MLM Directory

Is business and the free market system sustainable?

I am not a communist- I am pretty much pro free market capitalism (but not unrestrained capitalism). But I do wonder- the world's resources are finite (limited) and the world's population is constantly growing. It seems inevitable that the world will reach a population where resources become quite limited relative to the population. Currently, capitalism is viable because resources are (still) plentiful relative to the population, and people are able to acquire great amounts of wealth by providing a professional service, becoming a great athelete/entertainer, developing a useful product, or through strategic asset allocation and investments. But since resources are limited and the population is ever growing, it seems that mankind will reach a point where the current distribution of wealth will not be possible for even all the qualified and able people. Will this point come? And if so, will a new plan for redistribution of wealth and perhaps population control be necessary

Public Comments

1. Free market capitalism is the ONLY way the worlds resources can be fairly managed. In the past when only a few were rulers or kings and every one else was poor and uneducated, wealth was not distributed fairly at all. Even now the Middle East is an example of rich sheiks and rulers who can have every thing they want. And the poor uneducated masses who can only learn a religion and to fight and kill. Now, in the free countries, people have an opportunity to learn and improve themselves, many can enjoy the resources and material things more so than in times past. A government run by religion was good for primitive people and ant colonies, but modern societies have more diverse needs and opinions. So a government with rights guaranteed for the citizens(eg as the Bill of Rights in the US), as well as separation of govt powers(law makers, administrators, and judges) make for decisions that usually do not end up in the need for killing government people. Regarding population control, in the USA the lowest birth rate occurred during 1930's depression. And there were no birth control pills then. People apparently will respond to the available resources on their own to make decisions to regulate their populations. The liberals in the USA seem to be ready to give government more power over the lives of the people.
2. If resources were plentiful we wouldn't need a socio-economic system. The basic reason socio-economic systems exist is to allocate scarce resources. Capitalism is viable because it's the most efficient allocator of scarce resources. It allocates resources through willing win-win trades between free people. That means people on both sides of each transaction comes out ahead. This is the little nuance of capitalism that most people completely miss. For example, Bill Gates amassed a big fortune from Microsoft. However, the value of Microsoft's products to me easily exceeds the amount of money I've spent on their products. Win-win. The other benefit of capitalism are the innovations that spaun from the laboratory of individual trial-and-error, which enable support of denser populations. Over the last few hundred years such innovations have enabled more efficient use of resources, which has allowed for denser populations. For example, improved farming techniques has greatly reduced the acreage/person needed to produce enough food to survive. I expect that we have a long runway for such innovations, which will enable more population growth. Limited resources don't concern near as much as some nutjob with a nuke or a nascent asteroid the size of football stadium smashing into Earth.
3. man drop the theory that resources are finite. We havent even explored many areas of planet earth and other planets so to say we know how much resources we have is just ludicris. the same dirt has been growing the food we eat for many many years. We grow more food today on the whole planet than the history of mankind from the 1900's back in total.