Population decline, capitalism and socialism

Kenosha Kid

I was just reading this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/as-birth-rates-fall-animals-prowl-in-our-abandoned-ghost-villages

and it made me wonder about the causes and impacts of population growth and decline, and what it means for us right now.

Usually, population size is linked to availability of resource, cost of having offspring, and probability of survival of offspring (how many children it's worth expending energy on).

It isn't clear that what's happening now maps onto that at all well, although there are points of comparison. For one thing, as was pointed out in another thread, we are perfectly capable of feeding and sheltering everyone on the planet right now (although that is likely not sustainable). On the other hand, in many countries the cost of raising children is becoming increasingly prohibitive, but not because of lack of resource.

One example is the cost of education in a capitalist society. There will exist a gradation from those for whom the expense is negligible to those for whom the expense is prohibitive.

Another is cost of housing. In some European countries, and my own is contemplating this, the idea of buying your own home in your own lifetime has been dispensed with, replaced instead by the idea of passing your debt on to future generations who might pay it off in theirs.

It seems to me that, coupled with contraception, which allows people to make more rational decisions about whether they can afford to reproduce (and which, for that reason, is becoming increasingly curtailed by states in sharp population decline like Iran), issues like this are going to have an impact on people's choices about having children (a sentiment that's quite ubiquitous). Focusing on my home turf for a moment...

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/anoteonchildbearingbysocioeconomicstatusandcountryofbirthofmother/2016

In interpreting the above data on birthrate as a function of economic status, it's worth bearing in mind that there are far fewer people in e.g. NS-SEC 1 than in NS-SEC 4, for instance, which goes some way to explain the disparity, although that is also reflected in the fact that NS-SEC 1 has a less important effect on outcomes.

The birthrate has a double peak: women in middle management positions and semi-routine occupations are by far the largest contributors to the birthrate. The former will typically be in good, reliable, twin-income households (in couples in which only one person works, it is more likely the worker is male here; likewise the vast majority of couples contributing to the birthrate are heterosexual). The latter will typically be women who sometimes work, again with partners that work.

Note that non-career women who have to work all the time are less likely to have children, as are women who never work.

This suggests to me a comfort zone of reproduction, with either secure twin incomes or with women topping up her partner's income when needed. And this comfort zone is, apparently, not enough to sustain population levels.

This doesn't bode well for capitalism, which requires a) consumers, and b) a worker resource that is much larger than its needs (to drive down wages and job security).

It seems to me that birth decline would be catastrophic for capitalism which rests on faith in the myth of sustainable growth. My personal view on capitalism is that it is a useful tool that we should regulate but tend in conjunction with socialist policy.

An obvious application of this kind of pluralism to birthrate decline is that it is clearly advantageous to have a broader socioeconomic range of people creating the next generation of workers and consumers. This means policy that either reduces the cost of raising a child or that raises the socioeconomic status of people at various points, particularly the unemployed and those stuck in dead-end jobs.

Since those that most espouse the necessity of capitalism (typically conservatives) are those most averse to any hint of state intervention and social welfare, is capitalism about to fuck itself over by driving down the very thing it depends on?

Or do we just need robots and fast? I for one welcome etc.

Kenosha Kid

P.S. Meant to tag @ssu to defend capitalism for us. [EDIT: rather, to defend capitalists.]

baker

Since those that most espouse the necessity of capitalism (typically conservatives) are those most averse to any hint of state intervention and social welfare, is capitalism about to fuck itself over by driving down the very thing it depends on? — Kenosha Kid

That would be natural selection at its finest.

Kenosha Kid

That would be natural selection at its finest. — baker

Haha! Although they might also be best placed to survive the collapse of capitalism. :worry:

baker

Although they might also be best placed to survive the collapse of capitalism — Kenosha Kid

Of course. Natural selection.

synthesis

Since those that most espouse the necessity of capitalism (typically conservatives) are those most averse to any hint of state intervention and social welfare, is capitalism about to fuck itself over by driving down the very thing it depends on? — Kenosha Kid

Even systems are (and need to) change constantly. The problem with social planning is that it cannot predict what changes will take place and therefore socialist systems accumulate errant plan after errant plan until the whole thing comes crashing down.

The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned.

Progressives have it right when they see the need for change, but they have it wrong when they believe that they know what the change needs to be.

Kenosha Kid

Even systems are (and need to) change constantly. The problem with social planning is that it cannot predict what changes will take place and therefore socialist systems accumulate errant plan after errant plan until the whole thing comes crashing down. — synthesis

As I think I pointed out elsewhere, this isn't obviously the case. Countries with the strongest socialist policies tend to be more reactive to problems. The obvious example is environmental concerns. More progressive countries are even at the stage of buying in waste from other countries for green reuse. This strikes me as a success for the reactivity of the state to emerging crises. The same cannot be said for more capitalist countries which keep kicking the environmental can down the road.

On which:

The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned. — synthesis

That might be the idea but evidence doesn't weigh it out. Capitalism is extremely myopic and, left to its own devices, will pollute indefinitely, poison its own customers, lobby against long-term solutions in the legislature, buy up and bury long-term solutions in the market, all for the sake of maximising profit in the short term.

This is precisely why I think capitalism might destroy itself. The long-term future of capitalism is, by virtue of being long-term, outside of capitalism's area of interest.

Progressives have it right when they see the need for change, but they have it wrong when they believe that they know what the change needs to be. — synthesis

I'm not seeing a credible alternative on offer. I'd intended the OP to address a specific issue that pluralism might resolve (up for debate). It's not a generic mudslinging against capitalism, nor is it obvious that generic feelings against socialism are going to be enlightening. But if you have something more concrete in mind, I'm sure that would be interesting.

Kenosha Kid

The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned. — synthesis

Another, perhaps more pertinent example of capitalism's ability to seed it's own destruction due to its inability to react to long-term problems is the financial crisis of 2008. From a short-termist viewpoint, it obviously made a lot of sense for financiers to carry on with their legalised pyramid scheme. However it was pretty obvious that such a scheme would self-destruct.

In the end, it was state interference which was required to save the day, with the taxpayer bailing out most of the failing banks. In fact, it surprises me that people still tout the reactivity of the markets and ineffectiveness of state intervention when capitalism's inability to react and the necessity of the state to stop the country being brought to bankruptcy is a fresh memory.

baker

Countries with the strongest socialist policies tend to be more reactive to problems. The obvious example is environmental concerns. /.../ This strikes me as a success for the reactivity of the state to emerging crises. — Kenosha Kid

Take, for example, Scandinavian countries and their use of electric cars. Seems nice and environmentally friendly, yes?

Except that the damage is done elsewhere on the planet. Parts of Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina are destroyed in the process of producing lithium for batteries for electric cars.

And where is all that electricity for electric cars supposed to come from?

And so on.

Kenosha Kid

Except that the damage is done elsewhere on the planet. Parts of Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina are destroyed in the process of producing lithium for batteries for electric cars. — baker

As opposed to all of the planet being destroyed by burning fossil fuels? Also, this doesn't strike me as relevant to the question. Lithium batteries in cars aren't produced by state intervention, but by corporations responding to demand for cars that don't burn fossil fuels.

baker

Lithium batteries in cars aren't produced by state intervention, — Kenosha Kid

No, they encouraged by state intervention, such as through subsidies for "green technology".

but by corporations responding to demand for cars that don't burn fossil fuels.

The state, if it would be a moral agent acting morally, would intervene with 1. this demand, and 2. the response of corporations to it.

Of course, the potential price of acting morally for any agent are poverty and extinction.

synthesis

Even systems are (and need to) change constantly. The problem with social planning is that it cannot predict what changes will take place and therefore socialist systems accumulate errant plan after errant plan until the whole thing comes crashing down.
— synthesis

As I think I pointed out elsewhere, this isn't obviously the case. Countries with the strongest socialist policies tend to be more reactive to problems. The obvious example is environmental concerns. More progressive countries are even at the stage of buying in waste from other countries for green reuse. This strikes me as a success for the reactivity of the state to emerging crises. The same cannot be said for more capitalist countries which keep kicking the environmental can down the road. — Kenosha Kid

I believe you need to be a bit more expansive in your analysis. Seems like you are doing a little cherry-picking here. Attempting to compare the U.S. with a small Scandinavian country is not so fair. Just the same, in the end I believe that the country with freer market will win-out in the long run. I am not sure anybody wants a poor environmental outcome, so the mistakes made (via greed/corruption) become self-correcting as the market figures it out and demands change.

On which:

The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned.
— synthesis

That might be the idea but evidence doesn't weigh it out. Capitalism is extremely myopic and, left to its own devices, will pollute indefinitely, poison its own customers, lobby against long-term solutions in the legislature, buy up and bury long-term solutions in the market, all for the sake of maximising profit in the short term.

This is precisely why I think capitalism might destroy itself. The long-term future of capitalism is, by virtue of being long-term, outside of capitalism's area of interest. — Kenosha Kid

If you look at the medium to long term, it seems pretty clear that capitalism (even though it is political corruption that causes most/if not all of the difficulties) is a system that provides the best life for the most people. Yes, you can point out an area where a "socialist" country may have put its resources to work in order to fix a problem or two, but look at what the U.S. was able to achieve post WWII. There is nothing even close in history to compare.

Progressives have it right when they see the need for change, but they have it wrong when they believe that they know what the change needs to be.
— synthesis

I'm not seeing a credible alternative on offer. I'd intended the OP to address a specific issue that pluralism might resolve (up for debate). It's not a generic mudslinging against capitalism, nor is it obvious that generic feelings against socialism are going to be enlightening. But if you have something more concrete in mind, I'm sure that would be interesting. — Kenosha Kid

Here's the deal, freedom is ALWAYS the answer, be it in personal matters, matter of the state, or the economy. Allow people to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves. There are certainly needs for a state, but not so many. The last thing that is needed is somebody telling everybody what they need. This is when it starts to get ugly.

Kenosha Kid

No, they encouraged by state intervention, such as through subsidies for "green technology". — baker

Actually, yes, I suppose there were general electric car battery subsidies that inevitably funded lithium ion battery research.

The state, if it would be a moral agent acting morally, would intervene with 1. this demand, and 2. the response of corporations to it. — baker

Okay, so you are in favour of state intervention. In this case, I suppose more would be desired, e.g. more specific terms for subsidy, regulation on batteries.

To defend the use of lithium ion batteries for a moment, I don't see anything particularly wrong with solving a big problem with a lesser problem. I agree that at best it should be a transitional technology while better ones are developed. That industry would put their weight behind its most mature and transferable technologies (since lithium ion batteries were already mature for other use cases) is, from one angle, precisely the sort of short-term thinking that we want from them. The downside is industry's likely inertia in moving from lithium ion to other, better technologies once they're so heavily invested.

In the UK btw we've set a deadline for abolishing the sale of petrol- and diesel-only cars. This will obviously push industry into investing more in alternative technologies, which will in turn keep those industries going longer. Little comfort for those malaffected by lithium ion battery manufacture, I agree, but biggest problem first.

synthesis

The point of the market "being in control" is that it can react much quicker (and with a great deal more accuracy) to the needs of all concerned.
— synthesis

Another, perhaps more pertinent example of capitalism's ability to seed it's own destruction due to its inability to react to long-term problems is the financial crisis of 2008. From a short-termist viewpoint, it obviously made a lot of sense for financiers to carry on with their legalized pyramid scheme. However it was pretty obvious that such a scheme would self-destruct.

In the end, it was state interference which was required to save the day, with the taxpayer bailing out most of the failing banks. In fact, it surprises me that people still tout the reactivity of the markets and ineffectiveness of state intervention when capitalism's inability to react and the necessity of the state to stop the country being brought to bankruptcy is a fresh memory. — Kenosha Kid

It was the state that caused much of the problem in the first place! You need to go back to 1913 (the origins of the third central bank in the U.S.) and understand the history that created the 2008 financial crisis).

State intervention prevented the market from cleaning-up much some the problem. Capitalism (like everything else) sucks when you massive corruption coupled with state intervention.

The problem is three-fold...corporations with waaaay too much power, incredibly corrupt government, and a global banking system using Monopoly (the game) money. Take care of these three problems and you will have another golden age.

Kenosha Kid

Just the same, in the end I believe that the country with freer market will win-out in the long run. I am not sure anybody wants a poor environmental outcome, so the mistakes made (via greed/corruption) become self-correcting as the market figures it out and demands change. — synthesis

Here's the deal, freedom is ALWAYS the answer, be it in personal matters, matter of the state, or the economy. Allow people to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves. There are certainly needs for a state, but not so many. The last thing that is needed is somebody telling everybody what they need. This is when it starts to get ugly. — synthesis

Okay, it looks like curiosity has encountered religiosity and no synthesis is likely.

If you look at the medium to long term, it seems pretty clear that capitalism (even though it is political corruption that causes most/if not all of the difficulties) is a system that provides the best life for the most people. — synthesis

I did look at the medium to long term, e.g. the 2008 economic collapse, its obstinate reaction to the climate crisis. The blind faith in capitalism to react is simply not something that can be taken very seriously in light of the evidence. As I said, I didn't raise the question to start a religious war between fervent capitalists and fervent socialists, since I am neither. Facts, evidence, argument based on those... good. Ideology (including ideological historical revisionism per your follow-up post)... not helpful. Sorry. No offense meant, just not the sort of discussion I was fishing for. Others might take you up on it though.

baker

Here's the deal, freedom is ALWAYS the answer, be it in personal matters, matter of the state, or the economy. Allow people to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves. — synthesis

The problem is that sometimes, when people make their own decision and act freely, this results in difficult situations that they themselves cannot mend, and those negative situations negatively affect other people.

An example of such a difficult situation is consumerism, which, if left unchecked, is on the trajectory to destroy the planet.

baker

Actually, yes, I suppose there were general electric car battery subsidies that inevitably funded lithium ion battery research. — Kenosha Kid

I'm talking about, for example, the state paying part of the price if you choose to buy an electric car or install a solar system on the roof of your house.

synthesis

If you look at the medium to long term, it seems pretty clear that capitalism (even though it is political corruption that causes most/if not all of the difficulties) is a system that provides the best life for the most people.
— synthesis

I did look at the medium to long term, e.g. the 2008 economic collapse, its obstinate reaction to the climate crisis. The blind faith in capitalism to react is simply not something that can be taken very seriously in light of the evidence. As I said, I didn't raise the question to start a religious war between fervent capitalists and fervent socialists, since I am neither. Facts, evidence, argument based on those... good. Ideology... not helpful. Sorry. No offense meant, just not the sort of discussion I was fishing for. Others might take you up on it though. — Kenosha Kid

I couldn't possible take offence from anything you have said. The point is that society is based on an infinite number of things going on at the same time. Nobody can understand this kind of complexity, yet proscribe solutions for it. Therefore you allow those participating to figure out what works best for them in their situation (and guard against folks over-reaching and corruption).

I am sure you've heard the adage, "If you want to make God laugh, make a plan." Even the simplest of things is infinitely complex, so the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same).

baker

Ideology — Kenosha Kid

I'm afraid that this is a matter of ideology.
How are people going to change their consumer habits if they don't first change their minds?

synthesis

Here's the deal, freedom is ALWAYS the answer, be it in personal matters, matter of the state, or the economy. Allow people to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves.
— synthesis
The problem is that sometimes, when people make their own decision and act freely, this results in difficult situations that they themselves cannot mend, and those negative situations negatively affect other people.

An example of such a difficult situation is consumerism, which, if left unchecked, is on the trajectory to destroy the planet. — baker

Well, everybody has to put on their big-boy pants and figure it out.

And I don't believe the planet has much to worry about. It will rid itself of us when the time is right.

baker

the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same). — synthesis

This is simply unrealistic.
Those who have more power, more resources can afford not to respect the rights of others and get away with it.

If someone wrongs you and you don't have the money to sue them, you're screwed.

Isaac

Nobody can understand this kind of complexity, yet proscribe solutions for it. Therefore you allow those participating to figure out what works best for them in their situation (and guard against folks over-reaching and corruption). — synthesis

Even the simplest of things is infinitely complex, so the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same). — synthesis

In neither version have you shown how your conclusion follows from your premise.

baker

Well, everybody has to put on their big-boy pants and figure it out. — synthesis

In a Mad Max scenario?

And I don't believe the planet has much to worry about. It will rid itself of us when the time is right.

Oh, you mean it like that. As if Earth should look forward to becoming more like Triton ...

Kenosha Kid

State intervention prevented the market from cleaning-up much some the problem. Capitalism (like everything else) sucks when you massive corruption coupled with state intervention. — synthesis

Although actually this is worth treating. When the financial sector self-destructed this century (due entirely to its own practices, and from which it was unable to react constructively), the affected nations faced two alternatives:

1. take capitalism seriously and let the banks fall, bringing down every saver, every mortgage payer, every business depending on provision of loans with them.
2. inject taxpayer money into the sector, allowing the banks time to recover and ride out their own wave of destruction.

Neither are good options, but the first was, rightly, seen as the worst.

There was a perfect opportunity to ensure that this never happened again using a pluralistic approach. Ethical banks that followed a more stringent, preservative set of regulations could be guaranteed to be underwritten by the state, just as banks effectively are now, since if they fail again, we must bail them out again).

Meanwhile freer, more reactive (short-termist) banks could carry on as usual, but should they fail, market forces hold without the intervention of the state.

Customers who want security could opt for the state-secured banks; those who don't can risk the casino banks. The latter are free to exemplify capitalist dogma... Until they die, as they should and would. New ones can rise up and take their place, and the people who used them have lost out, but with fair warning.

This to me shows how pluralism, not capitalism, exemplifies choice. Capitalism underwritten by the state is not capitalism at all: it's just a scam to part taxpayers with their money. Capitalism as part of a pluralism can be as free as capitalists pretend capitalism already is, including free to die.

Kenosha Kid

I couldn't possible take offence from anything you have said. — synthesis

Phew!

The point is that society is based on an infinite number of things going on at the same time. Nobody can understand this kind of complexity, yet proscribe solutions for it. — synthesis

That's fine, but note I'm not arguing that the state should run everything. I'm arguing that the state should create an environment in which capitalism runs things more sustainably.

Redistribution of wealth, to whatever degree, does not require precise knowledge of the markets. In the case described by the OP, the state already knows better than anyone where birthrate is falling, and I'm suggesting that it's not difficult to figure out why.

If capitalism is driving plummeting birthrates, we don't need the state to step in and run industries, i.e. take over from capitalism. Instead we need the state to address the problems capitalism is causing. One way might be progressive taxation and investment. Another might be means-tested housing or education credits. The precise details and pros and cons we could get into. What is obvious is that a capitalism that destroys its own worker and consumer base is not capable of sustaining itself.

I'm afraid that this is a matter of ideology.
How are people going to change their consumer habits if they don't first change their minds? — baker

Well, we at least can do better. :) I was just trying to steer synth to a more critical mode of discussion. It's understandable that everyone is a bit defensive atm.

But yes beyond whatever we say here, there are definitely ideological barriers.

Echarmion

Or do we just need robots and fast? I for one welcome etc. — Kenosha Kid

Robots don't consume though, and lack of consumers seems to be the more significant problem for modern capitalism.

The idea that capitalism destroys itself by driving down wages below the threshold required to sustain consumption of it's products is not a new one. So far, predictions to that effect have always underestimated capitalism's ability to simply outgrow the problem.

I'm not sure whether birthrates are just a symptom of that same problem - lack of resources does seem part of it, but it's not like it's a simple linear relationship. There also doesn't seem to be a direct correlation between the countries worst affected (which as far as I know are Japan and South Korea) and a certain kind of capitalist practice. There is clearly a cultural element playing into this.

I think the problem with birth rates might be less one of capitalism in theory, and more one of where capitalism has ended up in practice. Which is to say that the whole consumer culture might not be very conductive of optimism about long term prospects or the kind of mindset where you welcome children in your life as a new source of both challenges and happiness. Those are just shower thoughts though, I don't really have the background to judge that. What I am reasonably confident of is that most people no longer implicitly trust that their children will have it better than they will. That "american dream", seems very much dead. And that has an obvious implication for having children.

1. take capitalism seriously and let the banks fall, bringing down every saver, every mortgage payer, every business depending on provision of loans with them.
2. inject taxpayer money into the sector, allowing the banks time to recover and ride out their own wave of destruction. — Kenosha Kid

I know what you want to say here, just want to note that capitalism has always been backed up by the state in practice. The idea that capitalism represents a free economy in opposition to the state is a myth.

baker

What is obvious is that a capitalism that destroys its own worker and consumer base is not capable of sustaining itself. — Kenosha Kid

As long as there are so many people on the planet, there is no danger to capitalism.

People have always lived and died for ideas anyway.

synthesis

the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same).
— synthesis
This is simply unrealistic.
Those who have more power, more resources can afford not to respect the rights of others and get away with it.

If someone wrongs you and you don't have the money to sue them, you're screwed. — baker

Yes, someone will ALWAYS have an advantage. You are looking for heaven on Earth. It's simply not possible.

synthesis

In neither version have you shown how your conclusion follows from your premise. — Isaac

I am not sure I follow you.

Isaac

I am not sure I follow you. — synthesis

OK.

society is based on an infinite number of things going on at the same time. Nobody can understand this kind of complexity, yet proscribe solutions for it. — synthesis

Is a premise.

Therefore you allow those participating to figure out what works best for them in their situation (and guard against folks over-reaching and corruption). — synthesis

Is a conclusion. They're linked by the word 'therefore'

Again.

Even the simplest of things is infinitely complex — synthesis

Premise.

so the best path seems to be to allow for each participant to chart his own course (within the context of respecting others' rights to do the same). — synthesis

Conclusion. Linked by the word 'so'.

Your premises do not lead to your conclusions.

What would you say to me if I said "Lemons are yellow, therefore we should all sing the national anthem"? Something's missing, no?

Likewise with your contention.

Does that clarify at all?

synthesis

State intervention prevented the market from cleaning-up much some the problem. Capitalism (like everything else) sucks when you massive corruption coupled with state intervention.
— synthesis

Although actually this is worth treating. When the financial sector self-destructed this century (due entirely to its own practices, and from which it was unable to react constructively), the affected nations faced two alternatives:

1. take capitalism seriously and let the banks fall, bringing down every saver, every mortgage payer, every business depending on provision of loans with them.
2. inject taxpayer money into the sector, allowing the banks time to recover and ride out their own wave of destruction.

Neither are good options, but the first was, rightly, seen as the worst.

There was a perfect opportunity to ensure that this never happened again using a pluralistic approach. Ethical banks that followed a more stringent, preservative set of regulations could be guaranteed to be underwritten by the state, just as banks effectively are now, since if they fail again, we must bail them out again).

Meanwhile freer, more reactive (short-termist) banks could carry on as usual, but should they fail, market forces hold without the intervention of the state.

Customers who want security could opt for the state-secured banks; those who don't can risk the casino banks. The latter are free to exemplify capitalist dogma... Until they die, as they should and would. New ones can rise up and take their place, and the people who used them have lost out, but with fair warning.

This to me shows how pluralism, not capitalism, exemplifies choice. Capitalism underwritten by the state is not capitalism at all: it's just a scam to part taxpayers with their money. Capitalism as part of a pluralism can be as free as capitalists pretend capitalism already is, including free to die. — Kenosha Kid

What should have been done is what happened during the 80's S&L debacle where you allow the savings and loans to fail and go through bankruptcy (redistribute remaining assets to debtors).

The banks should have been allowed to fail in 2008. Savers would have been protected by the FDIC (in the U.S.) and new banks would have been re-capitalized. This is how the system is supposed to work. Instead, the banks (the wealthy and influential) were saved by tax payers and money printing (inflation tax) and essentially none of the issues were resolved. This was massive government corruption (remember, most of the banking laws were changed in the 90's to allow much of this to take place).

Population decline, capitalism and socialism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions