>>1135366
The same natural order that dictates natural evolution and natural selection, It seems correlated, red queen hipothesis may apply to capitalism as environment.Talking out of my ass desu, have no clue about economics nor biology.

>>1135373
am I asking the wrong board?

>>1135366
>growth absolutely necessary for an economy to function?

It's more like
1a) People do shit everyday
1b) The population is growing
2) Technology allows us to do more things in less time

The economy can function when there's a lack of growth -- a recession. It just means that investors are less interested in risking their money. The economy keeps on going.

>>1135366
Growth is the goal of capitalism. If the US doesn't continue to grow China will surely overpower us. If China doesn't grow it's people will remain poor. If we both grow, everyone prospers.

>>1135366
>Can an economic system survive a stagnant population growth?

Yes. Economic growth can be derived from either a growing consumer base or increases in productivity. Of course it is generally much easier to grow a population than increase productivity.

>>1135397
>>1135398
okay, good answers

now this is pure conjecture but i feel it is a relevant question to ask.

in the situation that the rapid pace of technological change outstrips the average workers ability to hold a job, out of simple the simple fact that its cheaper to automate their position (think of cashiers at supermarkets, or hi tech factor workers today). What effect would that have on the economy?

If economic growth encourages further advancement into cost efficiency on every level, could an economy function with less and less workers? or would the lack of pay for the workers lead to economic strife due to their inability to pay for the goods that are produced by companies.

>>1135403
>If economic growth encourages further advancement into cost efficiency on every level, could an economy function with less and less workers? or would the lack of pay for the workers lead to economic strife due to their inability to pay for the goods that are produced by companies.


You could not completely automate, for an economy to function you need people to earn and spend money. Google Circular Flow diagram, basic economics.

So all robots would not work, some robots and some people will work like we have now.

>>1135407
of course complete automation would be impossible, but wouldn't even a partial automation have a significant effect?

>>1135403
>>1135407

To add to that if more people were made redundant by the automation of their positions and it got out of control the claims of welfare benefits (in countries where that is applicable) would be way too large for the gov to cope with. Not only will they pay out in benefits, they will also not receive income tax from those workers.

The gov could tax the company's more to offset that but then whats the point of the initial outlay from the companies to automate in the first place.

>>1135411

Automation will increase production, but an economy will only grow as long as their are consumers to pay for all the produce.

>>1135412
>>1135413

interesting, I've been under the assumption that business would always choose the most cost efficient option and encourage automation anywhere and everywhere they could.

alot of this is a bit over my head, but if I am reading you correctly, there would be a natural barrier to the further automation of select industries due to their inability to sell products to people who cant pay?

>>1135419

Yeah everyone wants to cut costs, that is just natural business but the only point of business is to create profit, which is only done by turning over revenue through the sale of products and services.

If theres no consumer or end user theres no business.

If youre looking for pure economic theory on it you should research something called Minimum Efficient Scale or "MES". All of my source for this is economics degree which was just pure theory

>>1135424
i guess the end goal of the question I asked is to find out whether or not I really support socialism or not. which isn't really relevant to this board, and something I would never EVER mention on /pol/.

Could the government keep business afloat artificially through enough welfare to the population in the event that a large portion of the country becomes unemployed? I mean if people have money to spend on products, products get sold, which feeds back into the cycle of growth. Does it really matter the size of the population when workers arent required to increase economic growth?

>>1135428

Its not a completely impossible scenario its just dog shit economics for living standards, look at all the failed socialist or communist governments and north korea.

ALso consider leaks from the economy. What if you pay someone welfare and they save it instead of spending it?

>>1135435
I think most failed communist or socialist systems failed because of a fundamental misunderstanding of modern economics. Remember, every single one of these countries were setup in an era prior to advent of digital information and the internet. Shit, the Soviet Union was attempting to figure out production using fucking punch cards and surveys, they were doomed from the start.

when compared to that sort of logistical nightmare, capitalism plays out as the winner due to it being a much more simple system that works off of human intuition and greed. muh occams razor.

You make a good point with the possibility of people saving their money causing a problem, but I cant imagine it being that big of a deal if all needs are met, what incentive would you have to save?

>>1135441
>You make a good point with the possibility of people saving their money causing a problem, but I cant imagine it being that big of a deal if all needs are met, what incentive would you have to save?


You answered yourself anon. Greed.

>>1135453
I understand that greed is what would be WHY they would save, but I just dont see what they would possibly be saving money for, more shit to buy?

>>1135465

Probably just to have it.

>>1135515
I dont think that a sizable percentage of a population would save enough money simply for the sake of doing so. At least not enough to have a major detrimental effect.

the reason people started saving and operating underground capitalistic trading systems in places like the USSR is because of the inefficiency of the state. It was unable to meet even basic demands, hording and trading became a necessary tool for simple survival.