If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?

[Shared Humanity]

The desire for growth is not unique to capitalism.  Socialism also seeks growth in order to improve the conditions of the people living within the system.  That means that we can't use growth as a definer of capitalism.

Is growth required for a capitalistic economy to survive?  Well, if the economy shrinks enough the economy will collapse.  Same holds for socialist economies, which seem to create conditions that bring a higher risk of collapse.

We may not see capitalist economies that are stable over long periods of time but that does not prove that a non-growing, stable state capitalist economy would collapse.  Landlords would simply get the same amount of rent over the years and pay the same for a bunch of carrots at the market.

Capitalism is very good at growing economies so we rarely, if ever, see a stagnant capitalistic economy.  But that does not prove that one would not be possible and does not prove that a growing economy is part of the definition of capitalism.

Socialist states are simply another way for a nation to organize itself within the system of capitalism. All of the attributes of a capitalistic country are still in place. Socialism is nothing more than an institutional response to the effects of unfettered capitalism.

[Bob Wallace]

The savings rate for the bottom 50% of Americans is nearly non existent. Every single dollar of additional income will result in multiple dollars of additional spending as these dollars change hands rapidly.

What few of the greedy wealthy seem to not realize that if they were to allow incomes on the bottom to grow a bit business would greatly profit.

Right now wealth is being hoarded by a few and spent trading among themselves for a limited number of luxury condos on Central Park and works of art.  Their money is not working for them.

[Bob Wallace]

Socialist states are simply another way for a nation to organize itself within the system of capitalism. All of the attributes of a capitalistic country are still in place. Socialism is nothing more than an institutional response to the effects of unfettered capitalism.

Nope.  Here you just make scrambled eggs of the two economic systems.

[SteveMDFP]

Capital accumulation requires growth and borrowing only occurs when returns from the investment are in excess of the cost of capital. Capital is never lent if the prospects of getting the money back with a fair return is not possible.

Not quite true.  Plenty of lending happens on the basis of debtor's current positive cash flow, with no expectation of "growth."

It's undeniably true that actors in a capitalist system *seek* growth.  It's also undeniably true that when an economy fails to grow, the institutions of capitalism persist anyway.

[johnm33]

-snip- The distinction between socialism and capitalism is not as powerful as the ideologues would have us believe. They are both growth systems with the predominant difference being how the pie is divided. snip

The real distinction is that in capitalism man ruthlessly exploits man, in socialism it's the other way round.

[TerryM]

Feminists may take umbrage at the above, but only after it's been commodified and offered for sale.
Terry

[Capt Kiwi]

Perhaps this entire conversation is irrelevant (sorry 😂) in that if a population grows from say 1 to 1.5 million there will be growth. Within that population there will be increased efficiency with better division of labour and there will be a top 10% of people with the highest intelligence and/or business acumen. Any system employed by this group would inevitably oversee growth and the development of an elite.
Maybe any system is “capable” of managing a static population without growth and none able to restrict the growth of a growing population.

[Bob Wallace]

The real distinction is that in capitalism man ruthlessly exploits man, in socialism it's the other way round.

Love it! 

[magnamentis]

The real distinction is that in capitalism man ruthlessly exploits man, in socialism it's the other way round.

Love it!

+1 and terry's reply 

[zizek]

The desire for growth is not unique to capitalism.  Socialism also seeks growth in order to improve the conditions of the people living within the system.  That means that we can't use growth as a definer of capitalism.

Is growth required for a capitalistic economy to survive?  Well, if the economy shrinks enough the economy will collapse.  Same holds for socialist economies, which seem to create conditions that bring a higher risk of collapse.

We may not see capitalist economies that are stable over long periods of time but that does not prove that a non-growing, stable state capitalist economy would collapse.  Landlords would simply get the same amount of rent over the years and pay the same for a bunch of carrots a
Capitalism is very good at growing economies so we rarely, if ever, see a stagnant capitalistic economy.  But that does not prove that one would not be possible and does not prove that a growing economy is part of the definition of capitalism.t the market.

Bob, you managed to completely contradict yourself. In a single post, only a paragraph apart. Impressive.

You keep  trying to envision a hypothetical non-growth capitalist system, and I keep on telling you, it's not possible.
If there is no growth, there is no profit motive. If there is no profit motive, then the transactions are either equitable, or slavery/serfdom/feudalism is in place.  Do me a favor, try realistically imagine the world you keep on creating:
Farmer: "hello sir landlord, thank you for inheriting all this land and making me pay rent. Here are the carrots I spent all day laboring in the sun for.  I really enjoy working extremely hard while you spend your days collecting rent. I hope I can find a way to pay rent when a drought comes. I was thinking of expanding my farm to pay you more carrots in case drought comes. Unfortunately I live in Bob Wallace's magical world of no growth and I will not do that"
Landlord: "Hello young farmer. I would not like any more money and expand my empire. But thank you for the offer. I also am not interested in buying any guards to protect me from peasant revolt, because you love working for me. All is well in the world. I hope this drought does not come!"

[zizek]

The desire for growth is not unique to capitalism.  Socialism also seeks growth in order to improve the conditions of the people living within the system.  That means that we can't use growth as a definer of capitalism.

You are sooooo close Bob!

"Socialism also seeks growth in order to improve the conditions of the people living within the system."
Isn't that beautiful? an economic system that grows to improve the conditions of the common people rather than accumulate wealth for shareholders & landlords?




I'm young. I get to experience climate change & capitalism's insatiable hunger for at least the next forty years. You got to enjoy the spoils of capitalism, imperialism, and unrestricted resource exploitation. Beneficiaries of a system will steep themselves in ignorance. 

[zizek]

Capital accumulation requires growth and borrowing only occurs when returns from the investment are in excess of the cost of capital. Capital is never lent if the prospects of getting the money back with a fair return is not possible.

Not quite true.  Plenty of lending happens on the basis of debtor's current positive cash flow, with no expectation of "growth."

It's undeniably true that actors in a capitalist system *seek* growth.  It's also undeniably true that when an economy fails to grow, the institutions of capitalism persist anyway.

Please private message me where I can get a 0% interest loan. I promise I won't tell anyone!

[sidd]

One way to disentangle population growth from economic growth is to look at per capita numbers.

data from worldbank shows continued rise in GDP per capita. here is  a graf for some capitalist countries.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maddison-data-gdp-per-capita-in-2011us?tab=chart&country=USA+JPN+GBR+DEU+FRA+ITA

so i still agree with Smith that the competitive market drives growth in capitalist systems independent of population growth.

(for data in precapitalist days look at

http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/rankh.htm)

sidd

[SteveMDFP]

Capital accumulation requires growth and borrowing only occurs when returns from the investment are in excess of the cost of capital. Capital is never lent if the prospects of getting the money back with a fair return is not possible.

Not quite true.  Plenty of lending happens on the basis of debtor's current positive cash flow, with no expectation of "growth."

It's undeniably true that actors in a capitalist system *seek* growth.  It's also undeniably true that when an economy fails to grow, the institutions of capitalism persist anyway.

Please private message me where I can get a 0% interest loan. I promise I won't tell anyone!

The existence of profit or income in a system does not imply increases in GDP, nor are increases in GDP necessary for income.  These are separate matters, obviously.

[Bob Wallace]

The desire for growth is not unique to capitalism.  Socialism also seeks growth in order to improve the conditions of the people living within the system.  That means that we can't use growth as a definer of capitalism.

Is growth required for a capitalistic economy to survive?  Well, if the economy shrinks enough the economy will collapse.  Same holds for socialist economies, which seem to create conditions that bring a higher risk of collapse.

We may not see capitalist economies that are stable over long periods of time but that does not prove that a non-growing, stable state capitalist economy would collapse.  Landlords would simply get the same amount of rent over the years and pay the same for a bunch of carrots a
Capitalism is very good at growing economies so we rarely, if ever, see a stagnant capitalistic economy.  But that does not prove that one would not be possible and does not prove that a growing economy is part of the definition of capitalism.t the market.

Bob, you managed to completely contradict yourself. In a single post, only a paragraph apart. Impressive.

You keep  trying to envision a hypothetical non-growth capitalist system, and I keep on telling you, it's not possible.
If there is no growth, there is no profit motive. If there is no profit motive, then the transactions are either equitable, or slavery/serfdom/feudalism is in place.  Do me a favor, try realistically imagine the world you keep on creating:
Farmer: "hello sir landlord, thank you for inheriting all this land and making me pay rent. Here are the carrots I spent all day laboring in the sun for.  I really enjoy working extremely hard while you spend your days collecting rent. I hope I can find a way to pay rent when a drought comes. I was thinking of expanding my farm to pay you more carrots in case drought comes. Unfortunately I live in Bob Wallace's magical world of no growth and I will not do that"
Landlord: "Hello young farmer. I would not like any more money and expand my empire. But thank you for the offer. I also am not interested in buying any guards to protect me from peasant revolt, because you love working for me. All is well in the world. I hope this drought does not come!"

Your lack of comprehension is disappointing.  There is nothing contradicting in the two parts you bolded. 

If there is no growth, there is no profit motive.

Wrong.  One can make profits in a shrinking economy. 

Perhaps you're confusing economic growth and carrot growth?

[etienne]

Socialist states are simply another way for a nation to organize itself within the system of capitalism. All of the attributes of a capitalistic country are still in place. Socialism is nothing more than an institutional response to the effects of unfettered capitalism.

Nope.  Here you just make scrambled eggs of the two economic systems.

Well, I thought this would be quite right. One main idea of Socialism is the idea that capital should be owned by the working class, that incomes should be shared. Look at the fruits : China, Vietnam, Cuba... you still have companies that need a market, incomes, production, growth... you have a state owned capital that is some kind of huge monopoly.

[Bob Wallace]

"Socialism also seeks growth in order to improve the conditions of the people living within the system."
Isn't that beautiful? an economic system that grows to improve the conditions of the common people rather than accumulate wealth for shareholders & landlords?

Do you understand the fatal flaw of a socialistic economy?  Not a partial socialistic economy in which we all get to benefit from the police and fire departments or all get healthcare, but a fully socialistic economy.

[Bob Wallace]

Socialist states are simply another way for a nation to organize itself within the system of capitalism. All of the attributes of a capitalistic country are still in place. Socialism is nothing more than an institutional response to the effects of unfettered capitalism.

Nope.  Here you just make scrambled eggs of the two economic systems.

Well, I thought this would be quite right. One main idea of Socialism is the idea that capital should be owned by the working class, that incomes should be shared. Look at the fruits : China, Vietnam, Cuba... you still have companies that need a market, incomes, production, growth... you have a state owned capital that is some kind of huge monopoly.

"All of the attributes of a capitalistic country are still in place."

Attributes are missing. 

A pure socialistic economy lacks incentives for individuals to produce more or think harder.  That's why you saw China, USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea resorting to repressive practices in order to keep thing moving along.  And not moving along very well.

Things for China and Vietnam changed rapidly when they moved more toward a capitalist model.  USSR, parts of it such as Russia, were taken over by crooks.   North Korea is simply a highly repressive monarchy.  Cuba is still giving socialism the old college try.

[sidd]

What is a "pure socialist economy" ?

sidd

[Bob Wallace]

What is a "pure socialist economy" ?

sidd

I'm happy with this Google definition of socialism.

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

A pure socialistic economy would be one in which all resources and means of production would be owned by "the community". 

[Sleepy]

For a Swede, at least older than 40, there is a huge difference between Socialism and Communism.

That's why you saw China, USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea resorting to repressive practices in order to keep thing moving along.  And not moving along very well.

But from a mitigation perspective; North Korea is a wonderland.
Adding the US (or any big polluter) into these graphs, would render their lines flat at the bottom.

[sidd]

Is there a "pure socialist economy" anywhere in the world ? now or earlier ?

Cuba is a mixed economy with state preponderance. China also. Same with India. Russia is state controlled oligarchy.  USA, UK are oligarchy controlled state. EU, Scandanavia are semi socialist, semi capitalist.

sidd

[Sleepy]

Not now as I see it, now I'm obviously biased but Sweden was probably as close as any nation has ever been, back in the 70's.

[Bob Wallace]

Is there a "pure socialist economy" anywhere in the world ? now or earlier ?

Cuba is a mixed economy with state preponderance. China also. Same with India. Russia is state controlled oligarchy.  USA, UK are oligarchy controlled state. EU, Scandanavia are semi socialist, semi capitalist.

sidd

Cuba is pretty lightly mixed when it comes to private ownership.  A few people have been able to open restaurants in their homes.  Stuff like that.

China is turning into a capitalistic economy with strong central government control.

The US has allowed the wealthy to exert more control than their votes would command but it a oligarchy controlled state is an overstatement.

The Nordic countries are mixed economies. 

[Sleepy]

The Nordic countries are mixed economies.

That's a bland term when new private owners have earned several hundred billion on the purchase of state-owned companies over the last decades. A lot of production has been moved abroad and common wealth has been moved to a small capital-strong group = capitialism.

[johnm33]

"Is there a "pure socialist economy" anywhere in the world ? now or earlier ? " The Inca had a decent try at it, on a civilizational scale.

[Shared Humanity]

Every single entity (individuals, LLC's, corporations, nation states) within the system of capitalism operates as a rational actor. Each makes decisions to increase its wealth and capital and, collectively, these decisions and choices drive growth and increase the wealth of society as a whole.

Are there examples of individuals or groups of individuals who live in capitalistic societies but are separate from the system? Yes, but these are utopias and, if we all choose such a lifestyle, capitalism ceases to exist. I would like to suggest that if a substantial portion of Americans were suddenly to choose to live in such a way, the oligarchy would quickly recognize the threat, mobilize the power of the state and viciously attack such a movement.

If you believe this last sentence is over the top, I suggest you read a little history about the British Empire and India to understand the empire's response to the revolutionary efforts on the part of Indian peasantry to re-establish their cottage industries of cloth making and sea salt production.

And if you want to get a true sense of modern capitalism, I cannot recommend any book more than "Empire of Cotton" by Sven Beckert.

[Shared Humanity]

Just an informal poll.

How many of us here know of individuals who are consciously striving everyday to reduce their income, wealth and resultant standard of living, essentially a no growth or negative growth strategy for living? How many of us, personally, have approached their lives this way?

1). Nope, don't want to invest in that company. Their prospects for growth and profitability are way to high.
2). Hmmmm....I could accept that job offer...I'd be making 30% more than I do currently and there are real opportunities for me to advance as the company is poised for a decade of rapid growth but who wants that?
3). Wow! Can't believe I just got a 23% raise! I can finally move out of this 2 room apartment, buying that nice condo I've been wanting. Nah, think I'll downsize to a studio and give away half of my furniture. Probably have to start that job search that pays me less so I don't have to deal with this again.
4). Buddy just keyed me into a bank offering low risk, short term CD's that offer an interest rate that is 7 times what I am currently getting on my savings account. Think I'll pull all of my savings out of the bank and store it in a coffee can instead.

The simple truth is that all of us are diligently working to get ahead, to provide for our families and to ensure a comfortable retirement. Many of us are successful and our value system extols the virtue of hard work and the rewards that result.

Our very language captures the values deeply embedded in this growth system.

1.) I failed to get the promotion.
2.) His business is struggling and failed to secure the bank loan as a result.

The less fortunate are obviously failing to do the things needed to get ahead.
The wealthy are tremendously successful.

[Shared Humanity]

Growth is not an accidental byproduct of the system of capitalism. Growth is its driving purpose and all of us work diligently to contribute and consequently reap the benefits of that growth. When people feel they are not being properly rewarded for their contributions, we form unions and loudly argue for fair pay. Political parties will build entire policy platforms on the issue of fairly distributing income so that all may benefit from a growing economy and, in the U.S., the wealth gap has become a big issue.

[Bob Wallace]

Are you arguing that growth or striving for growth is unique to capitalism?

If not then growth is common among economic systems therefore growth is not part of the definition of capitalism that sets it apart from other systems.

[wili]

SH wrote: "How many of us here know of individuals who are consciously striving everyday to reduce their income, wealth and resultant standard of living, essentially a no growth or negative growth strategy for living? How many of us, personally, have approached their lives this way?"

Me and a number of my friends and associates. But yeah, it's not the most common mindset.

"You may say..."

[Shared Humanity]

Are you arguing that growth or striving for growth is unique to capitalism?

If not then growth is common among economic systems therefore growth is not part of the definition of capitalism that sets it apart from other systems.

Countries that U.S. ideologues choose to call socialist have central banks, private business, universities etc. and, in my mind, are all part of the same growth system. If you would like to give it another name, I am fine with this. The developing world is rapidly integrating into this growth system, southeast Asia, China and India as well as parts of Africa. Central and South America are largely integrated into this growth system as well.

[etienne]

The only societies I can think of that don't grow are agricultural societies. This is mainly related to the fact that land is limited. There was a long period in Japan, but middle age in Europe also didn't grow so much, just like native societies in the Americas and in the Artic. Don't know about the other parts of the world.

[Bob Wallace]

Are you arguing that growth or striving for growth is unique to capitalism?

If not then growth is common among economic systems therefore growth is not part of the definition of capitalism that sets it apart from other systems.

Countries that U.S. ideologues choose to call socialist have central banks, private business, universities etc. and, in my mind, are all part of the same growth system. If you would like to give it another name, I am fine with this. The developing world is rapidly integrating into this growth system, southeast Asia, China and India as well as parts of Africa. Central and South America are largely integrated into this growth system as well.

You did not answer my question.

The 'another name' is a mixed economy.  Neither 100% capitalist nore 100% socialist.

Let's get back to the basic discussion.  Is growth legitimately part of the definition of a capitalist economy?  Something that sets a capitalist economy different from a socialist economy? Or is growth both systems typically strive to create?

[Bob Wallace]

The only societies I can think of that don't grow are agricultural societies. This is mainly related to the fact that land is limited. There was a long period in Japan, but middle age in Europe also didn't grow so much, just like native societies in the Americas and in the Artic. Don't know about the other parts of the world.

Agricultural societies attempt to grow.  Farmers look for better seed stock, for better livestock, for better farm practices.

Whether they are successful or not is a different issue.

[Bob Wallace]

There are no mixed economies or I simply fail to understand what that name describes.

A mixed economic system protects private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to interfere in economic activities in order to achieve social aims.

 

Investopedia

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mixed-economic-system.asp

Probably the only pure capitalistic economies are nations where the government has  become totally powerless.  Somalia is its worst days comes to mind.

The US is clearly a mixed economy with its social safety nets, financial regulations, etc. 

[Sleepy]

Hilarious.

[Sleepy]

Can Humans Live Well without Pillaging the Planet?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-humans-live-well-without-pillaging-the-planet/

Many wealthy nations achieve a range of social objectives that together can provide a good life for their people, as outlined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. But to do so, they exceed their share of the earth's natural resources and surpass environmental impact limits needed to safeguard the planet, according to a recent study (top right of main graph). Less wealthy nations use resources more modestly and have lower impacts but meet fewer of the social goals (bottom left of main graph). The solution: “Wealthy nations can consume less, with no loss in quality of life,” says study leader Daniel W. O'Neill of the University of Leeds in England. That would free up resources for less wealthy nations to improve lives (circular charts) while still keeping within safe environmental boundaries.

Attaching top half in low res and the higher res image from the article.

[Shared Humanity]

Are you arguing that growth or striving for growth is unique to capitalism?

If not then growth is common among economic systems therefore growth is not part of the definition of capitalism that sets it apart from other systems.

Countries that U.S. ideologues choose to call socialist have central banks, private business, universities etc. and, in my mind, are all part of the same growth system. If you would like to give it another name, I am fine with this. The developing world is rapidly integrating into this growth system, southeast Asia, China and India as well as parts of Africa. Central and South America are largely integrated into this growth system as well.

You did not answer my question.

The 'another name' is a mixed economy.  Neither 100% capitalist nore 100% socialist.

Let's get back to the basic discussion.  Is growth legitimately part of the definition of a capitalist economy?  Something that sets a capitalist economy different from a socialist economy? Or is growth both systems typically strive to create?

In general, I agree that we should look at things as a continuum. Looking at it this way, I would like to suggest that unfettered, unhindered capitalism is the furthest extreme and I sincerely doubt that any such nation has ever existed. If such a nation existed, growth would be explosive with the resultant deleterious effects associated with the tragedy of the commons as each entity seeks to only pursue its selfish interests. The continuum would seem to be a function of the extent to which the state intervenes in the operation of the free market. The U.S. intervenes less while European states generally intervene more.

In most cases the state intervenes in a manner that constrains growth IMHO, imposing costs on business to protect the environment for instance or to tax business and individuals in order to provide baseline incomes for the poor or elderly. This shift of resources away from business serves to limit growth.

[Shared Humanity]

Can Humans Live Well without Pillaging the Planet?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-humans-live-well-without-pillaging-the-planet/

Many wealthy nations achieve a range of social objectives that together can provide a good life for their people, as outlined by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. But to do so, they exceed their share of the earth's natural resources and surpass environmental impact limits needed to safeguard the planet, according to a recent study (top right of main graph). Less wealthy nations use resources more modestly and have lower impacts but meet fewer of the social goals (bottom left of main graph). The solution: “Wealthy nations can consume less, with no loss in quality of life,” says study leader Daniel W. O'Neill of the University of Leeds in England. That would free up resources for less wealthy nations to improve lives (circular charts) while still keeping within safe environmental boundaries.

Attaching top half in low res and the higher res image from the article.

Nice and it highlights the dilemma facing us.

“Wealthy nations can consume less, with no loss in quality of life."

Good luck with that as wealthy nations consume more because their citizens consume more. If you listen to the ongoing discussion in the U.S. and boil it down to its essence, it is "Where's mine?" Try convincing Americans to consume less with that kind of prevalent mindset.

The virtues of the free market that are espoused and held dear by Americans can be simplified to "Just don't get in the way of me getting mine."

[Bob Wallace]

The virtues of the free market that are espoused and held dear by Americans can be simplified to "Just don't get in the way of me getting mine."

Is it necessary to tar everyone in a country based on the behavior of some?

[TerryM]

Is it necessary to tar everyone in a country based on the behavior of some?

No!
Americans have grown up in a miasma of patriotic propaganda that is difficult for most of us to imagine.
Terry

[etienne]

We need to get away from the exponential part. Like now, today. Many more here are starting to realize that but I still don't see a real transformation happening.

I saw a very interesting video on Youtube about growth and exponatial evolution. I think it's that one :


It's worth taking the time to watch it. One of the concept is that with 1% growth, it takes 70 years to double the quantity, with 2%, only 35 years (70/2), and so on.

Another point is that, for example with a 7% growth, 10 years to double the quantity, during the next 10 years, you will have more quantity than in the whole history.

[Bob Wallace]

Rule of 72.  Divide 72 by annual percent to get a rough approximation of years or by years to get a rough approximation of rate.

Growth is fine as long as we move to renewable energy and sustainable inputs.

(Before someone starts going all hair on fire, "sustainable" creates limits which don't allow unlimited growth.)

[magnamentis]

Rule of 72.  Divide 72 by annual percent to get a rough approximation of years or my years to get a rough approximation of rate.

Growth is fine as long as we move to renewable energy and sustainable inputs.

(Before someone starts going all hair on fire, "sustainable" creates limits which don't allow unlimited growth.)

uff.... thanks got i, against my defect, finished reading before going to reply (in a friendly manner of course)

that last part is indeed important to mention LOL hence 100% d'accord

[Shared Humanity]

The virtues of the free market that are espoused and held dear by Americans can be simplified to "Just don't get in the way of me getting mine."

Is it necessary to tar everyone in a country based on the behavior of some?

I have a bottomless tar bucket and a deep well of cynicism.

[TerryM]

Bob
Do we need ANY growth from this point forward?


I believe it's obvious that we require redistribution, but I don't see that growth in itself is required, or even advantageous.
Elon Wants to whisk us effortlessly from LA to San Francisco in a tube. I'd rather he'd sponsor a bicycle race, or sailing regatta from one port city to the other.


If you need to be 400 miles away from where you are before lunch, you probably didn't plan your itinerary too well.
Terry

[Shared Humanity]

Rule of 72.  Divide 72 by annual percent to get a rough approximation of years or by years to get a rough approximation of rate.

Growth is fine as long as we move to renewable energy and sustainable inputs.

(Before someone starts going all hair on fire, "sustainable" creates limits which don't allow unlimited growth.)

Douses flames.

[Shared Humanity]

A more equitable distribution of a fixed or slightly shrinking pie is essential if humanity is to solve the problem. Looking at U.S. political discourse and the general trends, you will have to excuse my pessimism. This more equitable distribution needs to be within nations and between nations.

[TerryM]

A more equitable distribution of a fixed or slightly shrinking pie is essential if humanity is to solve the problem. Looking at U.S. political discourse and the general trends, you will have to excuse my pessimism. This more equitable distribution needs to be within nations and between nations.

Ramen!
Both are essential, and 100% equality isn't required to make the transition successful. The rich can still be rich. just not obscenely so. The poor will still be poor, but they will have food, clothing, and healthcare.


Educating everyone that it can benefit isn't a threat to those already educated, it's an opportunity to teach.
Feeding everyone doesn't pluck pheasants from the rich man's table, it just means fewer tons of apples rotting beneath the trees.
If some kid in Southern Sudan gets a pair of sandals, my kid can still have a pair of Florshimes and winter boots and tennis shoes. - Imelda Marcos may find redistribution onerous, but few others will feel the pinch.


If Russia can afford to forgive 16$B in Cuban debt and >20$B of African debt, how much can China, the US, and Germany afford?
Terry