> But how does capitalism itself (private ownership of production) demand never ending growth
If rich people own the world and growth = investment returns = how rich people get paid for being rich, do you think they want it to stop? Or will they (and the system they own) do anything to keep it going?
There's a reason why the moralizing lore of capitalism always happens at the bottom of an S curve even though most economic sectors spend most of the time at the top of an S curve. At the bottom of an S curve, a new investment frontier has opened up. By foregoing consumption today and investing, we can enable more/faster/better consumption tomorrow. Investors get part of the windfall, consumers get part of the windfall, everyone wins. However, at the top of an S curve, capital is plentiful and investment opportunities are scarce. The value of investment / foregoing consumption drops to nearly 0, and in practice probably goes slightly negative due to hope springing eternal / boondoggle chasing. That's all ok, the accounting will assign credit and blame in the end, but it's a huge problem if you are rich enough that you obtain your money by investing rather than by working. Suddenly, your source of income (sorry, capital gains, wouldn't want the IRS to tax you like a pleb) has gone away. If there is nothing to invest in, how do you get paid for investing? What to do?
Answer: pull any and every lever to get the growth train going again. But what if the growth is low quality? Doesn't matter. You are here to get paid, not to generate quality growth. Does it cause inflation? Not on your assets -- doesn't matter. Does it cause housing to become unaffordable? Doesn't matter. Does it cause imperial conflict when the overseas growth markets don't like your terms? Doesn't matter. As far as our economy is concerned, the important thing is that the people who literally own our economy get paid, all else is secondary.
NOTE: I'm not nearly as anti-capitalist as you might think. Capitalism is the best system for bringing the maximum amount of resources to bear on new frontiers. In a world that seems to be winner-take-all in so many respects, this may be the horse you want to bet on. Still, almost all of the Big Problems in the world today can be traced directly back to our economic structure. This is not an indictment: it would be true of any economic structure. Still, the question remains of whether what we do is worthwhile and how much we want to do to file down the sharp edges. IMO, it is worthwhile, but we should do more to file down the edges. YMMV.
If rich people own the world and growth = investment returns = how rich people get paid for being rich, do you think they want it to stop? Or will they (and the system they own) do anything to keep it going?
There's a reason why the moralizing lore of capitalism always happens at the bottom of an S curve even though most economic sectors spend most of the time at the top of an S curve. At the bottom of an S curve, a new investment frontier has opened up. By foregoing consumption today and investing, we can enable more/faster/better consumption tomorrow. Investors get part of the windfall, consumers get part of the windfall, everyone wins. However, at the top of an S curve, capital is plentiful and investment opportunities are scarce. The value of investment / foregoing consumption drops to nearly 0, and in practice probably goes slightly negative due to hope springing eternal / boondoggle chasing. That's all ok, the accounting will assign credit and blame in the end, but it's a huge problem if you are rich enough that you obtain your money by investing rather than by working. Suddenly, your source of income (sorry, capital gains, wouldn't want the IRS to tax you like a pleb) has gone away. If there is nothing to invest in, how do you get paid for investing? What to do?
Answer: pull any and every lever to get the growth train going again. But what if the growth is low quality? Doesn't matter. You are here to get paid, not to generate quality growth. Does it cause inflation? Not on your assets -- doesn't matter. Does it cause housing to become unaffordable? Doesn't matter. Does it cause imperial conflict when the overseas growth markets don't like your terms? Doesn't matter. As far as our economy is concerned, the important thing is that the people who literally own our economy get paid, all else is secondary.
NOTE: I'm not nearly as anti-capitalist as you might think. Capitalism is the best system for bringing the maximum amount of resources to bear on new frontiers. In a world that seems to be winner-take-all in so many respects, this may be the horse you want to bet on. Still, almost all of the Big Problems in the world today can be traced directly back to our economic structure. This is not an indictment: it would be true of any economic structure. Still, the question remains of whether what we do is worthwhile and how much we want to do to file down the sharp edges. IMO, it is worthwhile, but we should do more to file down the edges. YMMV.