Green Capitalism and Buddhist Economics Thread

[Sec. of State Superique]

Is there any real viable path to a transition from a materialist, consumerist market economy to a non-materialist green market-based economy? Capitalism has been crucial to our society and it changed the whole dynamics of human beings but it's hard to say that it could exist on a society that is not based on growth anymore.

The centerpiece of Capitalism is about accumulating profits, thus Growth is a necessity of what-we-call Capitalism. It's hard to me to figure out a way that a non-matherialist society, which focus is not only on economic growth anymore, can co-exist with a the traditional capitalist thinking.

I'm an optimist, maybe the Utopia would be a green post-capitalist society.

What do you think of that? Feel free to talk about Green Marxism, Green Libertarianism, Buddhist Economics, Tim Jackson's Book (Prosperity without Growth), the Gaia Theory and De-Growth. Let's debate!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Apple seemed to do very well capitalism wise when led by a Buddhist.

[DC Al Fine]

Apple seemed to do very well capitalism wise when led by a Buddhist.

And those Chinese factories were run according to Buddhist principles I assume.

[opebo]

You're kidding, that horrible Steve Jobs was a phoney Buddhist as well?

[ag]

Can we talk about something more realistic? Like intergalactic flight in th 75th century?

[opebo]

Can we talk about something more realistic? Like intergalactic flight in th 75th century?

Won't the situation be 'self-regulating'?  Scarcity will lead to a die-off of humans, thus resolving scarcity - and without any alteration of the precious system of control.

[Franknburger]

What's so difficult about it? You just need something non-material, e.g. a mp3 file, attach a price tag, and sell it. Voila - Buddhist capitalism Steve Jobs style!
It also works with computer game gimmicks (and the games themselves, if they can be purchased online for download), sponsorship on a piece of rain forest, your online post-graduate diploma, pay-tv, e-books and various other stuff. Insurance, as well as various kinds of financial investments, especially futures, have always been immaterial (though based on underlying physical assets). Arguably, while including some use of goods, a spa treatment is mostly immaterial as well.

Until the turn of the millennium, economic growth was closely correlated with energy consumption. That relation has now been cut in most industrialised countries.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[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?

[traininthedistance]

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?

Not globally, but locally in many places, especially the most prosperous and well-developed ones.  Europe and Japan are shrinking fast, and the USA would be stagnant were it not for immigration.

In the short-to-medium term, this is in fact an argument for massive, massive increases in immigration to First World countries from places like Sub-Saharan Africa.  It'll improve the lives of both the immigrants (of course) and the people who stay behind (less competition for resources); it'll help prop up the balance sheets over here while we try and figure out a way to keep an economy going when population growth can no longer be counted on as the "engine" of growth.  At some point, probably sooner than we think, we do need to transition to a steady-state economy, where the growth in material goods stops, and can no longer be relied upon as the "engine of capitalism".  Both because global population will peak, and because there are hard natural resource constraints we are coming up against.  (Environmental degradation plays a part here too, of course.)  There can still be an indefinite increase in knowledge, services, and other less-corporeal kinds of value, of course- and right now we still need to buy some time before that point, so we can figure out how to make that transition with a minimum of unpleasantness.

[Sec. of State Superique]

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!

[Sec. of State Superique]

Apple seemed to do very well capitalism wise when led by a Buddhist.

Steve Jobs and E.F Schumacher proposed totally different things. E.F Schumacher wanted to use technology to promote human's peace of mind and to help them (not substitute them) on their activities while Jobs wasn't worried about those .

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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?

[King]

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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[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?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Obviously the cost of raising a child is a big part of peoples' decisions to have or to not have children nowadays.  But it is only a small part of the much broader cycles that occur that determine where birth rates go.

I mean, social events play a huge role.  Demographers have found that when a population suffers famine, for example, evolution has developed a way that ultimately restores the population to pre-famine levels rather quickly once the famine is over.

They find when they examine population structures before, during, and after famines, that the famine becomes a minor blip in the population growth line.  This is because famines tend to kill the old and the very young.  Healthy adults tend to survive famines.  Then, once there is plentiful food again... the birth rate goes up as people who delayed having children during the famine have their children all at the same time. 

At the same time, there are fewer elderly, sick people than their were prior to the famine because the famine shortened their already short remaining lifespans... so the death rate falls substantially for a period of years after a famine even as the birth rate is higher than it otherwise would have been.. so the population recovers all of those lost within a few years after the famine.

That happened with the succession of WWI, the economic volatility of the '20s that hurt rural Americans, who tended to be the babymakers, then the depression/dustbowl, then the war... when the war was over, there was a baby boom... but the boom had actually begun in 1939 as people began to see war as inevitable and thought "it's now or never".  In fact, in many European countries, their birth rates were highest *during* the war years and outside fo a brief boom of babies 9 months after the soldiers came home, birth rates fell throughout the late 40s and 50s.  But that's because those countries had already seen their birth rates fall earlier than in America... so the boom was strongest earlier in those nations as there were fewer people in their early 20s after the war than, say, in the mid 30s.

So yeah... present economic situation and expected future economic situation play the biggest roles... but other sociological things play in to it.

As for income equality raising birth rates:  The Scandinavian countries have had a model of redistributive policies for parents along with strong support for working parents that have meant fertility rates there have been higher than the countries without major support or a social history of stigmatizing working mothers (pick one, they say).

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.

So yeah... income equality would probably raise them a bit... but ultimately a lot of babies are born into situations where the mother didn't consider the economic ramifications... supporting parents can raise the birth rate... but again a lot of it will come down to large social events or economic movements. 

[traininthedistance]

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. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

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. 

True... but ultimately societies that begin opening up education to women tend to simultaneously do things that also help to reduce birth rates (family planning organizations often promote education as well as other family planning services).

Iran had an extremely fast transition from high fertility to low fertility in 10 years specifically because of family planning law changes.  Their total fertility rate now sits around 1.6 children per woman, down from 6 per woman in the mid 1980s, and Iran now has one of the fastest ageing populations on earth.

And I think we'll see only positive change in Iran from here as the society literally becomes more mature.

[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.

[Franknburger]

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.

[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.

[robbin_hunting]

Apple seemed to do very well capitalism wise when led by a Buddhist.

Steve Jobs has lived a life "miles away" from traditional Buddhist beliefs.