Do these economists really believe that the maximized growth scenario can go on forever, even as our resource base goes into rapid decline?
At the center of this conundrum is the way we define and relate work, jobs and access to basic goods and services. For example: If there's a shortage of work, but also a shortage of basic goods and services for all, yet also an ecological danger stemming from the consumption of too much of the superfluous, why not give anyone who wants it the opportunity to find decently compensated work in the production of just the basic goods and services they need? Why instead force them to work on the production of ye more, ever more, in the way of superfluous goods and services?! If they produced only basics, they could be paid not in dollars but in some kind of labor credits, on a special credit card, the value of which could be redeemed only by purchasing some of the basic goods and services that they and their millions of government-paid co-workers had helped bring into being. This would completely eliminate the by-now obscene requirement for the corporations of our society to produce ever more in the way of superfluous goods and services, one of the ostensible purposes of which is to try and generate the numbers of jobs we need for our growing army of the unemployed. (Five Americans now look for every available job. America lost many millions jobs as a result of the policies of President George W. Bush and his administration.
Another reason for corporations producing so much in the way of superfluous goods and services is that American capitalism is driven by the need to grow profits to satisfy investors who are looking for the maximum return on investment. The average investor no longer buys stocks for the long haul. If a share price doesn't move upward soon enough, they move their investment money somewhere else. And of course Wall Street profit margins benefit from the churn of all this investment activity. In addition, this quest for short-term profit advantages forces companies to continually squeeze labor by reducing labor costs, and occasionally cut corners re: worker safety and environmental protection, and get creative in their accounting practices. .
In the old days, we used to think competition in the modern capitalistic economy was a good thing. It drove innovation in product development. It gave us more choices. And it helped drive prices down. But that was then. This is now. Today it's getting harder and harder to come up with true innovations in products that actually fill basic or fundamental needs. Why? Because today's capitalist economy is operating primarily in product areas where it is mainly filling wants (e.g. electronic gadgets like iPhones) rather than fundamental needs.
But even that realm, of superfluous product innovation, may have topped out of late. For now the only real innovation in the marketplace, except at a few companies like Apple, is in terms of creating bogus investment vehicles (CDOs and the like) that promise extraordinary gains. Yes there is some innovation in advertising, where the trick is to get people to think they need some glitzy gizmo, so that the producer can go on growing its sales and profits. On such wastefulness the growth and "success' of our economy depends?!
The problem with this is, of course, that the majority of so-called innovation today is (from the perspective of a dying ecosystem) rubbish. Worse still, it is rubbish for which we have absolutely no idea what the total and long-term costs will be.
Simply stated: We are in deep doo-doo when our belief system tells us that we have to consume mindlessly in order to create enough jobs to keep our economy afloat. (Check out the following articles to see more evidence of this: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eaf81fbe-8de3-11df-9153-00144feab49a.html). Also
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
