LockeClone t1_j7t94ry wrote
Reply to comment by real-duncan in What's your estimation for the minimum size of global population required for preserving modern civilization with advanced technology and medicine, and even progressing further? by Evgeneey
>However it does mean the end of capitalism as we know it.
Meh... The end of capitalism 1.2 for capitalism 1.3 maybe...
"Capitalism" is such a huge term. You basically can't have markets without someone having a credible cause to name it capitalism unless you pass a a very grey threshold of command and control that very few nations have even attempted in the past 100 years.
real-duncan t1_j7td1li wrote
There will be less consumers next year. There will be less again the year after that. That continues for about a century.
That means a declining demand curve for a century.
How are you going to finance something with a guaranteed reduction in return? Punch that assumption into a bank computer program and see what loan you can raise.
Every year you’ll need less housing, less white goods, less food, etc.
Whose going to hire people or buy robots when the demand for what you produce is certain to be lower in the future than now.
If you don’t think that requires a different economic model than the current one I suspect you haven’t thought about it carefully enough.
Be clear I am not saying “no more capitalism” just not capitalism as it is as a minimum. I don’t believe there is a command and control model built on the assumption of a century long declining demand curve. The attempts at socialism I know of have all assumed a growing demand curve for their modeling.
I’m not saying I know what the answer is. I’m just hoping groups of people smarter than me are getting ready, and I currently doubt they are.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments