and a "laborer/consumer" class. Once those two merge, then both the classes, and the apparent merits of capitalism, would seem to diminish. IOW, does that imply that socialism and then communism will eventually take over as the predominant system, when all of the pools of cheap labor and cheap raw materials dry up, and thus no areas of "profitable exploitation" exist anymore?

Is this what happens with the smaller, more isolated european nations, that eventually settle into a part-way socialist equalibrium? Their standards of living in most of those places is actually pretty good, as I understand it, even though the raw numbers in terms of things like taxes would appear high to those of us in the US. (Not like healthcare here is really much cheaper here though, right now it's sky-rocketing in cost with nearly no end in sight.)

Originally posted by: CptObvious
Theoretically, it would be impossible for everyone to become wealthy. Although, in this country we're approaching a standard of living where at least most people can afford a habitable place to live and live into old age. As long as that's the case I don't think you'll be seeing any coup d'etat in the U.S. soon.

Well, I see it as a nearly zero-sum game, obviously, there's no way that everyone can become increasingly wealthier, without bound. There simply aren't enough resources to go around.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: So
True, but those are only very tentative steps. What we need is human exploration, and permanent outposts. Robots and remote telescopes are pretty, but if they get stuck, nobody frets too much. If people are out there, it will create a demand for cheap transportation and a market for goods.

The trouble is getting the "world" to contribute more towards this type of effort instead of Americans ending up paying for most of it, as has traditionally been the case.

But yes, in principle - I totally agree. It's a slow process though, developing the technology comes gradually... first making it possible, then making affordable, etc.

We'll get there. :beer:😀

That sound more along the communist line.

I think that human will die in a whimper like the dinosaur, because we use up natural resource. Nature will find a way to set civilization back such as diseases and human greed (Capitalism & War).

And, until we find a way to reduce the 1:25 ratio of energy requirement to break free from the earth. The only possibility to make mining space become viable is that we can harness fusion energy. Then we no longer require to mine space for energy because fusion save the energy crisis.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: So
True, but those are only very tentative steps. What we need is human exploration, and permanent outposts. Robots and remote telescopes are pretty, but if they get stuck, nobody frets too much. If people are out there, it will create a demand for cheap transportation and a market for goods.

The trouble is getting the "world" to contribute more towards this type of effort instead of Americans ending up paying for most of it, as has traditionally been the case.

But yes, in principle - I totally agree. It's a slow process though, developing the technology comes gradually... first making it possible, then making affordable, etc.

We'll get there. :beer:😀

That sound more along the communist line.

I think that human will die in a whimper like the dinosaur, because we use up natural resource. Nature will find a way to set civilization back such as diseases and human greed (Capitalism & War).

And, until we find a way to reduce the 1:25 ratio of energy requirement to break free from the earth. The only possibility to make mining space become viable is that we can harness fusion energy. Then we no longer require to mine space for energy because fusion save the energy crisis.

We don't need to lower the energy to get to orbit, we simply need something with higher energy. We already have such a thing: Nuclear rockets. Yes they sound like to boogeyman to a lot of people, but with careful design they could bwe QUITE safe.

 

[MisterCornell]

Capitalism survives *because* we live in a world of limited resources. Markets ensure the most efficient distribution of resources.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Gannon
This is a question I have for anyone here...

How will capitalism survive in a world of limited resources? Well I want everyone who backs such a way of life (i.e. believing that it will never change) and belives the incentive-for-profit and material goods system of economics to tell me what happens when theres not enough resources to give everyone the same standard of living despite things like merit and 'hardwork'?

That is why I believe the (politically incorrect) view that there really is not enough to go around, and therefore some people must stay poor. Not everyone can be rich, we have to fight over the limited resources we have. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and it's survival of the fittest.

I can't blame other countries for trying to topple the US, but you can't blame the US for trying its hardest to stay on top, either.

 

[CptObvious]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Well, I see it as a nearly zero-sum game, obviously, there's no way that everyone can become increasingly wealthier, without bound. There simply aren't enough resources to go around.

IMO, technology is the X factor. It has made using and distributing resources much more efficient, so that there's more to go around. The relative wealth disparity between rich and poor might still be the same (or gotten wider), but arguably every class is wealthier today than they were, say 100 years ago. I agree with you that it's still like a zero-sum game though.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Gannon
This is a question I have for anyone here...

How will capitalism survive in a world of limited resources? Well I want everyone who backs such a way of life (i.e. believing that it will never change) and belives the incentive-for-profit and material goods system of economics to tell me what happens when theres not enough resources to give everyone the same standard of living despite things like merit and 'hardwork'?

Actually, capitalism fails as an economic model most strongly in a world of unlimited resources. Look at how the recording industry is grasping as stronger and stronger government granted monopoly rights in their efforts to deal with the problem of digital goods have an effectively infinite supply and thus zero price.

 

[Vic]

How will capitalism survive in a world of limited resources? Simple. It's more efficient than any other economic system, and it's merit-based distribution system encourages the development of ever increasing efficiencies.

The real question is: how do trolls survive on ATOT?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cquark
Actually, capitalism fails as an economic model most strongly in a world of unlimited resources. Look at how the recording industry is grasping as stronger and stronger government granted monopoly rights in their efforts to deal with the problem of digital goods have an effectively infinite supply and thus zero price.

You are correct. Unfortunately, the OP was trolling. He really isn't concerned about capitalism's superior efficiency in our real world of limited resources, he was just crying about economic class inequalities, as though such things do not exist in every economic system.

 

[fjorner]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: hjo3
Why wouldn't it? How does a resource deficit necessitate a system other than capitalism? Some will have and some won't. That's how it always is.

Because it aims right at the core of capitalism: That if you have the ability and merit you will be able to become wealthy. My point is in a world of limited resources this is in fact an impossiblity for most people because the worlds resources limited. Given a planet with everyone of equal ability, people are forced by limitations on resources by natural law to into inequity.

So the tenets of the idealogy that 'anyone can become rich' through merit or hardwork through capitalism, and that capitalism works based on meritocracy is pure bs.

I'm sure you're a pleasant person to talk to at parties.

There's a very limited supply of silicon and uranium in the world. Gold and diamonds are 'rare'. Just because something is limited doesn't mean people can't make money selling it.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cquark
Actually, capitalism fails as an economic model most strongly in a world of unlimited resources. Look at how the recording industry is grasping as stronger and stronger government granted monopoly rights in their efforts to deal with the problem of digital goods have an effectively infinite supply and thus zero price.

You are correct. Unfortunately, the OP was trolling. He really isn't concerned about capitalism's superior efficiency in our real world of limited resources, he was just crying about economic class inequalities, as though such things do not exist in every economic system.

To clarify: Such things are not supposed to exist in every system, but they do exist in every system.

 

It won't. There are many books on this topic.
There have been many cultures that have risen and fallen because they have used up all of their resources and cannot renew them.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: SampSon
It won't. There are many books on this topic.
There have been many cultures that have risen and fallen because they have used up all of their resources and cannot renew them.

Example?