• nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    Capitalism does not require infinite growth, this idea is not taken seriously in economic circles. Keynesian and neoclassical economics do not consider or require infinite growth.

    You can be profit driven and not require infinite growth, if you make 2% profit every year you are not requiring infinite growth.

    It’s not true that maximizing profits is the duty of a company to it’s shareholders, here it is from NYT and supreme court:

    There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      8 months ago

      You can bloviate theoretically all you want, but practically, as it has played out since its inception, this is how capitalism works. This is the only way capitalism works. Very simply because those who do not grow endlessly, are consumed by those who do.

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Has literally never happened. But you’re probably confusing the theoretical non-existent free markets, with actual existing capitalism

          • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            My friend’s parents have been running their farm at the exact size profitably for almost 80 years, they exist in existing capitalism and have not died out or been crushed. There are many mom and pop stores and medium sized companies that exist without dying or growing

            • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Oh no, anecdotes! I’m defeated. Go look at the trends to small farming, megafarm ownership and small farmer suicide rates and get back to me

            • uienia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              A) They are not capitalist B) and they are a completely inconsequential part of capitalist economy.

    • Frog-Brawler@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 months ago

      If you profit 2% every year, whether or not it’s a “requirement,” that is limitless growth.

      Regardless, the Supreme Court’s opinion about the lack of an on the books law around an obligation is not relevant. We also don’t have a law on the books about how gravity works, nor one about rain making the ground wet.

      • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The profit does not increase, it stays the same (adjusted for inflation), it doesn’t need limitless growth.

        If every year I sell 100 bushels of wheat for 2% profit, I’m not experiencing any growth

    • novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      But capital that stops dies, and if you are outcompeted you stop. So you always have to do better than everyone else. And capital has to accumulate exponentially to keep growing, and not stop and die.

      The mechanics of the system make sustainable growth impossible. Tweaking the surface of the system will never change that core.