Comments on: Martin Wolf on the Implications of a Zero-Sum Future http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-implications-of-zero-sum.html Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:21:03 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-implications-of-zero-sum.html#comment-2562 Anonymous Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:33:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-the-implications-of-a-zero-sum-future/#comment-2562 Well, Martin is either fully unaware of those particular and historically delimited social relations of production and REproduction called capitalism or desires a new term.<br/><br/>The 'positive sum' economy was in fact the rise of industrial capitalism and its subsumption of merchant and usury capital, both of which were zero sum. <br/><br/>Or he may be confused about the differences between what is called expanded reproduction and simple reproduction... <br/><br/>Whatever the case, with its assignment of energy sources as deterministic, the article completely misses the well studied multi-century transition from production for use to production based in and on production for sale (generalizing commodity relations), transformation of labor into a commodity (development of free wage labor) and change in property relationships (legal political guarantee of private property) without which the purchaser of the commodity labor power could not effectively own the product of that which he paid for, a product embodying exactly that surplus value* which, through the real market, transforms into private profit and ability to expand accumulation, i.e. growth, which is not nor can ever logically be a consequence of circulation; the market is absolutely required by capital but cannot create.<br/><br/>Advancement in mass and quality of means of production and greater productivity has been based in the competitive interactions of individual businesses, which has not been competition for competition's sake but the struggle by each to maximize its particular profit. IOW, energy and tech developments have been consequences <b>and then</b> causes. Still, what transpires at the micro level does not necessarily replicate at the macro, as the competitive/expansionary drive also brings systemic or macro overinvestment, overaccumulation, falling avg rate of profit, crises, every one of which makes clear that the limits to capital are not exogenous but capitalist relations themselves.<br/><br/>Attempts to perpetuate these relations takes us further into absolute global limits and greater retrogression. The opposite is really possible.<br/><br/><br/>*based on the should be self-evident fact that there is a difference between the total new value created by the commodity labour power, and its own value, its own reproduction costs, and a difference which is the very basis of profit within the capital system. All else is merely 'profit' of circulation. Well, Martin is either fully unaware of those particular and historically delimited social relations of production and REproduction called capitalism or desires a new term.

The ‘positive sum’ economy was in fact the rise of industrial capitalism and its subsumption of merchant and usury capital, both of which were zero sum.

Or he may be confused about the differences between what is called expanded reproduction and simple reproduction…

Whatever the case, with its assignment of energy sources as deterministic, the article completely misses the well studied multi-century transition from production for use to production based in and on production for sale (generalizing commodity relations), transformation of labor into a commodity (development of free wage labor) and change in property relationships (legal political guarantee of private property) without which the purchaser of the commodity labor power could not effectively own the product of that which he paid for, a product embodying exactly that surplus value* which, through the real market, transforms into private profit and ability to expand accumulation, i.e. growth, which is not nor can ever logically be a consequence of circulation; the market is absolutely required by capital but cannot create.

Advancement in mass and quality of means of production and greater productivity has been based in the competitive interactions of individual businesses, which has not been competition for competition’s sake but the struggle by each to maximize its particular profit. IOW, energy and tech developments have been consequences and then causes. Still, what transpires at the micro level does not necessarily replicate at the macro, as the competitive/expansionary drive also brings systemic or macro overinvestment, overaccumulation, falling avg rate of profit, crises, every one of which makes clear that the limits to capital are not exogenous but capitalist relations themselves.

Attempts to perpetuate these relations takes us further into absolute global limits and greater retrogression. The opposite is really possible.

*based on the should be self-evident fact that there is a difference between the total new value created by the commodity labour power, and its own value, its own reproduction costs, and a difference which is the very basis of profit within the capital system. All else is merely ‘profit’ of circulation.

]]> By: dearieme http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-implications-of-zero-sum.html#comment-2558 dearieme Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:00:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-the-implications-of-a-zero-sum-future/#comment-2558 Limits to Growth? This time it's different? Limits to Growth? This time it’s different?

]]> By: Tom http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-implications-of-zero-sum.html#comment-2557 Tom Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:40:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-the-implications-of-a-zero-sum-future/#comment-2557 Currently it seams that the human population is acting like bacteria in a jar. Population grows ever faster until the food source is depleted and a massive die off ensues.<br/>The only difference between humans and bacteria is that we can (in theory at least) choose to slow our population growth. It's ironic that people are fighting the legal system right now to win the right to die on their own terms. How long until "death before dementia" becomes a mandate? Currently it seams that the human population is acting like bacteria in a jar. Population grows ever faster until the food source is depleted and a massive die off ensues.
The only difference between humans and bacteria is that we can (in theory at least) choose to slow our population growth. It’s ironic that people are fighting the legal system right now to win the right to die on their own terms. How long until “death before dementia” becomes a mandate?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-implications-of-zero-sum.html#comment-2554 Anonymous Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:26:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-the-implications-of-a-zero-sum-future/#comment-2554 Never underestimate the power of game-changing technological advances. In particular, much of the promise of biotech is yet to be realized.<br/><br/>For instance, <a HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/weekinreview/08wade.html" REL="nofollow">new developments in synthetic biology</a> hold out the promise of cheap biofuel.<br/><br/>Over the long term, the sky's the limit. Could we engineer nitrogen-fixing capability into all of our crops? Or really let your imagination loose for the even longer term. Forget compact fluorescent lightbulbs or light-emitting diodes... if we could someday develop genetically-engineered owls' eyes or night-vision retinal implants, then lighting itself would become obsolete, and we'd save almost 20% of current energy use.<br/><br/>Ever-faster computing power (Moore's law) and internet connectivity will also buy us a lot, not just in terms of greater efficiency and productivity, but also design capability and collaborative works (grid computing, Wikipedia-like projects).<br/><br/>I think the human race in one way or another will make it. But there will be "interesting" times and many unthinkably bad individual outcomes. Never underestimate the power of game-changing technological advances. In particular, much of the promise of biotech is yet to be realized.

For instance, new developments in synthetic biology hold out the promise of cheap biofuel.

Over the long term, the sky’s the limit. Could we engineer nitrogen-fixing capability into all of our crops? Or really let your imagination loose for the even longer term. Forget compact fluorescent lightbulbs or light-emitting diodes… if we could someday develop genetically-engineered owls’ eyes or night-vision retinal implants, then lighting itself would become obsolete, and we’d save almost 20% of current energy use.

Ever-faster computing power (Moore’s law) and internet connectivity will also buy us a lot, not just in terms of greater efficiency and productivity, but also design capability and collaborative works (grid computing, Wikipedia-like projects).

I think the human race in one way or another will make it. But there will be “interesting” times and many unthinkably bad individual outcomes.

]]> By: dnn http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-implications-of-zero-sum.html#comment-2542 dnn Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:11:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-the-implications-of-a-zero-sum-future/#comment-2542 From a purely human-centric perspective, an argument can be made that we are all better off, or at least a majority of humanity. But when looked at from a biological and ecological perspective, one has to note that loss of biological diversity, climate change, water pollution and limited access to sanitation, to name but a few examples, the picture isn't so good.<br/><br/>Over many decades we have witnessed the swing from emphasis on markets to government corrections, and back again. Out of this more and more is expected of governments to intervene to address the consequences of an emphasis on market forces. Thus, pressures build on the legitimacy of said government efforts as the economic outcomes become increasingly tied to government programs. We are left, then, with what Jurgen Habermas has termed a legitimation crisis. From a purely human-centric perspective, an argument can be made that we are all better off, or at least a majority of humanity. But when looked at from a biological and ecological perspective, one has to note that loss of biological diversity, climate change, water pollution and limited access to sanitation, to name but a few examples, the picture isn’t so good.

Over many decades we have witnessed the swing from emphasis on markets to government corrections, and back again. Out of this more and more is expected of governments to intervene to address the consequences of an emphasis on market forces. Thus, pressures build on the legitimacy of said government efforts as the economic outcomes become increasingly tied to government programs. We are left, then, with what Jurgen Habermas has termed a legitimation crisis.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-implications-of-zero-sum.html#comment-2541 Anonymous Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:08:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-the-implications-of-a-zero-sum-future/#comment-2541 Wolf is dead right if only because he takes the opportunity to write about the dirty little secret, namely the optimistic myth that somehow we can grow forever and everyone is better off. I am no Luddite, but does the latest and greatest gadget mobile device with one more feature really advance the ball of civilization? Globalization is as much about plundering new markets - with the added obstacle that the new sovereigns have read the playbook and are pushing back with their own great walls of capital - as it is about redistribution. In the ideal world there would be no gating factors/regulations and Darwin would rule. That is unrealistic obviously and therefore there the parasitic will eventually consume the symbiotic resulting in exactly what Wolf alludes to: conflict. This is not only probably but possible. The United States is accelerating its own decline with the rapid move to monetize the family jewels as it tries to hold the line on its disappearing comparative and competitive advantages. We now know that much of the profitability of the financial complex was fleeting and yet that reality hasn't filtered down to the people who own the houses. It would be interesting to do an economics study of the resource distortion created by the systemic changes in the financial markets over the past few decades. This would include the ridiculous pay packages across the spectrum of people and the value destruction resulting from the systemic leverage recapitalizations that manufactured much of the earnings growth that so justified multiple expansion. This crisis is of a magnitude not nearly recognized by the masses. We have asset inflation across our entire complex. There are very entrenched forces like the Fed, the Gov't (baby boomers for the most part who will act out of self interest) and financiers who stand to protect the massive distortions for the greater good. if the entire complex isn't bankrupt yet, it is insolvent. Seems to me all the ingredients are in place for major conflict. Wolf is dead right if only because he takes the opportunity to write about the dirty little secret, namely the optimistic myth that somehow we can grow forever and everyone is better off. I am no Luddite, but does the latest and greatest gadget mobile device with one more feature really advance the ball of civilization? Globalization is as much about plundering new markets – with the added obstacle that the new sovereigns have read the playbook and are pushing back with their own great walls of capital – as it is about redistribution. In the ideal world there would be no gating factors/regulations and Darwin would rule. That is unrealistic obviously and therefore there the parasitic will eventually consume the symbiotic resulting in exactly what Wolf alludes to: conflict. This is not only probably but possible. The United States is accelerating its own decline with the rapid move to monetize the family jewels as it tries to hold the line on its disappearing comparative and competitive advantages. We now know that much of the profitability of the financial complex was fleeting and yet that reality hasn’t filtered down to the people who own the houses. It would be interesting to do an economics study of the resource distortion created by the systemic changes in the financial markets over the past few decades. This would include the ridiculous pay packages across the spectrum of people and the value destruction resulting from the systemic leverage recapitalizations that manufactured much of the earnings growth that so justified multiple expansion. This crisis is of a magnitude not nearly recognized by the masses. We have asset inflation across our entire complex. There are very entrenched forces like the Fed, the Gov’t (baby boomers for the most part who will act out of self interest) and financiers who stand to protect the massive distortions for the greater good. if the entire complex isn’t bankrupt yet, it is insolvent. Seems to me all the ingredients are in place for major conflict.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-implications-of-zero-sum.html#comment-2540 Anonymous Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:35:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-the-implications-of-a-zero-sum-future/#comment-2540 That...was a spectacularly poor article, with plenty of librul strawmen.<br/><br/>It is also somewhat ignorant, I think purposefully of what makes the world go 'round today. The first world still makes *many* zero sum practices a priority in relation with the world.<br/><br/>If they didn't, we would not be able make so much of a living from value-added processes. That…was a spectacularly poor article, with plenty of librul strawmen.

It is also somewhat ignorant, I think purposefully of what makes the world go ’round today. The first world still makes *many* zero sum practices a priority in relation with the world.

If they didn’t, we would not be able make so much of a living from value-added processes.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-implications-of-zero-sum.html#comment-2539 Anonymous Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:45:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-the-implications-of-a-zero-sum-future/#comment-2539 Somewhere this year or last I read of an ecological economist who calculated the resources required for all nations on Earth to live with the standard of living currently enjoyed by the U.S. <br/>What quantity of resources would it take? The equivalent of 4.5 Earths! <br/>I think positive-sum economics is a myth perpetuated by the optimistic, eternal growth crowd to avoid the redistribution of wealth this engenders. The purported positive-sum results are accounting fictions that fail to account for externalities and costs to future generations. We borrow from the future to live well today. The U.S.'s Ponzi finance has turned the world's consumer of last resort into its greatest debtor.<br/>This brings me to a puzzle I have often wondered about but haven't resolved. The First Law of Thermodynamics states matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, they only change form. Is there a similar law of wealth dynamics? Is every economy, no matter the scale, always zero-sum?<br/>The stock market is zero-sum (someone has to buy your shares to help you realize your gains. No new wealth is created. Even dividends come from the pockets of consumers). I'm unable to imagine how an economy would not be. Somewhere this year or last I read of an ecological economist who calculated the resources required for all nations on Earth to live with the standard of living currently enjoyed by the U.S.
What quantity of resources would it take? The equivalent of 4.5 Earths!
I think positive-sum economics is a myth perpetuated by the optimistic, eternal growth crowd to avoid the redistribution of wealth this engenders. The purported positive-sum results are accounting fictions that fail to account for externalities and costs to future generations. We borrow from the future to live well today. The U.S.’s Ponzi finance has turned the world’s consumer of last resort into its greatest debtor.
This brings me to a puzzle I have often wondered about but haven’t resolved. The First Law of Thermodynamics states matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, they only change form. Is there a similar law of wealth dynamics? Is every economy, no matter the scale, always zero-sum?
The stock market is zero-sum (someone has to buy your shares to help you realize your gains. No new wealth is created. Even dividends come from the pockets of consumers). I’m unable to imagine how an economy would not be.

]]> By: Sean Watson http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-implications-of-zero-sum.html#comment-2538 Sean Watson Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:49:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-the-implications-of-a-zero-sum-future/#comment-2538 Martin Wolfs continued belief in the positive-sum world economy is in denial of the resource constraints we face. <br/><br/>We are still totally dependent on our grain supply. As an agronomist working in China (and Asia generally) over the last 10 years, I can say from some experience that we are running out of soil and water, and yields are dropping. Yet the population keeps rising. Have you seen the grain price lately (its not all biofuels)?<br/><br/>A good analysis of the future possibilities for our civilisations development are presented here http://www.gtinitiative.org Its sponsored by the Stockholm Enviroment Institute and the Tellus Institute. <br/><br/>Martin Wolf can probably keep the plates spinning for a while yet, but our grandchildren may not thank him. Martin Wolfs continued belief in the positive-sum world economy is in denial of the resource constraints we face.

We are still totally dependent on our grain supply. As an agronomist working in China (and Asia generally) over the last 10 years, I can say from some experience that we are running out of soil and water, and yields are dropping. Yet the population keeps rising. Have you seen the grain price lately (its not all biofuels)?

A good analysis of the future possibilities for our civilisations development are presented here http://www.gtinitiative.org Its sponsored by the Stockholm Enviroment Institute and the Tellus Institute.

Martin Wolf can probably keep the plates spinning for a while yet, but our grandchildren may not thank him.

]]> By: a http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-implications-of-zero-sum.html#comment-2537 a Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:00:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/12/martin-wolf-on-the-implications-of-a-zero-sum-future/#comment-2537 Lester Thurow (and Jimmy Carter) anyone ? Or maybe it's Malthus? Lester Thurow (and Jimmy Carter) anyone ? Or maybe it’s Malthus?

]]>