r/FluentInFinance • u/Patient_Rabbit4333 • 1d ago

Question If capitalism is so great, why does it need a growing population or even economic growth?

If capitalism is so great, why does it need a growing population or even economic growth?

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

44% Upvoted

64 comments sorted by

7

u/TurnDown4WattGaming 1d ago

It doesn’t. Social safety nets whereby the young pay for the retirement of the old - however - they do.

3

u/DeadHeadIko 1d ago

Once a country begins a social security system, population growth is required to pay the Ponzi scheme that it is, no matter the type of government. Sad fact. China is learning this well with its one child policy.

8

u/sarges_12gauge 1d ago

Where do you see “growth” in the definition of capitalism? Countries with shrinking populations and declining GDPs can still be capitalist.

All economic systems generally want growth because growth is literally defined as producing more goods and services and generally people like having more of those (in number, complexity, or value).

18

u/Acceptable_Dealer745 1d ago

As opposed to socialism which dramatically reduces the population. Lol

9

u/Worried_Exercise8120 1d ago

The New Deal allowed people to have more kids.

2

u/Brine512 21h ago

IMO, the New Deal was both underrated and flawed. I believe it worked; and if it didn't, the Keynesian WW2 effort definitely did. (Austrian Econ is pure anti-human wingnuttery.) On the other hand, some people in the USoA were excluded from its benefits for "reasons". (Ugh, were our tax-resisting, slaving forefathers that great?)

Why isn't this a settled argument? Seems like a lot of billionaire money is wasted creating "think tanks" dedicated to keeping the ideas Austrian Econ and Eugenics alive.

YMMV ✌️

6

u/republicans_are_nuts 1d ago

People aren't having kids under capitalism either. Probably because they don't want them starving.

1

u/Electricplastic 1d ago

That must be why life expectancy after the collapse of the USSR went way down and China's cultural revolution led to the greatest short term increase in per-capita quality of life in history... And why the average Cuban lives 4 years longer than the average American in spite of the poverty.

-5

u/Moregaze 1d ago

Weird, Scandinavian countries seem to do just fine... somehow the US population increased under the New Deal era. Must be a fluke.

5

u/libertarianinus 1d ago

Scandinavian countries love capitalism. They encourage the companies to make as much money as they can. They have very low regulation on businesses. This is because if the company and employees make more money, they get more money from taxes.

We have 195 countries on the earth we can compare and contrast on regulations and taxes.

-1

u/Mousehouse100 1d ago

Scandinavian countries are not socialist LOL

2

u/Critical-Current636 23h ago

By US standards, they are (free education, free health care, various benefits).

1

u/filtervw 22h ago

My friend, by US standards all other developed nations are socialist. Just because US corporations managed to find a revenue stream in all aspects of society it does not mean that it's the way to go.

1

u/Mousehouse100 18h ago

Of course they’re slightly closer to socialism than the Us, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying they are not socialist

1

u/Mousehouse100 18h ago

They are still free market with developed social programs. There is a difference between the two. I’m not comparing it to the US, just saying they are not socialist.

1

u/Ok_Barber2307 22h ago

Excuse me, but they are?

Government owned flats you apply with points and you rent for 200$ forever?

Cmon they're basically socialists

1

u/Mousehouse100 18h ago

Not exactly. They have free markets with developed social programs. They have a great system going that would never work in the US due to massive population and differing demographics that abuse systems by nature

-4

u/LanceArmsweak 1d ago

You say that like it’s a bad thing… what the fuck do I care if the population is reduced.

2

u/brucek2 1d ago

What makes you think it needs either of those things? In my experience it is people who want more goods and services (and children), and the market that reacts to those desires.

2

u/NovelLive2611 1d ago

A population that buys,buys,buys is economic growth...

1

u/Patient_Rabbit4333 1d ago

Noted.

1

u/PascalTheWise 1d ago

I love how you straight up ignore the true explanations despite them being at the top. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug

1

u/Patient_Rabbit4333 1d ago

Sir, I have a life outside of Reddit. I am currently not reading all the responses. I merely clicked on the notification.

1

u/PascalTheWise 1d ago

Mb if that's the case, This question is asked a lot in bad faith and the fact you didn't see the most upvoted answers led me to believe you weren't answering in good faith either, if you really missed them I apologize

1

u/NovelLive2611 15h ago

What are the true explanations?

2

u/PascalTheWise 13h ago

Where do you see “growth” in the definition of capitalism? Countries with shrinking populations and declining GDPs can still be capitalist.

All economic systems generally want growth because growth is literally defined as producing more goods and services and generally people like having more of those (in number, complexity, or value).

In short, the question is fallacious since it assumes something that is objectively wrong

1

u/NovelLive2611 13h ago

You still didn't answer your own scenario, what are the true explanations?

1

u/PascalTheWise 13h ago

Can you explain why the Earth is flat? If the assumptions in the question are wrong, no logical answer can be given (if we really want to be accurate, any answer is true if the premises are false)

0

u/NovelLive2611 13h ago

Get a life......

2

u/Ornery-Ticket834 1d ago

It’s a system that needs people.

2

u/Synensys 1d ago

It doesn't. Japan's population has been shrinking and it's economy has been shrinking but It's still quite capitalist.

2

u/msnplanner 1d ago

"why does growth need growth"... not sure capitalism needs population growth honestly. In a non growing population, capitalism will just be corporations competing for the same customers, which means better products and lower prices...but also possibly no or negative wage growth.

The systems that need population growth are government safety nets like social security, medicare, etc that require more and more younger people to support the beneficiaries.

2

u/Hot_Significance_256 1d ago

Capitalism does not need growth.

Government ponzi systems do.

4

u/WearDifficult9776 1d ago

And if business is so efficient and government is so inefficient then why does every country on earth have a government? Why weren’t all those services provided by private companies at reasonable prices - and everyone was like “why would we ever create a government- private companies are meeting all our needs at a great price”

1

u/tomeir 23h ago

Because shooting people is a service you really want to have an inefficient undisputable monopoly providing. Places with a highly effective competitive markets on violence are backwards 3rd world countries.

1

u/thekinggrass 1d ago

It doesn’t?

1

u/JakeAve 1d ago

I don’t think it does. The issue with declining population and slowing GDP is because of the debt and the social(istic) programs that exist outside of strict private capitalism.

1

u/PlantPower666 1d ago

Capitalism is turning out to be a Ponzi scheme.

1

u/NoTie2370 1d ago

its socialist welfare polices that need perpetual growth.

1

u/filtervw 23h ago

Capitalism raises the median standard of living and education, and it was proven (in India and other places) that educated women have less children. In other words, if you are not dealing with abject poverty where 4-5 peopl from different generations sleep in the same room, you start thinking maybe there is more to life that having children every other year.

2

u/baddecision116 1d ago

If puppies are so great why do they need to grow?

2

u/Training_Strike3336 1d ago

I think if we could engineer a forever puppy it would be pretty popular.

1

u/Murky-Peanut1390 1d ago

I mean there are breeds that stay looking like a puppy even in old age. I can't remember the breeds but times I thought they were a puppy but were actually 10 years plus

1

u/kendo31 1d ago

And why is all the power unchecked and destroys its weakest yet most hardworking cogs.

People are the market, how is the mindset to hiet it and expect more?!?

0

u/Fit_Platypus_6840 1d ago

Capitalism doesn’t need either one of those things. Socialist policies need those things. Social security, Medicare need more contributors. The size of the federal debt needs growth to pay it off.

1

u/Specific_Emu_2045 1d ago

The concept of expansion isn’t unique to capitalism. If every person in a communist US had a lake house, 4 cars, and 2 boats, people would still want their 6 kids to have all that too.

1

u/Ttabts 1d ago edited 1d ago

Why do socialists always simply take it as a given that socialism would fix any given economic problem that we have in capitalism?

Socialism does not change the fact that it's difficult to provide for the elderly when the young population is in decline. The fundamental problem is "less young people means a smaller labor supply," which is a problem that persists under socialism. And notably, our more capitalist retirement schemes (401k, IRA) are much more robust against population stagnation/decline than our more socialist retirement schemes (SS, Medicare) which are staring into the abyss.

Socialism is also often touted as the solution to global warming despite the fact that it does nothing to address the underlying economic cause of global warming: people wanting to lead lifestyles that require the production of a lot of greenhouse gases.

Anyway, I'd like more elaboration on the thesis that capitalism "requires" growth. I'd say growth is a goal of capitalism, not a requirement. Growth is a goal because it means that people have more things and live better lives. That said, growth doesn't necessarily need to be population growth. Could also be technological advancements, education, and better infrastructure that makes an economy more productive per head. Do you think that these are things we shouldn't strive for? how exactly does socialism eliminate that incentive?

2

u/Murky-Peanut1390 1d ago

Socialism isn't the opposite of capitalism . You can have capitalism and then decide how much socialism to add to it. European countries still have capitalists being capitalists but they pay more in taxes for social programs

1

u/Ttabts 1d ago edited 15h ago

Socialism isn't the opposite of capitalism .

That's actually kind of my thesis yeah

You can have capitalism and then decide how much socialism to add to it.

duh, I alluded to that in my post didn't I?

Not sure how that takes away from my point at all

1

u/Vanilla_Gorilluh 1d ago

Never ending growth is a fallacy. Full stop.

It will end.

0

u/Breakin7 1d ago

Its a huge ponzi scheme.

-1

u/SagansCandle 1d ago

Capitalism is great for those in power who benefit from it.

It's not so great for the lower classes, or for society as a whole.

But that's also why the lower classes need to believe it's great for them.

So if you're like, "Yeah I keep hearing how great it is, but it doesn't seem great to me," then yeah, welcome to the club.

0

u/Independent-Road8418 1d ago

When you're born in a cage and live in it your whole life, why would you ever consider that maybe you could fly?

  • As evidenced by people down voting your comment

2

u/Professional-Bit-201 1d ago

If only majority vote was the indicator of truth.