• @nooneescapesthelaw
    link
    English
    -201 month 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.”

    • db0OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      361 month 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.

        • db0OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 month ago

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

          • @nooneescapesthelaw
            link
            English
            01 month 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

            • db0OP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              51 month 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
              31 month ago

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

    • Frog-Brawler
      link
      fedilink
      181 month 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
        link
        English
        -11 month 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

        • Frog-Brawler
          link
          fedilink
          21 month ago

          Inflation is a thing. If you continually profit 2% that is growth vs the previous year.

    • @novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 month 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.

      • @nooneescapesthelaw
        link
        English
        01 month ago

        Neoclassical theory also doesn’t require/consider imperative growth