Capitalism is simply the concept of production being run privately, with supply and demand regulating the market.
Productivity is a measure of how much is created with a specific amount of input. As long as the technology moves forward, productivity usually increases as well. If a new technology allows 9 people to do what was previously the work of 10, you’ve increased productivity in that sector.
Inflation is the increase of prices. Ideally, it’s supposed to broadly reflect the increase of productivity. A small amount of inflation (usually around 2%/year) acts as an investment incentive, since hoarding money makes you effectively slowly lose it, because it loses its value over time, so instead you’re coaxed into investing it into companies/whatever whose value at least keep up with inflation. If you invest well, the value of whatever you invest it in grows larger than inflation, in which case you’ve increased the value of what you’ve invested. If you invest poorly, the value increases less than the rate of inflation, or even decreases, in both cases you’ve lost value.
A company that doesn’t grow or shrink from a production perspective generally will keep up with inflation. An economy is generally measured with the GDP (Gross Domestic Product, a measure of how much is produced, valued in a currency), and similarly, since it’s also measured in currency, if the economy grows at the rate of inflation and there’s no productivity gain, the amount produced will stay the same.
Emissions don’t have to be coupled with growth. A growing economy that progressively switches to renewables at a fast enough pace can still grow while reducing emissions. In fact, the primary reason why emissions keep rising despite capitalism generally dealing with issue of limited resources is that emissions generally aren’t counted as resources, since there are no or not enough costs associated with them (read: externalization of costs). This is the reason why economists repeatedly tout carbon pricing as one of the most effective methods of carbon emission reductions. If companies are forced to factor in emissions costs the way they do every other resource (like working hours, materials, etc.), they will be much more incentivized to do so, since it directly affects their bottom line. Progressively increasing carbon costs could very well lead to the near elimination of carbon emissions. Carbon pricing, however, has not been anywhere rigorous enough to lead to this outcome.
Now that we’ve gotten some facts straight, let the discussion continue.
Let’s set some things straight, opinions aside.
Capitalism is simply the concept of production being run privately, with supply and demand regulating the market.
Productivity is a measure of how much is created with a specific amount of input. As long as the technology moves forward, productivity usually increases as well. If a new technology allows 9 people to do what was previously the work of 10, you’ve increased productivity in that sector.
Inflation is the increase of prices. Ideally, it’s supposed to broadly reflect the increase of productivity. A small amount of inflation (usually around 2%/year) acts as an investment incentive, since hoarding money makes you effectively slowly lose it, because it loses its value over time, so instead you’re coaxed into investing it into companies/whatever whose value at least keep up with inflation. If you invest well, the value of whatever you invest it in grows larger than inflation, in which case you’ve increased the value of what you’ve invested. If you invest poorly, the value increases less than the rate of inflation, or even decreases, in both cases you’ve lost value.
A company that doesn’t grow or shrink from a production perspective generally will keep up with inflation. An economy is generally measured with the GDP (Gross Domestic Product, a measure of how much is produced, valued in a currency), and similarly, since it’s also measured in currency, if the economy grows at the rate of inflation and there’s no productivity gain, the amount produced will stay the same.
Emissions don’t have to be coupled with growth. A growing economy that progressively switches to renewables at a fast enough pace can still grow while reducing emissions. In fact, the primary reason why emissions keep rising despite capitalism generally dealing with issue of limited resources is that emissions generally aren’t counted as resources, since there are no or not enough costs associated with them (read: externalization of costs). This is the reason why economists repeatedly tout carbon pricing as one of the most effective methods of carbon emission reductions. If companies are forced to factor in emissions costs the way they do every other resource (like working hours, materials, etc.), they will be much more incentivized to do so, since it directly affects their bottom line. Progressively increasing carbon costs could very well lead to the near elimination of carbon emissions. Carbon pricing, however, has not been anywhere rigorous enough to lead to this outcome.
Now that we’ve gotten some facts straight, let the discussion continue.