
Is Capitalism a Sustainable Design? - asemakula
And this is capitalism, it’s designed to take, take, and take, in fact if they were to get away with it, businesses wouldn’t pay taxes. It’s akin to feeding your hunting dog on meatless bones - you will soon go hungry too. Is this a sustainable design?
======
anon234345566
The model doesn't fail inmediately after having consumed all the resources,
because we usually don't get to that point: at certain point the costs are
higher but the price of the goods hasn't improved (because somebody else has
replaced the goods with technology or has started to exploit cheaper to
extract resources from somewhere else), so you just drop the still available
resources and get your money to other investments.

That's what's happening right now in Vaca Muerta, Argentina (which is similar
to Permium in Texas).

Well, I'm not going to the end of the story in Earth resources, when
everything has been depleted, but I suspect I would be rushing conclusions in
that case: (even) current technology still holds some good cards to fastly add
lots of new resources to our planetary whole stuff.

------
anon234345566
Also the current expressions of capitalism can be improved, and probably will
be:

"What does the future hold for Western capitalist societies? The answer hinges
on whether liberal meritocratic capitalism will be able to move toward a more
advanced stage, what might be called “people’s capitalism,” in which income
from both factors of production, capital and labor, would be more equally
distributed. This would require broadening meaningful capital ownership way
beyond the current top ten percent of the population and making access to the
top schools and the best-paying jobs independent of one’s family background.

To achieve greater equality, countries should develop tax incentives to
encourage the middle class to hold more financial assets, implement higher
inheritance taxes for the very rich, improve free public education, and
establish publicly funded electoral campaigns. The cumulative effect of these
measures would be to make more diffuse the ownership of capital and skills in
society. People’s capitalism would be similar to social democratic capitalism
in its concern with inequality, but it would aspire to a different kind of
equality; instead of focusing on redistributing income, this model would seek
greater equality in assets, both financial and in terms of skills. Unlike
social democratic capitalism, it would require only modest redistributive
policies (such as food stamps and housing benefits) because it would have
already achieved a greater baseline of equality."

"The Clash of Capitalisms The Real Fight for the Global Economy’s Future"

[https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2019-1...](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2019-12-10/clash-capitalisms)

------
eucryphia
Yes. AS Tim Worstall points out:

"Please note that in current $, average world GDP in 1700 or so was around
$600, $800 a year. Today it’s around $8,000. The IPCC assumes, in its
calculations of climate change, that if we’re all good little neoliberals for
this coming century that it will be $80,000 in 2100. Seriously folks, what the
#### else do you want from an economic system?"

~~~
asemakula
Yet, if it was at least 'take, take and give' model, we would already be at
$40,000 in 2019.

Give your hunting dog so it gets the energy to chase down more game. I mean
planet/society contribute to value creation but during wealth sharing they get
meatless bones.

