Is international capitalism a pyramid scheme

redarmyblues

And is our civilisation as a consequence doomed.
It is given there is infinite demand for and a finite supply of resources.
And it appears that the worlds population has now reached a point where it is hyper sensitive to shortages whether they be a shortage of water, credit, food or whatever.

The Irish property boom of the last few years was a classical pyramid scheme. For example a group of dentists would buy an office block at a yield less that the cost of funding the loan. Hold it for a short period and sell it on as an appreciated asset to a bunch of lawyers and so on until a consortium of circus ringmasters were left holding the baby. Of course the dentists instead of banking the money got involved in another pyramid scheme involving Ruratarian timeshares and are now just as frucked as the ringmasters. The point is most of if not all of investors in pyramid schemes get burned.

I believe that capitalism is a pyramid scheme and that some future generation was always going to be victims of this great game. I also suspect that this generation may already have been born.

I am not calling for action. I think that human intervention is futile and our rationalism is an illusion; driven as we are by darwinian imperatives.

Any comments?

cavedave

It is given there is infinite demand for and a finite supply of resources.

Keynes, Fuller and many other economists thought we should develop to a point roughly where Maslows hierarchy of needs are fulfilled then seek to self actualise. this is described in "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" and "critical path" respectively.

And it appears that the worlds population has now reached a point where it is hyper sensitive to shortages whether they be a shortage of water, credit, food or whatever.

For most of humanity's history we seem to have lived in a Malthusian deathtrap like this. Hopefully technology has removed us from this peak everything situation. Ephemeralization is the way forward.

The Irish property boom of the last few years was a classical pyramid scheme.

It might be closer to a martingale. Bubbles have been around a long time and will keep popping up.

I believe that capitalism is a pyramid scheme and that some future generation was always going to be victims of this great game. I also suspect that this generation may already have been born.

"Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generations which preceded it. Man has no property in man, neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow" Tom Paine (my current favorite quote)

I am not calling for action. I think that human intervention is futile and our rationalism is an illusion; driven as we are by darwinian imperatives.

Oh right i shouldn't have bothered replying so....

The_Minister

Locked.

Get a blog.

redarmyblues

It might be closer to a martingale. Bubbles have been around a long time and will keep popping up.[/QUOTE6.]

Is the earth not now in the middle of population bubble 1931 the year my father was born the worlds population was 2b it is now estimated at 6.6b, Surely a correction is due.

"For most of humanity's history we seem to have lived in a Malthusian deathtrap like this. Hopefully technology has removed us from this peak everything situation. Ephemeralization is the way forward."

Technology does not liberate us, rather it condemns us. Technology has given us innovation, it has given ever more complex instruments of production and distribution, systems that few if any understand. Technology has become the machine of consumption a machine that condemns us to the exhaustation of the earth.

I like your Tom Paine quote but I like Augustine too "make me good lord, but not yet"

What is Ephemeralization

nesf

redarmyblues wrote: »

Is the earth not now in the middle of population bubble 1931 the year my father was born the worlds population was 2b it is now estimated at 6.6b, Surely a correction is due.

In simple terms, we can feed a hell of a lot more people now than we could in the 1930s due to technological improvements in agriculture. So Malthusian logic doesn't really work for this specific reason.

Red Hand

nesf wrote: »

In simple terms, we can feed a hell of a lot more people now than we could in the 1930s due to technological improvements in agriculture. So Malthusian logic doesn't really work for this specific reason.

But at the expense of land, biodiversity, fish stocks-you name it.

Yes, yields have dramatically increased due to the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution which started in the 40's has indeed prevented famine in places that traditionally suffered famine every few years like India.

New technologies allow us to feed more people. More people mean that more new technology will need to be developed to feed their offspring. It's a cycle that will, in my opinion, very likely result in eventual population collapse.

Bacteria growing on a petri dish will eventually consume all available food. The wastes and toxins they produce, not to mention the fact that they have consume the available food, will result in most dying off. Likewise, people's impact on the planet.

IMO of course.:)

nesf

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

But at the expense of land, biodiversity, fish stocks-you name it.

Yes, yields have dramatically increased due to the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution which started in the 40's has indeed prevented famine in places that traditionally suffered famine every few years like India.

New technologies allow us to feed more people. More people mean that more new technology will need to be developed to feed their offspring. It's a cycle that will, in my opinion, very likely result in eventual population collapse.

Bacteria growing on a petri dish will eventually consume all available food. The wastes and toxins they produce, not to mention the fact that they have consume the available food, will result in most dying off. Likewise, people's impact on the planet.

IMO of course.:)

I don't disagree necessarily, it's more that technological advances complicate matters a great deal because we can't predict future trends with any great accuracy beyond the short term (i.e. in 50-100 years it's possible that we may have found technological means at massively limiting our pollution levels at a relatively low cost to present technologies).

redarmyblues

One issue I have raised is that technology has enabled us to consume resources at a greater rate, the better we get, the worse it is for humanity.

Flamed Diving

redarmyblues wrote: »

One issue I have raised is that technology has enabled us to consume resources at a greater rate, the better we get, the worse it is for humanity.

So the better technology gets, the worse off humanity is?

redarmyblues

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So the better technology gets, the worse off humanity is?

Technology poses two fundamental problems for the human race.
Complexity and Consumption.

Complexity. As complexity increases durability decreases. Complex systems are often poorly understood ,to repair a complex system you need specialised knowledge and components. In the absence of these the process is useless,. Interdependabilty means that the failure of one system can lead to the failure of other related systems and so on (think bank failures leading to factory closures). Complexity means that broken processes may be cheaper to replace rather than repair (think broken DVD player) which leads to waste which leads to Consumption. Technology enables us to exploit resources efficiently and therefore supply goods cheaply enabling a post Malthusian senario whereby the production of essentials does not increase at a arithmetic rate but rather at geometric rate alongside population. As Population increases, available resources decrease, until the absence of a crucial commodity or two leads to collapse. (think peak oil)

redarmyblues

I just came across this.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/World%20Population%20and%20Oil%201900.JPG

Offalycool

I'm not an economist, at least as far as theory is concerned. I do feel that interaction between men requires us to use some form of credit for practical purposes, so I suppose capitalism in some form is necessary. I did come across a vid called "Money as Debt" on google video which basicly claims there is not enough money in the system to pay the interest charged by banks because they put the total money in the system, thereby ensuring defaulters. Bankers only create the money when you sign for a lone out of the promise you make to pay the lone, there is nothing of value behind the credit on the banks side. Only the work you do to pay the lone has value. I am sure this is oversimplified, but it would suggest to me that international capitalism is a pyramid scheme. The video suggest responsible debts systems would involve the state taking the power to create money out of the hands of the banks. What do people think of this argument?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

nyarlothothep

The credit crunch imo was the result of a lack of regulation, of dogmatic neo liberal policies in the sense that externalities were not factored in (external risks generated by economic activities) , with preference for short term gains imo.

I think that humanity suffers from last minute panic syndrome, similar to when you're meant to be studying for exams. People panicked about the Ozone layer and prevented it from getting larger by banning CFCs. Now we're trying to alleviate the global warming crisis at the last minute. Then it will be peak oil. We already have technological processes to produce oil from dead chicken carcasses (as I recall) and bugs genetically modified to excrete it.

A lot of people laugh at this, or think its airy fairy, but our future is in space. We must colonize other planets if we are to ensure our survival, otherwise it looks very shaky.

mrhappy42

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/633


George Soros extends his “theory of reflexivity” from abstraction to application in the realm of investing. His book, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets, offers a timely look at the credit crisis that reached crescendo in 2008. His views fall between prescience and vindication. Nevertheless, he concedes fallibility: “With all my great, deep understanding, I don’t always get the markets right.”

Baird

mrhappy42 wrote: »

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/633


George Soros extends his “theory of reflexivity” from abstraction to application in the realm of investing. His book, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets, offers a timely look at the credit crisis that reached crescendo in 2008. His views fall between prescience and vindication. Nevertheless, he concedes fallibility: “With all my great, deep understanding, I don’t always get the markets right.”

I have read that book twice and in my opinion its nothing but a fluff piece to be honest.
He is trying to create subtle differences between his new paradigms and exist
paradigms for the sole purpose of being credited with being a intellectual genius
with his own theory.
After reading it, despite it being interesting at the time, i had actually
learned very little. A pity

redarmyblues

Irish Capitalism must be a pyramid scheme when a Fianna Fail government is nationalising banks quicker than Joe Higgins on rollerskates.

edanto

You're not the first to put across an argument like this, but it quickly upsets economists if you suggest that there is some kind of conspiracy.

Of course there isn't some walnut panelled room somewhere with a load of silver haired old men deciding on what the 'news' will be or what catastrophe to unleash on the market just as soon as they've moved their money out of harms way.

Even though that is the simplest solution to explain the state of the world, it would require a level of co-ordination and secrecy that is impossible.

You'll probably find Herman Daly an interesting character. Here's something that he wrote in New Scientist a few years ago:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.300-special-report-economics-blind-spot-is-a-disaster-for-the-planet.html?page=1

As long as our economic system is based on chasing economic growth above all else, we are heading for environmental, and economic, disaster. To avoid this fate, we must switch our focus from quantitative growth to qualitative development, and set strict limits on the rate at which we consume the Earth's resources. In such a "steady-state" economy, the value of goods produced can still increase, for example through technological innovation or better distribution, but the physical scale of our economy must be kept at a level the planet is able to sustain.

Can we transform our economy from a forward-moving aeroplane to a hovering helicopter without crashing? After 200 years in a growth economy, it is hard to imagine what a steady-state economy might look like, but it does not have to mean freezing in the dark under a communist tyranny (see "Life in a land without growth"). Most of the changes could be applied gradually, in mid-air.

And something he wrote last year for Adbusters that cuts through all the bullsh1t about 'liquidity crisis' and calls a spade a spade.
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/81/the_crisis.html

The turmoil affecting the world economy unleashed by the US sub-prime debt crisis isn’t really a crisis of “liquidity” as it is often called. A liquidity crisis would imply that the economy was in trouble because businesses could no longer obtain credit and loans to finance their investments. In fact, the crisis is the result of the overgrowth of financial assets relative to growth of real wealth— basically the opposite of too little liquidity. We need to take a step back and explore some of the fundamentals that growth-obsessed economists and commentators tend to neglect.

Capitalism isn't a pyramid scheme, in answer to your question, but the corporate structure and legal obligation to deliver a return on shareholder investment above all else means that people in corporations are forced to do all kinds of ethically unpleasant things (such as sweatshop labour and environmental destruction cf externalities)

Give this video 5 minutes to get moving and I'd bet you watch it to the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8