All economic systems end, including capitalism

[r0cky]

Wake up guys. Capitalism has been destroyed, not that true capitalism ever existed.
Like all ideas, every economic/ social system has a lifeline. The feudal system ended 500 years ago, the capitalist system is near its end also.

The feudal system was also widely accepted for hundreds of years, but as our consciousness evolved, we found a system that made us more free, capitalism. But now that system is also faltering and we're the lucky ones to create a new paradigm.

Its time to question old ideas and start accepting new ones.

The Zeitgeist Movie trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYLLFpNn4lM

The complete movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

 

[Cry For Love]

Remember, each coin has two sides. I suggest you Read the pro-capitalist ideological foundations formulating opinions. See mises.org
Or read "Socialism" which completely destroys the concept of non-capitalist economic systems.
mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

 

[omiroir]

Maybe the problem isn't capitalism, which assumes fair competition (with easy of access / exit into and out of markets), which isn't what we have--with oligopolies everywhere (in tv media for example), just a few steps away from monopoly, where price "fixing" becomes easier and easier, but instead we have empire-like corporations, backed often by government, which routinely ignore the broad interests of society. (Do we need examples?) Thus, in place of Kingdoms & Kings, as well as Religions & Priests, which lived by their own set of rules (very different from the people) yet eventually mostly LOST it, we now have the Corporate world & Executive, which has established itself in the role of "leading" society (haha. more like bleeding the people in so many sectors of American life today)--attracting many followers in the process, from the people, just like in religions (and look at the followers of royalty still in England... hmm...) yet these corporations, and of course there are exceptions, and of course we still need corporations... yet still as mostly self-serving, malevolent entities... in many cases. So, maybe the next phase of freedom & democracy will be for the people to overthrow the corporate world, bedded down deeply in our government. Mostly it would seem to require applying the appropriate laws to enforce competition...

 

[Kerpal]

I don't think our current problems can be fairly blamed on capitalism. Big corporations hijacking governments and using them to their own ends isn't even close to true capitalism.

 

[r0cky]

True capitalism can not exist. Humans are too fearful and too greedy for that. Maybe when we are able to control our egos completely. Until then, government control (which is ultimatly controled by corporations) will be necessary. Hence, we're stuck in a loop

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

Oh man, I don't know where to start.

To say that capitalism must end is to say that justice must end. Do you not see that capitalism is the righteous economic system that keeps you alive and makes everything you enjoy possible?

Many (weak) people decry capitalism because it "forces men to compete to be the best." But can you imagine a system where men compete to be the worst? A system where the man who wins is not the man of intelligence, work ethic and discipline, but the man who thinks nothing and does nothing? We already have. It's called socialism. In socialism, the man who wins is the swine who gets a note from the doctor excusing him from work, while the strong and just man is punished for his virtues by means of being forced to work even more (with no reward) to support the rotter who does nothing. Socialism is slavery.

Socialism is the bottom of that dark pit, the state of moral bankruptcy where men are punished for their virtues and rewarded for their sins.

The villification of the ego is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. Don't you know that your ego is your self, everything that makes you...you? To wish to destroy the ego is to wish to destroy yourself. Every "humanitarian" in history has run the exact same course: he began by extolling his love for mankind and his renunciation of the individual (ego), and ended in a sea of blood. Tyrants come to power by essentially telling you that you should hate yourself but love everyone else indiscriminately, then once in power his true motive becomes clear. But he could not have come to power by running on a platform of "I want to force you into a herd of brainless, soulless, egoless robots" and "I want you to hate yourself as much as I hate myself" and "We will achieve the perfect society by enslaving and killing everyone in it". But that's what it always boiled down to.

Man is not inherently evil; the ego is not inherently bad. The problem is that tyrants have always been held as the exponents of egotism, when in truth they were second-handers who lived through others. But the ego is a function of the self, of the independent individual; do you want to know who the supreme egotist is? The man who claims nothing from you, the man who values his own life so much that he wouldn't dare claim any right over you or any obligation from you, the man who selfishly values his independence above everything else in the world, that is who the egotist is.

Capitalism is the only system that ever said "You are an individual, and if you can produce it, you can have it." It did not say that you have an obligation of destroying your self (ego) so that someone elses feelings don't get hurt if you are better than them, it did not say you owed the sustenance of a life to the man who was not willing to produce it for himself. Until and unless you see that capitalism and money are the root of all good, the root of all that is just, all that is productive, you are asking for your own destruction. To renounce your life is to say "The system that keeps me alive and makes my life worth living is evil", and it is the vilest act of self-abasement you could ever make.

Do you know how many men have given their lives in defense of the same freedom you casually take for granted every day? You have grown up in the greatest, most noble country that ever existed, but the collectivist media (through every school, book, movie, speech, article, video game, etc.) has destroyed your ability to see it. It has dulled your intelligence and made you into little more than a zombie, regurgitating on command the evil bs they have filled your head with.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

Furthermore, I agree with the suggestion that corporations and government have become to interrelated, but it begs the question: whose fault is that?

If you are a small-time businessowner or the CEO of a multinational corporation, does it improve your bottom line or make your company more innovative, more competitive to have the stupid government involved in your dealings? As my grandmother sais, "Just say no."

It was glorious, laissez-faire (or "dog-eat-dog" if you're a pvssy) capitalism that lifted this country from the position of an obscure experiment to the greatest achievement in the history of human civilization. In a few short years, we went from riding horses to building railroads to building automobiles to putting a man on the moon. But the laissez-faire glory days ended when Teddy Roosevelt busted up Standard Oil. Ever since, the best men have known secretly, in the back of their minds, "I have to hold back. I know what happens to men who prove their worth, all the rotters come out of the woodwork and try to vote for my destruction."

It is the men who proved their worth that made every advancement possible. And it was laissez-faire capitalism that made it possible for men to prove their worth, to show the world the value of their work and the value of their minds.

The Standard Oil antitrust case began our regression into the crony capitalism we have today, where receiving the nod from the "all-knowing" bureaucrats is almost as valuable as being the man who invents a new nuclear reactor. The big government, the one you think you need to save you from the problems of this country, is in truth the cause of all those problems.

People are always asking, "What should the government do to fix the economy?" And then I hear a whole bunch of ridiculous sh!t. As far as the economy is concerned, all the government has to do is GET THE FVCK OUT OF THE WAY AND LET THE MEN OF VALUE PROVE THEIR WORTH. That is the only way to get America back on the right track; all the government has to do is get out of the way and do nothing! Damn!

 

[Kerpal]

If you are a small-time businessowner or the CEO of a multinational corporation, does it improve your bottom line or make your company more innovative, more competitive to have the stupid government involved in your dealings?

No, being granted monopoly powers over a specific industry doesn't make you more innovative or competitive (the opposite, actually) but it sure does help the bottom line. That's why big corporations hijack governments, so they can get those monopoly privileges and jack their prices up as high as they want. Monopolies can't exist in a true, capitalist free market because there are no government-created barriers to entry; if you raise your prices too high, someone else will either enter the market and drive it back down, or create some substitute product.

This is all basic economics that I learned in high school. The problem is stupid people who have no idea what they're talking about get upset about all these monopolies, and then blame it on "capitalism"... when what we have now isn't even close to true capitalism to begin with! True capitalism is the LAST thing big corporations want, because they would have to actually compete on a level playing field instead of just bribing politicians to keep competitors from entering the market.

 

[ArcBound]

I don't think whether or not all economic systems end is the question. I believe that they eventually must. I think the question is more on how long it lasts...If we make stupid economic decisions that shorten the length of the system. I think its like Julius said we have to buckle down and fix things. While I believe capitalism will end one day, the way we work and go about making economic decisions and government involvement can make the different between a 300-year long capitalism system or a 1000-year long capitalism system.

 

[JustLurk]

Furthermore, I agree with the suggestion that corporations and government have become to interrelated, but it begs the question: whose fault is that?

If you are a small-time businessowner or the CEO of a multinational corporation, does it improve your bottom line or make your company more innovative, more competitive to have the stupid government involved in your dealings? As my grandmother sais, "Just say no."

It was glorious, laissez-faire (or "dog-eat-dog" if you're a pvssy) capitalism that lifted this country from the position of an obscure experiment to the greatest achievement in the history of human civilization. In a few short years, we went from riding horses to building railroads to building automobiles to putting a man on the moon. But the laissez-faire glory days ended when Teddy Roosevelt busted up Standard Oil. Ever since, the best men have known secretly, in the back of their minds, "I have to hold back. I know what happens to men who prove their worth, all the rotters come out of the woodwork and try to vote for my destruction."

It is the men who proved their worth that made every advancement possible. And it was laissez-faire capitalism that made it possible for men to prove their worth, to show the world the value of their work and the value of their minds.

The Standard Oil antitrust case began our regression into the crony capitalism we have today, where receiving the nod from the "all-knowing" bureaucrats is almost as valuable as being the man who invents a new nuclear reactor. The big government, the one you think you need to save you from the problems of this country, is in truth the cause of all those problems.

People are always asking, "What should the government do to fix the economy?" And then I hear a whole bunch of ridiculous sh!t. As far as the economy is concerned, all the government has to do is GET THE FVCK OUT OF THE WAY AND LET THE MEN OF VALUE PROVE THEIR WORTH. That is the only way to get America back on the right track; all the government has to do is get out of the way and do nothing! Damn!

1) Without anti-monopoly laws, it is economically feasible that the number of companies will steadily decline into monopolistic megacorporations that have monopolies in not one, but several different markets. Imagine SO left to it's own devices combining with a company made of Walmart, Target, Pathmart, and McDonalds combined and what Microsoft could have been with no antitrust. Now imagine that company combining with Monsato. Now imagine complelete streamlining. Food grown by a branch of the company using seeds developed by another branch of the company is shipped to the wholesale parts of the company which the distribution parts of the company delivers to the sales part of the company. Where the company that mines raw goods, ships raw goods, and manufactures products, and sells products are all the same company. The economy of scale means this big dog is now pretty much invincible. I don't give a damn how amazing your new company idea is, you cannot compete with this economy of scale in place. This is why small farms were hit so hard post-railroad, to take one example. (Yeah, remember that time? Where segments of the rich had enough power to visibly squeeze your balls for the first time in a while?) With the lobbying power of several dozen large corporations combined this thing would never be destroyed and have the political power value comparable to several US states.
2) It it's a dog-eats-dog world why the **** was there a bailout? It's dog-eats-dog unless you're a big dog, then you eat everyone. You sound like you're advocating less government control of corporations. Corporations already seem like they've stuck their hands up politics' ******* and stuck their fingers in the arm-holes to move their puppets around but ok. Why not? Why don't we dissolve the EPA, FDA, ATF and all those other annoying and ineffective government meddling busybodies out of the way for you? Pure business. And if nobody can ever get a business started because the world has gone iEverything, then it's because they just aren't man enough. Nevermind that competition with a megacorporation is ****ing hard past niche market as it is, let's have a pure free market! Yes! If you're worried about a competitor, you can cut prices for a month and kill them with no repurcussions! If you're a hypothetical megamonopoly, you can just raise the costs of oil to your competitors so they go out of business! Isn't that right? A business can pursue whatever policy it wants as long as it's not illegal if the government takes off their hands. If they hold a patent on a unique medicine and you protest their policies, well I guess that means they are allowed to deny you medical service! Why not? "Hands off to the government" you said, so they won't come riding in to your rescue. You die. Free market fixes yet another problem all on it's own! (The problem was you.) It's a random color pixel spread game, and the inevitable result is the system permanantly progresses torwards a solid, homogenuous state. Even the free market pursues ultimate equlibrium.

 

[r0cky]

Capitalism does a great job at alienating our species. It even alienates us from the Earth by destroying it. The autodestructive consequences of maintaining such a system are becoming more and more clearer to more people.

I expect 100 years from now humans will look back to our era and ask themselves how could billions of people have lived their entire lives guided by money. And how could they have let ideas, such as money and religion, separate them into classes.

I know this is not any one or group of persons fault. But rather its a social programming that has evolved from thousands of years of human interaction. However, at this present moment I see this system in the mid stages of collapse.

 

[squirrels]

Capitalism does a great job at alienating our species. It even alienates us from the Earth by destroying it. The autodestructive consequences of maintaining such a system are becoming more and more clearer to more people.

I expect 100 years from now humans will look back to our era and ask themselves how could billions of people have lived their entire lives guided by money. And how could they have let ideas, such as money and religion, separate them into classes.

I know this is not any one or group of persons fault. But rather its a social programming that has evolved from thousands of years of human interaction. However, at this present moment I see this system in the mid stages of collapse.

Your problem is that you see "money" as a "thing" unto itself. Money is an exchange mechanism, nothing more.

Corporations don't just "get money". Thugs in the ghetto "get money". Money that ends up being splurged on sh*tty clothes and big wheels because they can't spend it anywhere else without people realizing it was ill-gotten.

Corporations provide VALUE to their shareholders and VALUE to their customers. Those people GIVE the corporations money...they don't TAKE it. If you want to kill a corporation, stop buying their sh!t. It's that simple, and it's happened many times before.

You want to kill off "big oil"? Move back to the damn city and buy a bicycle. Or get an electric car and put a solar panel on your roof.

"Big oil" makes it POSSIBLE for you to get your McMansion out in Suburbia and still be able to make it to your job. People 100 years ago had to ride horses for days to do what you do in a matter of minutes. They provide so much value to EVERYONE in the world, and you FREELY pay them for that value, then b!tch about how they won't give it to you for free??

Really, tell me...what can you do for "big oil" that can come CLOSE to the value of what they do for you? NOTHING. There isn't a damned thing you can do for "big oil" that can justify them adding the value they add to your life...except provide your OWN value for something they CAN use. That means "money".

That's all money is...a way you can exchange YOUR value for big oil's value even though you don't have anything that they want.

Why do they not teach BASIC economics in school?? "Money is evil!" "Money" is just paper or metals. They are as valuable as people say they are. If you don't want to deal with money, run off to the woods, build your own house in the trees, and hunt your own food. Sound like fun?? Didn't think so.

Until you've got your little woodland village and are free of the concept of currency, STFU about "the evils of money". You still buy your food from a grocery store, wipe your arse with toilet paper, pay someone for the privilege of living on their land, and pay someone money for the ability to access the Internet. When you're living in a shack like the Unabomber hunting your own food, then you can work on bringing down society. Until then, you are "part of the problem".

Put down the bong and read a book once in a while.

 

[squirrels]

The Standard Oil antitrust case began our regression into the crony capitalism we have today, where receiving the nod from the "all-knowing" bureaucrats is almost as valuable as being the man who invents a new nuclear reactor. The big government, the one you think you need to save you from the problems of this country, is in truth the cause of all those problems.

I agree ALMOST completely with what you have to say.

I do see some use for the anti-trust laws. There's no problem with "big corporations" per se. The problem comes when they become so wealthy/powerful that instead of using their wealth to invest in future value for their customers, they use it to attack and destroy competition directly.

That environment does not foster growth and innovation. That's the whole point of "anti-trust" laws. You're probably right that the implementation of these laws created a negative attitude toward ANY big corporation, but there is some merit to it.

Government, in that regard, is like a union. It serves a purpose as long as it represents the needs and wants of the people. When it becomes an entity unto itself, that's when it starts to become a problem.

In that respect, r0cky has a point. Any system is open to abuse, including capitalism. The government is supposed to prevent that abuse in the interests of the people.

The problem, as you pointed out, is that the government constantly oversteps its authority and "meddles" in corporate affairs in ways that aren't intended to prevent abuse, but are intended to give "free sh!t" to voters who feel they're entitled to it.

 

[r0cky]

Every argument I see here is what has supported capitalism for so many centuries. Of course it makes sense to give something of value in exchange for something else of value. This is not my argument however.
My argument, if you watched the video, is that this current system is based on infinite growth. If the population stops growing, corporations stop growing too, because sales growth will also stop. But on the other hand, the more the population grows, resource become more scarce.

We are slowly realizing this. A new system that is not based on population growth and scarcity is what society urgently needs.

 

[DJ Logic]

My 2 cents:

We no longer have a capitalist system. It fell a long time ago and we have a much different beast in it's place.

In a free market there would be no billion dollar bailouts for businesses deemed "too big to fail" Bad business choices would be punished instead of rewarded.

Sadly this is just not the case today. Company gone bankrupt? Dont worry! The taxpayers will pick up the tab. Facing environmental disaster and falling stocks? We got your back homey!

Again this is not capitalism. Nor is it democracy. It is economic tyranny and corporate fundamentalism! As a result we now have a full-on class war perpetuated by corrupt leaders who once shunned the power of the Church, only to start sucking the bigger, global conglomerate c-ck.

At this stage it's pretty obvious who is winning this war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

 

[r0cky]

Capitalism is the best way for producing wealth and the last three hundred years are a perfect example of that. Government has been discovered as the best way to "retain" wealth, whether by creating lawful monopolies, regulating competition to death, or by keeping competition from getting a foot in altogether.

As much as I try to disassociate myself from communism, and any sort of -ism, I'm going to sound like a commie here, but it needs to be done in order to make my point.
Why do we need wealth?
It provides us with possesions, a 'better life', allows us to travel, etc.

Ask anybody why they would like to be rich, they will say so they can buy expensive things and experience many things. People want to be wealthy because they have a need to be recognized by society. This is why they need the possesions, and this is why they send their kids to good schools, etc. So that they can be sure that society can recognize that they have abilities and intelligence. That they are better than some.

But what if we can come to the conclusion that we are all the same?
By this I mean, if we realized that passed all the mental and physical qualities, we are all life.

Would we still do things that make us stand out from the rest?
Would we still look for others to apreciate our qualities?
Would we still have the need to be placed into social classes?

We would no longer be motivated to do things out of the need to be apreciated, or to be seen as above others. But we would do things to make others feel apreciated. In the same way that you would provide or do something for a loved one while seeking nothing in return. Only inspired by the love and the understanding that they're part of your life.

 

[squirrels]

Why do we need wealth?
It provides us with possesions, a 'better life', allows us to travel, etc.

Do you mean "wealth" or "money"?

"Money" is just a means of exchange.

If I could barter my services and directly get the things I wanted, I'd have no need for money. The thing is, not everyone has a need for what I have to offer. Money provides a way of converting the value I provide into something I can exchange for something from someone else. That's all.

Sure, we COULD all live a simple, animal life...as I said, living in a hand-built hut somewhere in the woods, gathering nuts and berries and killing our own food. That's a functional society.

But we wouldn't have the quality of life we have today.

We would not have modern medicine...we'd have herbal medicine and crude practices, which would work for simple ailments, but not for more serious stuff.

We would not have the ability to transport ourselves over long distances except by days of grueling journey. Remember Oregon Trail? That's how people did things before corporations gave us the automobile and oil infrastructure, to say nothing of the rails and the airlines.

We would not be able to communicate as effectively without telephones, TV, the Internet, etc. While some "disconnection" is a good thing for some people, in the long run these things have made life easy and fun.

Do you remember phone books? Mail-order catalogs? Shopping and trying to FIND gifts? Do you remember asking for directions or using an ADC map? Do you remember when if you wanted to call someone on the phone, you dialed the number and the other person actually had to be HOME to answer the call?

Do you remember when you COULDN'T ask your friends online for advice on how to talk to women? Who did you ask THEN? Your chump friends who also weren't getting laid? The cool kids who refused to talk to you? Your mom??

Do you think Allen Thompson runs this site for free, paying hosting bills out of his own pocket, for nothing more than his own enjoyment?

All of these things add value to people's lives in one way or another, or else they wouldn't spend their hard-earned money on them.

Can you do without them and lead a more simple, free life? Sure you can. But if everyone thought like that, we'd all be a population of dirt-farmers and hunter-gatherers, only able to create what we can with our own hands. I mean, I know how an automobile operates, but damned if I'm casting an engine block, programming a fuel injection system, or welding together a car frame on my own. So it looks like unless I can tame a horse, I'm walking. Or I stay where I am.

You live in a world where you take all these things for granted. They were here when you got there...modern technology, transportation, communication, medicine, modern food supplies, textiles/clothes, housing...they were all here and have always been here as far as you're concerned. So you assume they just sprouted out of the ground. You don't think about the work and ambition that drove men as individuals and as groups to develop these things pretty much from nothing.

You just see a bunch of people WITH money and a bunch of people WITHOUT money, and you think, "that's not fair...I should get as much as they do", as if wealth is handed out by some divine power, not provided in exchange for value.

If you took all the wealth in the world and re-distribtued it evenly to EVERYONE, within a couple of decades, maybe sooner, it would all be back in the same hands it came from. That's because the business-people understand how to attain wealth (by providing value to people in exchange for it) and the impoverished don't. They think that wealth is something people are entitled to solely for existing, and that if they don't have as much as someone else, the "system is broken".

The system isn't broken...you just don't understand how it works.

The problem capitalism faces TODAY is that the "system" has too many people trying to adjust it. As Seize-her said, the system works best when interference is minimal. Any government intervention in free capitalist economics should be to uphold the philosophy of the system. Government intervention, in that regard, "greases the wheels" of capitalism.

The problem is that today, people don't use the government to uphold the system, but rather to undermine it. Either the corporate leaders offer the politicians campaign money in exchange for uncapitalistic favors, or the impoverished masses offer the politicians votes in exchange for uncapitalistic favors.

Each favor granted by the government gives the group paying for it a small boost in the short term, but goes toward undermining the system as a whole.

The more that system is undermined, the more people begin to see that the "way to get stuff" isn't to provide value to society and gain wealth in exchange, but to woo politicians and get them to IMPOSE THEIR WILL on the value-providers, in the form of laws, regulation, and taxes.

If you vote for someone who promises to "tax the rich" and use that money to provide you with services, then you are essentially a SLAVEOWNER. And your whip-man is Uncle Sam.

Is it any wonder why most big corporations are moving their factories and offices OUT of the United States? Do you not understand why we don't build stuff in this country (US) any more? Because you have Mr. Obama up there in the White House talking about balancing the budget by "taxing rich corporations". WHY would those companies stay here in America, where they have worked hard to build empires by providing value to you, the consumer, only to have you, the consumer, demand a cut of the wealth YOU paid to them?

You're like a crooked drug lord...you pay the money to the manufacturer, get the drugs, shoot him, and then take the money too. How long can you do business like that before the manufacturer refuses to deal with you?

Not long.

The economy in the US is turning south because it just doesn't PAY to do business here any more. Congress wants to talk about taxing the living hell out of everyone who makes over 200K a year...why bother to try to make 200K a year?? Why even START or TRY to run a small business if "making it" simply means the government imposes a bunch of rules on you, snatches the bulk of your stuff, and gives it to someone else?

 

[Kerpal]

My argument, if you watched the video, is that this current system is based on infinite growth. If the population stops growing, corporations stop growing too, because sales growth will also stop. But on the other hand, the more the population grows, resource become more scarce.

I never understood this argument. If the population stops growing, demand and profits will fall and corporations will exit the market. Why is this bad, or even a specific criticism of capitalism?

 

[r0cky]

You lost me with this pollyannish disney gobble-dee-gook. People want wealth for a better way of life.

A house is wealth, so that we may be warm when it is cold, or cool when it is hot out.
A farm is wealth, so that we may eat when we are hungry.
A refrigerator is wealth, so that we may store food so that it lasts longer and we do not need to hunt for every meal of a day.
A boat is wealth in that it is fun, allows us to improve fishing and helps us travel.

Of course we all want to do well in life, and we want to better than others. That is competition and that is a good thing. Competition is what keeps us constantly improving. We NEED it.

I associate wealth with having more than enough. For example, one house is not wealth, a mansion is.

Moreover, if you take an unbiased perspective of humanity's progress you will realize that nothing has really improved. It has only brought us a short lived satisfaction, and has substituted old problems with new ones of the exact same magnitude as the old ones. Starting from the obvious, such as our currently failing monetary system, to pharmaceuticals that only extend suffering and dont adress the real health issue. The oil we use for energy at the expense of polluting the earth and starting deadly wars. Every seemingly progressive revolution has brought misery in the longer term. Technology has brought the world closer together but has also separated us by substituting face to face interaction with 'more convenient' digital communications, therefore dehumanizing our society. We have better weapons of mass destruction capable of instantly killing millions

Things that really matter which progress will never bring:
Truely healthy individuals (Interestingly enough this can only come from living away from the stresses of a "civilized" culture).
End to mass starvation.
Free / perpetual energy.
Living in permanent happiness.

 

[r0cky]

I never understood this argument. If the population stops growing, demand and profits will fall and corporations will exit the market. Why is this bad, or even a specific criticism of capitalism?

Since its in the best interest of capitalism to have a growing population, they are promoting over population. Overpopulation also leads to scarcity of basic necesities. Scarcity means higher profits for businesses. So it is in their best interest to maintain a production that is always less than the population growth. This means that under capitalism there will always be many people who will lack basic necessities.