How are neoliberals so willingly deluded?

It's seriously concerning, the fall of capitalism is so certain due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall that you can't ignore it. So why do so many economists choose to do so? How do they chose to do so? Because as far as I know, their only "argument" is that technology will get infinitely better over time to combat this, and that economic growth will continue forever as a result; which is ridiculous as that violates the laws of thermodynamics

Attached: limits to growth.jpeg (300x409, 119.58K)

Other urls found in this thread:

they covered up deindustrialization and the exploitation of the third world with finance.

Due to the high level of financialization of the economy, economist schooling is completely divorced from empiricism and the physical world. It's more useful to know how to turn money into more money than how to actually allocate real resources. Because of this they literally believe that we can have endless growth because that's what all of them are taught. They don't understand the physical limitations of the world and this becomes apparent any time you actually question them along these lines.

They'll probably be dead when that happens so they don't give a shit.

The way the modern financial system is designed all of the world's industrial production is being reorganized to serve the rich at the expense of everyone else. The physical limitations don't matter because the end result of it is they'll kill everyone else off so they can't compete to consume the same resources of the planet.

The physical limitations matter because the rich are still physical beings. The rich have yet to financialize themselves and be turned into a string of numbers.

I mean they are trying to achieve immortality.

Technological development is what causes the rate of profit to fall.

So what you propose is that we are to make happy people like Norwegians living in a beautiful and stable society communists, by telling them that their politicians don't understand thermodynamics or whatever? lol

Biological immortality doesn't actually overcome the limits to growth. They'd have to literally become non-physical and purely financial beings.

maybe that's their endgame

I meant they might try to achieve it through something like digitizing themselves.

They're probably right. The economies of the prime parts of the world are based on Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, none of which are based on any "real world" limitations, manufacturing and agriculture have rapidly declining rates of profit, NY condos don't. The only thing you need to hike up the price of a townhome or a google stock is more money, which has no limit. Crises happen but they are easily fixed by just giving rich people more money.

Global Warming is an issue obviously, but that's due to reliance on fossil fuels, not on any limit to growth. If we went 100% nuclear in the 50s it wouldn't be an issue.

Yes you are technically correct when you bring up entropy, eventually all the stars are gonna blow up but for the next dozen trillion years or so we can have infinite growth.

They could still live a long time and look young while doing it, plus uh vampires.

Can we go back to calling them vampires?

Attached: revisedpostsoviet.jpg (750x632, 397.61K)


There's enough uranium to last us until the sun explodes


Not to mention the possibility of fusion power, and the possibility of high efficiency solar panels.

Sorry Malthusians but energy isn't a limit.

socdem why u gotta be such a downer every FUCKIng time

What about the nuclear waste though?

Bury it, Sweden has a permanent site, the US has a halfway built one.

Or just keep doing what we're doing know an put it in concrete casks and just leave them laying around. It's stupid, expensive and dangerous but sustainable none the less.

So if we have infinite amounts of energy, does that mean we can just make nuclear reactors all over the world and we never have to worry about resource depletion ever again?

wealth and power makes you live in another world basically

Yeah, consumption would have to be kept in line, which wouldn't be too hard because there's only so much energy you can use (just like people can only eat so much food), and the population is leveling out soon.

Its like how we never have to worry about being hungry ever again barring a climate catastrophe. Whenever there's a famine these days its a political issue.

Nice spook you have there

Which means growth stops. Hence, the thread.

Stop being antisemetic

jews look old tho, not young like vampires

Some of the simple reasons
-because it dealt with the issues of inflation
-Saw some general rises in living conditions and access to consumer goods
-Technological development is conflated with prosperity
-No serious ideological competition at a state/country level

The big and underlying reason
Neo liberalism is the the only viable from of capitalism in a globalising world which has a synergy between empowering businesses whilst diminishing the power of governments to control them.

From what I understand, it's the tendency for the best and cheapest resources to be used first, leaving behind lower quality and worse resources behind, which is why American oil companies today are barely making a profit

Are you assuming that we won't use the Uranium to reinvest and exponentially grow over time? The same "there's enough oil to last till the Sun explodes" argument was pretty popular in the mid-90's because of this assumption
Even if there was really that much uranium, we'd essentially enter a post-scarcity society because of it and capitalism would collapse anyways lol

No, it’s the production requiring less value. As stuff is automated this means less labor is used. However it is the extraction of surplus labor by capitalists that generates profit. So less labor in the production process means less labor extracted which means less value is created. Harder resources to extract would be profitable for capitalists if it was universal because it would require more labor to extract said resources allowing more surplus labor to be extracted.

Nuclear waste is an energy source

won't it still have to be disposed in the end?

No, that's like saying if we don't stop eating more and more growth will stop. There are other sectors of the economy.

Real estate prices and stock prices can keep growing

We are already close to one. Capitalism can survive post-scarcity easily, with brutally enforced intellectual property rights for instance.

No it wasn't

Get outside and observe some phenomena nerd.

Their entire worldview is dependant on capitalism being a just, efficient system. I know honestly, if I was presented with undeniable proof that socialism was inherently flawed, this would shake me to the core and I would probably lash out at it with the same intensity that neoliberals do when presented with undeniable proof that capitalism is inherently flawed.

What's easier? For them to reevaluate their entire worldview, or for them to ignore unpleasant facts?

Do you actually live in Norway or are you some kind of weaboo for that country?

Attached: 60292EFB-EDFE-4D9D-A960-6A1CE4AE51F0.jpeg (120x90, 15.65K)

An economy where only the price of stock and housing grows would be such an obvious game of musical chairs I’d be surprised if it doesn’t become clear to everybody that something is going on. I know you can point to 2008 but even then the underlying earnings of companies were still growing. Imagine everything else stagnant but stock price just went up because fuck it, gotta buy something. It’d be like bitcoin, anybody who wasn’t an ideological zombie would know they’re basically dealing with a zero sum situation.

what makes you think we aren't already there?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1000x649, 1.08M)

I still can't figure out if you're satirizing social democracy or not, because half of the time your posts more or less just make you seem like the epitome of a social fascist

Yes, the imaginary economy can keep "growing" because you can always add more zeros to the end of prices. That doesn't actually produce real growth, though. All it does is shuffle money around.

Lol, please learn about modern nuclear energy my man, Uranium is neccessary in the production of Nuclear Energy but only in incredibly small and safe amounts acting as an "activator" for Thorium, upon which whose process is completely refined may well be very important in a transitionary phase of slowing and hopefully reversing some aspects of Global Warming whilst we build infrastructure neccessary for renewables (currently renawables can't support all the industrial capacity, which will be needed to serive the renewables themselves)

They understand the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, that is exactly why they resort to endless imperialist ventures to attempt to find what few new investment opportunities there are left, and that is also why they hoard a massive amount of wealth, particularly because there are so few profitable investment opportunities left to spend any money on. They perfectly understand the coming collapse of capitalism which is why they are hoarding their resources and sucking up every last penny from every last corner of the earth while they still can. The neoliberal model is essentially a cancer, it is programmed only to grow as rapidly as possible, but its growth actively brings about the death of its host, and therefore itself, neoliberals are the human being equivalent of cancer cells.

Sorry meant to say mid-1900's

Attached: FallingRateOfPRofit.png (935x594, 145.97K)

Not disagreeing with the tendancy of the ROP to fall but source? And what kind of methodology allows for this to be calculated?

If it were that simple, why aren't we using nuclear power everywhere already? I don't see what the governments' motive would be against it if your narrative is true. And with infinite energy resources, that makes the infinite growth of capitalism possible, and we would never run out of resources from our planet.

Unfortunately neolibs are completely dishonest about economic growth

Even if resources are infinite there are hard thermodynamic limits to growth. This limit will be reached in less than 400 years assuming a 2.3% global growth rate. At that point the waste heat generated by economic activity will heat the planets surface to 100 degrees Celsius, realistically extinction will happen far before we get to 100 degrees.

The graph comes from a man named Guglielmo Carchedi. He recently helped create a book that goes into detail about the rate of profit. You can find it here:

Even Anwar Shaikh thinks capitalism is "sustainable" and uses profitability as a justification.

They arent deluded. They just tell lies to propegate their own agenda.