# Growth without reason



## MrBurns (21 October 2008)

Dunno if anyone agrees with this but I think a lot of our problems arise from the culture of needing to increase profits every year.

Once a company reaches a certain point I cant see the logic in pushing for more profit at the expense of the integrity of the company itself.

Take Telstra, no service, less employees just to increase profit.
Voice recognition software to save the cost of employing people ???

Trams - Trains - now privatized - less service, less maintenance, more delays, less staff for security and supervision.

Utilities, gas water electricity all privatised same scenario, less service, less reliability.

People are sacrificed for profit, sacked for profit, this leads to a soulless shell of a company, that does what ? Trim more to make more profit.

Banks, you cant speak to anyone anymore just a call routing system infuriating auto service.

The whole thing is based around creating wealth for shareholders and to hell with the employees that made the company in the first place.

The spiral for more profit must be stopped at reasonable HUMAN levels, then shareholders will get steady returns, if they want growth get a tattslotto ticket or a different stock thats in a growth faze

I'm fed up with this system it sux and I hope it crashes heavily.


----------



## CAB SAV (21 October 2008)

*Re: Growth without reason......*

Yep, It's all about size. Keep telling my wife-size doesn't matter.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 October 2008)

Yes one of the major faults of capitalism, addicted to growth, right up till the point of self cannibalisation ! stoopid really ...


----------



## motorway (21 October 2008)

The opposite of growth is death

Staying still is going backwards

Growth is natural

does life have "reason"

growth in nature is constrained by competition , predator prey relations
and limit of resources...

The  destructive wildness of capitalism
is almost solely laid at the doorstep of excessive debt..

If people could only buy houses with their own money
would you ever have wild cycles of boom and bust ?

Hymen Minsky -- There are stable debt regimes that build sustainable growth 
                           And then there are regimes that destroy growth...

Supply creates it own demand......like a lush pasture will grow a herd of cattle

Unstable debt regimes only build artificial demand that moves ahead of possible supply.............

So we overstock the pasture , lose the top soil and need to let the land lie fallow ( deleveraging )

What is something worth ( consumer ) what the bank will lend me to buy it !
How much can be lent ( Bank ) What did it last sell for...

such is the spiral of destruction


Growth is relentless ( try and stop growing it is called death )
is natural

shedding jobs is a good
because better ones are created

anyone still want to be a Victorian chimney sweep ?

debt does have a proper place
but only certain regimes
and not when we all need to do it
such that there are no longer savers to lend.

(Past  problem with interest rates ? )

motorway


----------



## kitehigh (21 October 2008)

I have to agree with you.

I read "Growth Fetish", by Clive Hamilton a couple of year ago now and found it to be an excellent read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_Fetish

"The thesis of the book is that the policies of unfettered capitalism pursued by the west for the last 50 years has largely failed, since the underlying purpose of the creation of wealth is happiness, and Hamilton contends that people in general are no happier now than 50 years ago, despite the huge increase in personal wealth. In fact, he suggests that the reverse is true. He states that the pursuit of growth has become a fetish, in that it is seen as a universal magic cure for all of society's ills. Hamilton also proposes that the pursuit of growth has been at a tremendous cost in terms of the environment, erosion of democracy, and the values of society as a whole, as well as not delivering the hoped for increases in personal happiness. One result is that we, as a society, have become obsessed with materialism and consumerism. Hamilton's catchphrase "People buy things they don't want, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like" [1] neatly sums up his philosophy on consumerism."


----------



## mayk (21 October 2008)

Nice reply motorway.


----------



## andrew08 (21 October 2008)

There are some very interesting articles in new scientist this week on this topic.

http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns

I don't see growth as a bad thing but the way we know it at the moment really is unsustainable.


----------



## [t..o..m] (21 October 2008)

Death has as much importance as growth does man. Everything grows and dies its the way life is. You can't stop growth, just like you can't stop death.

Taking that view, the economic turmoil we are experiencing had to happen.


----------



## MrBurns (21 October 2008)

[t..o..m] said:


> Death has as much importance as growth does man. Everything grows and dies its the way life is. You can't stop growth, just like you can't stop death.
> 
> Taking that view, the economic turmoil we are experiencing had to happen.




Dont think you can apply that to business, the ideology of needing to add 10 or 20% to the bottom line every year is flawed, after a certain point the company becomes worse not better.

Why not just maintain profit when you get to a certain size within your industry and tweak around the edges to stave off competition ? Chasing more profit leads to less service and less employment after a certain point.


----------



## [t..o..m] (21 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> Dont think you can apply that to business, the ideology of needing to add 10 or 20% to the bottom line every year is flawed, after a certain point the company becomes worse not better.
> 
> Why not just maintain profit when you get to a certain size within your industry and tweak around the edges to stave off competition ? Chasing more profit leads to less service and less employment after a certain point.




lol because the human race just isn't designed to be happy where we are at any given moment. People are never 100% happy with their current position, always striving for more money, better jobs, more friends, bigger houses, more material objects etc etc.
It isn't in our nature to sit and be content with what we have.

This is why what you have proposed will never happen.


----------



## MrBurns (21 October 2008)

[t..o..m] said:


> lol because the human race just isn't designed to be happy where we are at any given moment. People are never 100% happy with their current position, always striving for more money, better jobs, more friends, bigger houses, more material objects etc etc.
> It isn't in our nature to sit and be content with what we have.
> 
> This is why what you have proposed will never happen.




I agree but I think it may be possible to regulate toward restricting pursuit of further growth when a company reaches a certain status within it's own industry, perhaps it should be broken up or some other mechanism to stop it deteriorating into what say Telstra is today.

People can then still go on pursuing wealth and happiness but the larger companies in society wouldn't be pulling themselves and everyone around them down for the sheer pursuit of more profit.

Yes very theoretical I know but you have to think outside the square.


----------



## basilio (21 October 2008)

Yeah TOM we have been programmed to want more and more, bigger and bigger ect. Comes from  basic greed stoked up with 21st century marketing.

And it will stop. Infinite wants and infinite growth meet finite earth. Reality trumps avarice.

_"When the last tree is cut down, when the last creek runs dry we will discover we can't eat money"_


----------



## [t..o..m] (21 October 2008)

basilio said:


> Yeah TOM we have been programmed to want more and more, bigger and bigger ect. Comes from  basic greed stoked up with 21st century marketing.
> 
> And it will stop. Infinite wants and infinite growth meet finite earth. Reality trumps avarice.
> 
> _"When the last tree is cut down, when the last creek runs dry we will discover we can't eat money"_




Too true, all of this will ultimately, as you stated, lead to the 'death' of man. But hey we are all guilty of it, we are probably the worst of all with everyone here being obsessed with stocks ha ha we are all on our way "out", act accordingly


----------



## basilio (21 October 2008)

I was probably too blunt and too realistic in my last post.

The share market can be a constructive way to  create capital for new ventures.  The problem lies in the rules of the game. What do we want to create.? What will we destroy in the process of creating this new thing? And will we be happier little vegemites after we have created it....?

Imagine a couple of different worlds. In one world some of the biggest business's are immense gambling palaces which  create huge palaces with lots of  tinkling machines that systemically creates addiction and strips people of their money. This world also produces a infinite array of electronic gadgets that are made obsolete within an eyeblink and keep us amused for just a little longer. And to produce and maintain these toys we produce vasts amounts of energy through a process that  *we know *is cooking our planet.

In this world we call all of this progress.

In another world we don't encourage, perhaps not even allow massive gambling. We keep our toys simple and don't replace them quite so quickly. We live in 3 bedroom houses that we don't renovate every 5 years. We eat a couple of meals a day some of which we actually grow, live with our kids and families (as distinct from watch the idiot  box) and live simply. (and we don't spend too much time banging on in internet forums..!)

Isn't it strange how this world seems so strange ? Does this say something about how we have been brainwashed?


----------



## mayk (21 October 2008)

There was a good documentary by the name of  "Century of self", depicting the artificial creed implanted in the brains through this new tool: electronic media. 

Growth will become very slow when all the world has been developed. The problem right now is that most of the population of this world is still undeveloped, so growth at such high rates is still possible. 

Imagine a world where the deaths are equal to newborns, where 99% of the population is middle class. Where major infrastructure has been developed (roads, buildings etc). In that scenario, the growth will be extremely slow. That equilibrium  is hard and difficult to achieve and clever people (read- money masters) know this and will not like/want this to be achieved. Hence you will see the apparent discrepancy in the policies, these aimless wars and propaganda churning media surround this finite earth.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (21 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> Banks, you cant speak to anyone anymore just a call routing system infuriating auto service.




I don't know what you mean, I just email my account manager and he calls me usally within about 30mins to give me the info I need.

I think the service at the bank has never been better.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (21 October 2008)

motorway said:


> The opposite of growth is death
> 
> So we overstock the pasture , lose the top soil and need to let the land lie fallow ( deleveraging )
> 
> ...




I aggree with all the points above,

Especially the comment about jobs, as time goes on jobs are lost in certain areas, but that just frees up the human capital for other areas,... eg, Computers and printers made typists almost obselete (companies used to have rooms full of typists reproducing letters), but computers and printers have spawned countless other jobs in IT,


----------



## MrBurns (21 October 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> I don't know what you mean, I just email my account manager and he calls me usally within about 30mins to give me the info I need.
> 
> I think the service at the bank has never been better.




I have access to the manager as well but not everyone does, if you call the main number it's hard to get anywhere same as Telstra.

Try ordering a new Visa card like I did, hung up after 30 minutes.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (21 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> Why not just maintain profit when you get to a certain size within your industry and tweak around the edges to stave off competition ? Chasing more profit leads to less service and less employment after a certain point.




Well to maintain your market share in an economy you have to grow, If your profits are not growing then they are going back wards.

Companies grow and companies shrink it's all a matter of time. The families and companies that topped the rich lists 100years ago probally don't hold the same positions now.


----------



## MrBurns (21 October 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Well to maintain your market share in an economy you have to grow, If your profits are not growing then they are going back wards.
> 
> Companies grow and companies shrink it's all a matter of time. The families and companies that topped the rich lists 100years ago probally don't hold the same positions now.




I know it sounds simplistic but you have to grow only because thats the way it's all geared, there has to be a reason for growth beyond a certain point otherwise it's destructive and it's people who suffer, workers and users.

Banks
Telstra etc


----------



## tech/a (21 October 2008)

Growth is a human response.
Man craves it.
He wants to have it and if he doesnt wishes to be percieved that he has attained it in all forms of life not withstanding his financial status.

Capitalisim in all its guises is human driven by the very same response in all of us.
Pretty simple really.
Man will just re invent the financial wheel---already is.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 October 2008)

tech/a said:


> Growth is a human response.
> Man craves it.
> He wants to have it and if he doesnt wishes to be percieved that he has attained it in all forms of life not withstanding his financial status.
> 
> ...



Or is capitalism just a ruse to appeal to one of the most joyous pursuits in society, progress?

I'm still yet to have explained to me why it is all not a zero sum game, on a very broad scale.


----------



## theasxgorilla (21 October 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> I'm still yet to have explained to me why it is all not a zero sum game, on a very broad scale.




Isn't it because of real growth, such as organic growth, that we can all reap benefits disproportionate to the efforts required to sew?  There for real progress is on the balance of things a postive sum game.


----------



## Reealjrd (21 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> Dunno if anyone agrees with this but I think a lot of our problems arise from the culture of needing to increase profits every year.
> 
> Once a company reaches a certain point I cant see the logic in pushing for more profit at the expense of the integrity of the company itself.
> 
> ...




Friend this is all you are explaining about the market but not about trading. How you can make profits for your self. You r right that the market is all about profits for big companies but not for us. In trading you can make profits for your self.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 October 2008)

theasxgorilla said:


> Isn't it because of real growth, such as organic growth, that we can all reap benefits disproportionate to the efforts required to sew?  There for real progress is on the balance of things a postive sum game.



"Organic" growth would already be inherently there, waiting.

The actualisation of it would not, which is what you are saying there. My brain is too tired for this right now...


----------



## theasxgorilla (21 October 2008)

tech/a said:


> Capitalisim in all its guises is human driven by the very same response in all of us.
> Pretty simple really.
> Man will just re invent the financial wheel---already is.




I actually (surprise, surprise) disagree.  Capitalism is about endeavouring to get something for nothing, under the guises of being rewarded for risk or venture.  It depends upon remunerating people for less than their output is actually worth.

It won't surprise me however if capitalist profiteering becomes less viable in the next 5-10 years due to inflation (including wage inflation).


----------



## theasxgorilla (21 October 2008)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/21/creditcrunch-globaleconomy

Marx guide on how capitalism will destroy itself...always worth reading a different point of view.


----------



## Glen48 (21 October 2008)

One thing I could never work out is if every one is fully employed wouldn't there be good growth?
IF I sack my workers and you sack yours, mine won't have the money to buy your goods etc.
The only thing we need is a steady hand on the Tiller, capital  gains tax on R E and different tax rates such as 5% on  Farm Machinery and 15% on a Roller and no way it could be use as a tax deduction and that way we should encourage OZ people to go for manufacturing, farming etc.


----------



## tech/a (21 October 2008)

> Capitalism is about endeavouring to get something for nothing,




Which is of course a very common human trait is it not.

Just ask any Theif,Fraudster,or Nigerian scam designer.
Elephants didnt "invent" capitalism---not that I know of.


----------



## Flip (21 October 2008)

theasxgorilla said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/21/creditcrunch-globaleconomy
> 
> Marx guide on how capitalism will destroy itself...always worth reading a different point of view.




another guide on marx:

http://www.freedomainradioshows.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_194_Marxist_Exploitation.mp3


----------



## c-unit (22 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> I have access to the manager as well but not everyone does, if you call the main number it's hard to get anywhere same as Telstra.
> 
> Try ordering a new Visa card like I did, hung up after 30 minutes.




Yeah you are quite correct but it saves them money. It's not dissimilar to so many companies outsourcing the phone support services. Its a sacrifice in the quality of service and as you mentioned, jobs (in this case Australian jobs) but at the end of the day they are pressured into doing whats best for the stockholders. Just the way it is and I doubt anybody will do anything to change it.


----------



## MrBurns (22 October 2008)

c-unit said:


> Yeah you are quite correct but it saves them money. It's not dissimilar to so many companies outsourcing the phone support services. Its a sacrifice in the quality of service and as you mentioned, jobs (in this case Australian jobs) but at the end of the day they are pressured into doing whats best for the stockholders. Just the way it is and I doubt anybody will do anything to change it.





Correct, part of the problem is tiers of management are created so Joes' job is to save money if he doesnt he's out, so every year staff are trimmed functions sent offshore and customers are made to wait a bit longer for the phone to answer, they take their customers right up to the limits of their patience and only relent when the customers start leaving. 

If Joe doesnt save money and increase the bottom line it goes all the way up to the CEO who gets his a#se whipped at the AGM by the shareholders who want to know *WHY* they arent getting *MORE*

Bonuses are lost and on it goes.

This attitude may also contribute to road rage believe it or not as people are pushed to the limit of their endurance every day by "the system"


----------



## [t..o..m] (22 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> If Joe doesnt save money and increase the bottom line it goes all the way up to the CEO who gets his a#se whipped at the AGM by the shareholders who want to know *WHY* they arent getting *MORE*
> 
> Bonuses are lost and on it goes.
> 
> This attitude may also contribute to road rage believe it or not as people are pushed to the limit of their endurance every day by "the system"




The one contributing factor which equates all of this is, "The American Dream". The western world and all countries who have adopted the American way have taken this dream as their main goal in life. This is why we have this continuing circle of debt hanging around our heads.

The saying "Time equals money" is drilled into each and every person which makes us believe that money is the focus of our whole life. But my question is, since when does relative time have ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to do with the accumulation of money?


----------



## Mofra (22 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> Correct, part of the problem is tiers of management are created so Joes' job is to save money if he doesnt he's out, so every year staff are trimmed functions sent offshore and customers are made to wait a bit longer for the phone to answer, they take their customers right up to the limits of their patience and only relent when the customers start leaving.



You've described the system of our big four banks up to the late 90s, when their reputation for stinginess made them enemy no 1 in the eyes of the public. Since then, they have been opening branches in regional centres, knowing they are starting points for selling new businesses & services. 
Customer satisfaction indices are now build into the remuneration packages of executives.



MrBurns said:


> This attitude may also contribute to road rage believe it or not as people are pushed to the limit of their endurance every day by "the system"



Incidently, computer rage has apparently overtaken road rage as our no 1 irritant, although this is from one of those UK reports from the news "odd spot" with small sample sizes so could be misleading.


----------



## disarray (22 October 2008)

theasxgorilla said:


> Capitalism is about endeavouring to get something for nothing, under the guises of being rewarded for risk or venture.




i disagree with this as risk is not "nothing".

i want to expand and need money to do so. you have money so you invest it in me with the expectation of reaping benefits proportional to my growth. if i grow then you receive a return on your investment, but you didn't receive something for nothing, you received something for your initial investment plus a premium for the risk you took.

when you invest you are risking something, be it your savings or your debt or your future labour or whatever. i may not grow, i may shrink in which case you lose whatever you risked, and this very real possibility is what capitalism is really paying dividends for.

capitalism itself is quite a good system in that it encourages innovation and progress precisely because it pays off risk. the system works because people know (or they bloody well should know) that they are taking a risk for profit and the more extreme the risk the more extreme the profit, even to the extent of leading to advances that change the world (like early investors in spice runs or railroad or electricity).

systems are often really good on paper but fail to take into human nature, i'm of the view most people are cool but theres always a small percentage of pricks who go over the top and bring the whole thing crashing down around everyone else. these people should be crucified (metaphorically or literally, i'm not fussed).


----------



## Tysonboss1 (22 October 2008)

Glen48 said:


> One thing I could never work out is if every one is fully employed wouldn't there be good growth?
> .




not if the staff are employed unproductively,... It is better if a company can make adjustments to how they manage their staff and get more work done with less staff, possibly by getting staff to work more efficently by using new technology and equipment or streamlining systems, or out sourcing work.

By doing this it frees up workers to be employed elsewhere in the labour market, and gives new industries a chance to grow and develop.


----------



## mayk (26 October 2008)

The ultimate effect of growth in a finite source might lead ultimately to death. I will let this video advocate my case. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=related

You can find the rest of its parts in the video list of the user.


----------



## theasxgorilla (26 October 2008)

disarray said:


> i disagree with this as risk is not "nothing".
> 
> i want to expand and need money to do so. you have money so you invest it in me with the expectation of reaping benefits proportional to my growth. if i grow then you receive a return on your investment, but you didn't receive something for nothing, you received something for your initial investment plus a premium for the risk you took.




Sounds like classic investment theory.  Fine in theory.  Today, in reality, with the interest rate policies the Fed has pursued during the last 15 or so years, risk has been utterly distorted.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 October 2008)

First thing I thought of when I read the topic wasn't anything about the economy. It was the environment.

There comes a point where constant growth reaches the limits. That point being not when something actually runs out, but when it becomes necessary to go ahead and trash all that remains in order to keep the game going.

That point has been reached in a few places, most notably with energy supply. If Tasmania and Victoria had continued their energy-intensive growth that ran for decades until the early 1980's then Victoria would now be burning around 400 million tonnes of brown coal per annum compared to around 60 million tonnes actual use. And Tasmania would have dammed the lot, exploited even the smallest coal reserves and have a nuclear power industry with output exceeding the entire present day power consumption (from all sources) of SA, NT, ACT, Qld and New Zealand combined.

So the game was pretty much up in Vic and Tas in the 1980's. A point heavily debated in Tasmania but far less so in Victoria. That was the time to either dam / mine the lot or call a halt to it all. The growth had become cancerous, threatening to engulf that which it was intended to benefit. Kill it or be killed.

In due course we'll see this happen with many more resources and in many more locations. Climate change, water and food production are perhaps the current greatest examples - the present situation is tolerable (just) but a doubling or tripling of consumption, something that only takes two decades at 4% annual growth, would likely spell outright disaster.

Constant growth on a finite planet. It doesn't work once everything's used up.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 October 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> not if the staff are employed unproductively,... It is better if a company can make adjustments to how they manage their staff and get more work done with less staff, possibly by getting staff to work more efficently by using new technology and equipment or streamlining systems, *or out sourcing work*.



In the vast majority of cases I've seen, outsourcing has not significantly increased overall output per hour worked once everything is accouted for. It works in theory until you account for everything - then it doesn't look so good. There are quite a few exceptions of course but it's not the "one size fits all" panacea some proclaim.


----------

