Forbes: Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050 Unless There Are Changes

[True Dough]

Revisiting this op-ed in Forbes from 2016, which contains many facts and figures. Do you agree or disagree with the premise that capitalism is unsustainable in its current form? If so, how optimistic/pessimistic are you that it will actually change for the better. The election of Donald Trump as president doesn't instill much hope or confidence, IMO.

Capitalism has generated massive wealth for some, but it’s devastated the planet and has failed to improve human well-being at scale.

• Species are going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster than that of the natural rate over the previous 65 million years (see Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School).

• Since 2000, 6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year. That’s 14,826,322 acres, or just less than the entire state of West Virginia (see the 2010 assessment by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN).

• Even in the U.S., 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. For children under the age of 18, that number increases to 20% (see U.S. Census).

• The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 (see United Nations' projections).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drewhansen/2016/02/09/unless-it-changes-capitalism-will-starve-humanity-by-2050/#1b1ad1577ccc

[guillaumeb]

1. Capitalism places money before all else.

History teaches us that.

Only strong regulation can rein in capitalists.

[Farmer-Rick]

29. Socialsm can rein in capitalism too

But it has to be backed up and supported by law too. Any free-for-all economy (which is what we have in most developed countries today) will eventually devolve into chaos.

I have very little confidence human kind will make the necessary improvements to their system of resource distribution until there is another horrible war.

[manor321]

2. Association is not causation

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Nice try. Just because it is true doesn't mean it applies in this case & you don't care to explain.

[BigmanPigman]

3. The top 1%

has most of the money...this is not just the US but world wide.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Add to the points excerpted * Gaping chasm in income-wealth inequality can't be maintained. nt

[Blue_true]

6. It is the increasing income inequality that will pose the most risk to capitalism.

The middleclass is shrinking and becoming poorer. A select few in populations hold most of societie's wealth. Rich people will be unable to hide behind gates and walls as society falls apart around them.

On Forbes observation on deforestation, I have a couple or three points. I think production of most compact food plants will be moved indoors to precisely controlled spaces, creating enormous improvements in yield, nutrient value and production of a food source will be year round for a location. Fruit trees will be difficult unless someone develop low profile high yielding fruit and nut trees (already happening for blueberries). Localities need to promote revitalization of abandoned industrial land instead of allowing the clearing of new land for industrial facilities. If land must be cleared, developers need to count trees before clearing them, then plan a site that have tree boundaries that replace most or all of the cleared trees. I favor "working" trees like fruit and nut trees planted in the boundary, but I also like red oak trees. The process of setting up a manufacturing installation becomes more expensive, but the long term environmental impact is a net possitive, or minimally negative impactful. Machines are going to replace people, societal planners need to think about how to minimize the disruption to society and unemployed people as machines replace people.

[Scruffy1]

22. A lot of the land being cleared of forest is so it can be used for raising food crops.

Brail has cleared a whole lot of forests to raise soybeans. They really need the exports to support their economy so it's probably not going to change. Similar situation with Canada and tar sands oil. We need a global system to run a global economy. No one nation can make much progress in the current dog eat whatever system. It's all about short term profit causing long term profits. I don't think it's possible to effectively regulate the world economic system unless we have global environmental controls.

[Blue_true]

35. I agree that environmental controls should be global.

Even with farmland, tree boundaries and working plant boundaries can be established. Imagine a large soybean field in Brazil with a dense boundary of cashew nut or Brazil nut trees, and edible berry plants in that boundary, instantly, the farm has two or three income producing plants growing on it, modulating the need for soybeans to carry the load alone - takes planning and a little more money at startup, but the long term economic and environmental benefits are enormous.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

34. green it up

For every square meter of new concrete or asphalt, a new square meter of grass or forest is required. (Move the damned parking lots underground, for example). Want a stadium? Plant a forest first.

Coming soon to a law book near you.

[Blue_true]

36. I agree.

I recently saw a New York penthouse where what would have been concrete was replaced with a lot of natural grass. The visual effect was stunning. Obviously maintenance costs go up, but people that can afford such a place don't have money as a primary daily worry.

[Garrett78]

7. Neverending growth on a finite planet is probably not feasible.

[workinclasszero]

14. Seems logical

Climate change is happening too. Another thing vulture capitalists want to ignore.

[rickford66]

27. I posed this question to a professor once, back in 1977.

I was back to school on the GI Bill working on an Associated degree in computer science with a minor in business. The business courses were a piece of cake and a relief after earning a BSEE earlier. So in Econ I asked the Prof how can growth go on forever. He basically laughed at me. No explanation. This was after seeing the effects of Global Warming in Antarctica in 1970.

[GetRidOfThem]

8. I take a different angle...

For years I, and many of us coming out of the 80's, were taught that truely competitive free markets work, and that the overall idea of the "magic hand" reigns. We were given, as a textbook exception to the rule, the lack of economies pricing in the exploitation and depletetion of the environment (something that I now, as an economist, am working on in my career).

The "magic hand" is a nomiker invented by Adam Smith, who also had a deep understanding, even back then, of market failures.

What we are dealing with, on a very macro level, is again a market failure.

We went through many of these in the past few years. The internet bubble now seems quaint in retrospect, compared to the subsequent housing bubble, but it was devestating at the time, and showed that the basic assumptions of the effiiencies of financial markets (the financial markerts where heralded as being extremely efficient) were simply wrong.

My treaties to the question at hand about the very acopalyptic prognostications of Forbes is that we must put in place the institutional frameworks and structures to make markets truly competitive and transparent. Inefficiencies only go away through solid institutional structures and oversight, leveling the overall playing field. No, I don't think capitalism has failed, I think markets have been, and currently are failing. We need a more rigorous oversight structure.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. "nomicer"?

[GetRidOfThem]

11. working off my cell phone, sitting at an airport...

...enjoying a glass of wine, and not being a native English speaker, will correct ASAP...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. +1. Capitalism is healthy. Markets and regulation have been gutted by RepubliCONs. . . nt

[GetRidOfThem]

12. Right!! nt

[brush]

16. Truely competitive free markets/rigorous oversight structure sounds like an oxymoron

[GetRidOfThem]

23. Nope.

The ideal free market is a level playing field, with no assymetries in information (in stock market parlance: no insider trading), or other assymetries.

The funny thing is that Adam Smith was well aware of market failures. He talked about olygopolies and monopolies.

Free market in a sense means a market where competitive forces set prices, based on an even distribution of all information known. The price reflects everything known at the given point in time, including known cost to the environment. You need a regulatory framework to make that happen (such as SEC enforcement against insider trading).

The term "free market" should not be confused with "everything goes market", or "wild West market". It is an ideal condition where the demand and supply equilibrium is reached in an efficient manner.

[handmade34]

26. in other words

regulation merely means business must pay all external costs... must have honest and educated lawmakers and public

[GetRidOfThem]

32. yes on the lawmakers and public

But no on the end that business must pay all related cost, in the end it is really the consumer. If I introduce a carbon tax on shipping, in the end it will trickle down to the consumer in hightened prices. A properly constructed tax would then encourage shippers to switch to better, alternative fuels, because the reduction in the demand in trade, brought about by higher prices induced by the tax, would be untenable.

One of the important aspects of formulating policy is that costs are paid for by the actual consumer of a good, and not anyone else. This is a tricky topic in subsidies...

[brush]

33. Another term is needed then rather than "free market" because that only happens in theory.

Human greed always comes into play. What's a better term?

[GetRidOfThem]

38. I do not have a better tetm yet...

Joseph Stieglitz said something very poignant: it goes along the lines of "the reason why Addam Smith's invisible magic hand is invisible is because it does not exist." I had to crack up when I saw this, because of the wit behind the statement, and my own unorthodox beliefs that are along Stieglitz's lines...

I agree with your question. This is an interesting discussion...

[Quixote1818]

13. It's interesting this was in Forbes Magazine. They have become a lot more liberal over the years.

nt

[qazplm135]

15. Are a majority of countries capitalist??

China is one of the greatest contributors to global warming and they've been mostly not capitalist until recently.

Socialism or communism or any of the other isms aren't immune from producing waste or greenhouse gases or misusing natural resources.

[Scruffy1]

21. I always considered China to be State run capitalism.

It started with Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and hasn't changed a lot except they allow individual companies to profit from it. Their latest takeover of the solar industry is a prime example. It was largely state capitalized.

[qazplm135]

37. state run capitalism

is a bit of an oxymoron isn't it?

[Sherman A1]

17. Interesting piece

thanks for posting.

[pansypoo53219]

18. its fully ayn rand crapitalism now. profits above all. which will kill it.

[moondust]

19. Formula for disaster:

Unbridled greed + unbridled population growth.

[Xolodno]

20. Surprised Forbes published this...they lost me when they confused the...

...Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns to the theory of Returns to Scale.

But it is ironic, Marx was warning of this and that the probable result will be in violent revolution. With that said, he is wrong in some respect...Europe didn't go through the violence he envisioned and has takens steps towards Socialism...or "well regulated capitalism" if that makes you feel better. And in the US, where he viewed that democracy would probably result in socialism....well, that hasn't exactly happened yet.

[Bradical79]

31. Democracy leading to Socialism in the U.S.

To be fair, our Democratic institutions have never been particularly strong. For most of our history, large segments of the population have been excluded from taking part. And today we see how a party can be the majority in every branch of government while losing the popular vote nationwide. I think many over the years have overestimated the Democratic nature of our country.

[kcr]

24. Well. For Forbes I guess it's pretty revolutionary

But they definitely haven't gone anti-capitalist on us. It's great they acknowledge there is a problem. But the huge shakeup they propose to stop the death-march of late-stage capitalism is.... more startups, with alternative management models! Mother Jones, they aren't.

[JCMach1]

25. The planet is a Commons and everyone

Should have a share... Pretty simple really

[smirkymonkey]

28. I agree that unrestrained, unregulated capitalism is a problem, but so is

over-population. We need to find ways to curb fertility and the best way to do that is to make sure that women world-wide are educated and empowered.

[democratisphere]

30. Overpopulation, global warming and climate change and

human greed will be key factors in the demise of most living creatures and things on Earth. The human greed will lead to great suffering by the masses while revolution will ultimately destroy the wealthiest. Unchecked greed market capitalism will destroy itself.