Green Capitalism and Buddhist Economics Thread

[Person Man]

Capitalism doesn't need to be about accumulating profits.  It can be about making profit that then goes back into the business enterprise to further it (of course there's going to be a desire for some accumulation of profit to serve as security for the enterprise). That furthering of the enterprise is itself a move toward a form of growth though, at least at the micro level.

I think that many places will see stagnating or slightly recessionary economies even with high employment.

We're gonna have to figure out how to keep innovation going in a world with a shrinking population and lessening of a burden on ecosystems.  It won't be about a race to the top anymore.. it'll be about quality of life increases and keeping the market stable despite ever-decreasing demand.

Though have we really reached a point of reducing population?

[Person Man]

True Buddhist economics would probably teach that economies are strong only if the individual were to believe the economy in which he lives is strong.  Therefore, there would be no real economic policy only resolutions reaffirming that the body believes in the strength of its economy and will continue to invest in it accordingly.

Well, that's been a major problem with this recovery, hasn't it? Its been truly a case study of the Four Noble Truths.

[Person Man]

Capitalism doesn't need to be about accumulating profits.  It can be about making profit that then goes back into the business enterprise to further it (of course there's going to be a desire for some accumulation of profit to serve as security for the enterprise). That furthering of the enterprise is itself a move toward a form of growth though, at least at the micro level.

I think that even if Economy stops growing significantly in the developed world, I don't see it really as a terrible thing and I don't believe that profits will end even with low growth economies. Dual Realities are supposed to happen soon in the Devoloped World, some sectors such as the high tech world would keep being highly profitable and dynamic, while traditional industries will totally disapear in the rich countries!

We had a thread a thread about growth and capitalism a couple of months ago, and a question was brought up that is a good one - what exactly is meant by "growth in the economy"? how is it measured?

Certainly we are gonna have to address what "growth" really means.  To me, growth should mean that the vast majority are seeing improvements in quality or duration of life with increasing amounts of "free" time as automation takes over.

The GDP doesn't have to grow for that to be the case, at least if the population is falling.

I agree with traininthedistance's prognosis in this thread that we're gonna have to shift our focus to another engine of growth... which will be what I outlined above.

In the meantime, we need to improve the lot of humanity by redistributing them to places that need their labor.  So this means increased immigration to developed nations from Africa, for example... since Africa is one of the last holdouts of high fertility with a large "youth bulge".  Not even India and especially not China have many people to give up to developed nations anymore.

In fact, China, demographically speaking, is exactly where Japan was in 1990-1995... there is going to be a very rapid ageing of the Chinese population in the coming 20 years.

We could see a reversal, actually... where places in Europe and North America have higher fertility than South America or Asia...

The psychological reasons underpinning the demographic transition are very complex and have too many factors at play to be able to generalize... but I think our natural response to a perceived shortage of resources was to have fewer children, even if we attributed that choice to other things directly (cost of raising a child being the major thing).

If population falls enough or we become efficient enough with or find more resources that makes them cheap and plentiful... large families will make a comeback... and probably first in the richest nations since they would benefit first from a lower population or more resources.

Look at birth stats from the U.S.  Births began to fall after 1921 in the U.S. from a high of 3 million down to 2.3 million by 1933.  They didn't rise above 3 million again until 1943.

But the number of babies born in the U.S. reached a then record of 4.35 million in 1957... when those born in 1933 were 24 years old.

So... the smallest generation, relatively speaking, in American history, produced the baby boomer generation.

Moral of the spergstory:  Changes are unpredictable and can happen quickly.

Could lower birthrates be also attributed to higher lifestyle expectations and more "relative" deprivation? (in the red exurbs or the rural frontier, a young couple that makes 40 or 50K a year, where the richest guy in town is a tie between one of the town's 5 or 10 doctors or  some small businessman, they will probably feel they could "cowboy up" and afford to have three kids, no problem. On the other hand, in the big blue city or famous countryside, a young couple that makes 125 or even 150 a year, where they can barely afford their 900 square foot, half million dollar condo. Everybody they know is either a millionaire or makes a little less than they do and are on welfare. They tell their family "well, we could have a kid, but we don't have any room in our place and we don't want to go on welfare".

The question is- If there was more income equality, would fertility rates be higher? - Would restricting excess economic liberalism be more effective at encouraging people to start families and keep them together more than combating the excesses of civil liberalism?

[Person Man]

Does restricting abortion really work in raising the birth rate? Of course, in a country where the state is much more powerful and there are far fewer recognized liberty interests, the police can do whatever they want.

[Person Man]

Another important factor that has an effect on birth rates- probably the most important effect in fact- is the level of education afforded to girls and women.  The more education, the fewer kids. 

The most important factor affecting birth rates is urbanisation. Essentially, the cost of raising children is much higher in cities. Main issues are housing, and the opportunity cost of devoting time to child care instead of gaining income. In cities, women have much better income opportunities than in rural areas.

Nevertheless, female education is highly relevant as well. There are several factors in play here. First, there is a clear relation between infant/ child mortality and birth rates, and better educated mothers tend to have lower infant / child mortality rates. Secondly, better education also means longer education, which pushes forward motherhood age. In the case of Germany, the birth rate decline that set in after 1968 was almost completely caused by a strong drop in pregnancies of 16-25 year old women. Birth rates of 25-35 year old have remained virtually unchanged, birth rates over 35 have even increased slightly. Last but not least, in an urbanised/industrialised society, better education also means better income opportunities and as such higher opportunity costs of motherhood.

But yeah... eastern Europe under communism had lower birth rates after the war, but then higher birth rates than western Europe in the 70s and 80s because birth rates there had fallen along with the west whent he baby boom was over in the 60s... so the government was proactive by restricting abortions and providing free childcare for children.. so basically like in 1980s east Germany, the birth rate was higher than West Germany because of those supports... but it was still low by world standards.

Abortion restrictions are insignificant in this context. The difference between pre-unification West and East German birth rates was mainly caused by
a.) Strong East German incentives for parenthood - having a child pushed you up the applicant list for newly-constructed flats. In the centrally-planned economic context (no housing market), you needed to have a child to be able to move out of the parents' flat, more children meant access to larger flats and/or the opportunity to build your own house;
b.) Low opportunity costs for mothers in the East: Government-guaranteed employment, and the availability of a well developed early-child care infrastructure ensured that mothers could quickly continue their professional careers after some 12-15 months baby pause.

In fact, the lack of an early-child care infrastructure in the West (not only in relation to former East Germany and Scandinavia, but also compared to countries like France or Belgium) is regarded a main cause for low German birth rates, and one of the key topics of the current election campaign here. Professional care (early childhood as well as for the elderly) has been a key driver of the recent German employment boom, and may be considered an element of green/ Buddhist economic transformation.

Another question would be what kind of effects on the birth rate, population rate and growth rate if there was some widespread medical way to expand the working years by 20 years so that many if not most people work into their 80s.