PowerSwitch

Abstract
: Recent publications have revived interest in Herman Daly’s proposal for a Steady- State Economy. This paper argues, first, that the idea of a steady-state capitalism is based on untenable assumptions, starting with the assumption that growth is optional rather than built-into capitalism. I argue that irresistible and relentless pressures for growth are functions of the day-to-day requirements of capitalist reproduction in a competitive market, incumbent upon all but a few businesses, and that such pressures would prevail in any conceivable capitalism. Secondly, this paper takes issue with Professor Daly’s thesis, which also underpins his SSE model, that capitalist efficiency and resource allocation is the best we can come up with. I argue that this belief is misplaced and incompatible with an ecological economy, and therefore
it undermines Daly’s own environmental goals. I conclude that since capitalist growth cannot be stopped, or even slowed, and since the market-driven growth is driving us toward collapse,
ecological economists should abandon the fantasy
of a steady-state capitalism and get on with the project figuring out what a post–capitalist economic democracy could look like.

Either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We can’t save both.

Atman wrote:This is not an article from The Onion but from the Real World Economics Review which regularly post e-mails if anyone is interested. I thought this would be suitable for general discussion, and although the conclusions are depressing they are nothing unknown to most doomers.

Beyond Growth or Beyond Capitalism
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue53/Smith53.pdf

Abstract
: Recent publications have revived interest in Herman Daly’s proposal for a Steady- State Economy. This paper argues, first, that the idea of a steady-state capitalism is based on untenable assumptions, starting with the assumption that growth is optional rather than built-into capitalism. I argue that irresistible and relentless pressures for growth are functions of the day-to-day requirements of capitalist reproduction in a competitive market, incumbent upon all but a few businesses, and that such pressures would prevail in any conceivable capitalism. Secondly, this paper takes issue with Professor Daly’s thesis, which also underpins his SSE model, that capitalist efficiency and resource allocation is the best we can come up with. I argue that this belief is misplaced and incompatible with an ecological economy, and therefore
it undermines Daly’s own environmental goals. I conclude that since capitalist growth cannot be stopped, or even slowed, and since the market-driven growth is driving us toward collapse,
ecological economists should abandon the fantasy
of a steady-state capitalism and get on with the project figuring out what a post–capitalist economic democracy could look like.

snow hope wrote:The final line as Chris quoted says, "Either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We can’t save both." Surely that is not a difficult decision to make??

clv101 wrote:

snow hope wrote:The final line as Chris quoted says, "Either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We can’t save both." Surely that is not a difficult decision to make??

I think it is a difficult decision because letting go of capitalism today, is likely to make next year and likely the next decade or two a lot less comfortable than they would otherwise be! The 22nd century is likely to be a lot nicer than it would otherwise be - but the vast majority of us care a little bit more about our comfort this year and for the next decade or two than what life will be like many decades from now.

stevecook172001 wrote:

clv101 wrote:

snow hope wrote:The final line as Chris quoted says, "Either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We can’t save both." Surely that is not a difficult decision to make??

I think it is a difficult decision because letting go of capitalism today, is likely to make next year and likely the next decade or two a lot less comfortable than they would otherwise be! The 22nd century is likely to be a lot nicer than it would otherwise be - but the vast majority of us care a little bit more about our comfort this year and for the next decade or two than what life will be like many decades from now.

So are you counselling despair then? I'm not having a go CLV. I'm just tying to get to the bottom of the implications of your position. Do you think capitalism is unsustainable? But, do you also, at the same time, think there is no alternative to capitalism for a variety of reasons?

Or, do you think that capitalism can be "tamed"? If so, how?

clv101 wrote: This is why it is a difficult decision to make.

biffvernon wrote:Possibly two aspects of the same minority view.

biffvernon wrote:

clv101 wrote: This is why it is a difficult decision to make.

I'd decide to stop it now for the sake of future generations, but mine is a minority view so unlikely to prevail.

Deeper down than this, in turn, is the realization that growth itself is the problem. But every day, the excellent proposals for managed economic contraction, or “powerdown” (Heinberg, 2004), and steady state economics (e.g., Daly, 1991, and Czech, 2013) go unused, while civilization grinds the biosphere to nothing. The necessary actions which these proposals require (things like depaving, or a moratorium on the petrochemical industry, or the Rimini Protocol, which calls for fair distribution of the world’s remaining oil) are unthinkable by public officials and corporate executives

Petrodollar hegemony as U.S. fiat money “buying” free oil is actively defended by the mightiest military, financial, and political forces in the world, backed by the inertia of a billion “first-world” people like us, who apparently cannot stop destroying the Earth unless we somehow acquire a great raft of missing skills and opportunities. That level of awareness is already somewhat traumatic. It can foreclose one’s idea of a human future, if it comes to include enough of the many stressors available to the curious.

Climate change, peak oil, potable water scarcity, and the eventual failure of several hundred nuclear reactors (in a world without reliable electricity to cool spent fuel rods) comprise a quartet that will likely devastate all the systems on which our lives depend, most especially agriculture.

biffvernon wrote:

clv101 wrote: This is why it is a difficult decision to make.

I'd decide to stop it now for the sake of future generations, but mine is a minority view so unlikely to prevail.

1) We’re going to have to find ways to put the brakes on out-of-control growth, even if it means drastically retrenching or shutting down coal companies, oil companies, chemical companies, auto companies, even whole economic sectors dedicated 100% to waste production like the disposable products industries.

2) We’re going to have to radically restructure production to impose sharp limits on the production, to physically ration the use and consumption of all sorts of specific resources like coal, oil, gas, lumber, fish, oil, water, minerals, toxic chemicals, and many products made from them. Some products, like coal-fired power plants, toxic pesticides, diesel fuel, bottled water, junk food, should probably be phased out and banned altogether.

3) We’re going to have to sharply increase investments in things society does need, like renewable energy, organic farming, public transit, public water systems, public health, quality schools for our children, and many other currently underfunded social and environmental needs.

4) We’re going to have to do away with production that is geared to mindless consumerism and needless repetitive consumption and the industries that support them. Too many choices and too short a lifespan for products have socially and environmentally unbearable costs. We live on a small planet with limited resources. Others need those resources too, so we can’t afford waste.

5) We’re going to have to devise a rational approach to waste which means to minimize all waste, forbid the disposal of toxics of any sort, eliminate most if not all single-use products like disposable containers, wrappings, diapers, pens, cameras,etc., eliminate throwaway containers, enforce mandatory and systematic reuse of containers, packaging, recycling, composting, etc.

6) And, if we have to shut down polluting or wasteful industries then society is going to have to provide equivalent jobs, not just retraining or the unemployment line, for those all those displaced workers because, if we don’t, there will be no social support for the drastic changes we need to make to ensure our survival.