For me it is only logical that the answer to this question is resoundingly in the affirmative. Surprisingly however, after a superficial scan, there seems to be little research on the subject. Perhaps the question is such a truism that nobody thinks the thesis needs testing?

My thesis, then, is that capitalism is a voracious machine that is busy converting everything into capital via commodity production, but that much as it needs fuel for this obsession, it also needs consumers. Government policy, from both sides, often reflects the need for a larger consumer base to maintain economic growth; thus Peter Costello encouraged Australians to have “one baby for mum one for Dad and one for the country”. The pragmatics behind this, I would argue, boil down to the need for economic growth.
Another way capitalism drives up population is by commodifying technological innovation, especially in the health sector, thus prolonging life.
I had hoped to delve into this more before I sought criticism or corroboration from OLO, but...
If capitalism does drive population growth, we’re in big trouble, no?
Whatever your conclusions on this topic, I’d also be interested to know if anybody thinks capitalism can lead ultimately to a sustainable and equitable world for all?

Sqeeers.... there are many dimensions to the impact of capitalism...and population growth may be one, but the way you put it.. you have already decided "Capitalism is EEEEEEVIL"...

You then add in a few ingredients which you think will support your case, but all I can see is you have been living far too long in the Green Left Weekly and Socialist Alternative/Resistance playgrounds to the point where you have forgotten it aint the only game in town.

CAPITALISM is essentially people participating in a free market.

It does not in any way need to, or by default exclude a degree of social well being in government hands. That is entirely between the participants of a society and the people it elects to run the show.

FREE MARKET.. means I and you can come up with a good idea and offer our widget for sale on the open market. If mine is cheaper..and seems to do the job for a reasonable time.. perhaps I will sell more.
But if you then cut your price... maybe yours will sell more.. but there are checks and balances in all this... and you should jollywell know them..because you are a consumer.

May I suggest you study the society of Ancient Israel for some excellent examples of how 'capitalism' in a theocracy can work.

Not that I'm recommending a Theocracy.. but the Israelite society was fundamentally capitalist with social well being built in.

-Year of Jubilee.. (Jewish slaves freed, debts forgiven)
-Harvest.. was required to leave an amount for the 'gleaners'.. the disadvantaged etc.

No doubt some bright spark will start raving on about stoning gays etc, but that was not an essential part of the EEEEconomic part of the social structure.

I'm focusing only on the economics here.

There is only one fatal flaw in Capitalism -"Human Nature" which translates into the attempt to gain monopoly control of commodities and manufactured goods.

Ensure Monopolies can't occur.. look after the disadvantaged (not the bludger or lazy)..and you have utopia :)

and you thought we needed Marx ? :)

“I’d also be interested to know if anybody thinks capitalism can lead ultimately to a sustainable and equitable world for all.”

Not the unfettered free market version – but with targeted regulation then yes.

“For me it is only logical that the answer to this question is resoundingly in the affirmative.”

Yes agree there is little doubt population growth is pushed to spur development which has spin-offs from a buoyant building industry to retail and other services - but the biggest furphy of all – jobs.

Economies are not about providing jobs perse, but providing goods and services. Jobs are only the means by which those services and goods are able to be produced, manufactured and/or distributed.

Left and Right dogma means we do lack the will for some lateral thinking on economics.

Remember in the 70s where experts were predicting advancements in technology and mechanisation would result in more leisure hours and a shorter working week. What happened? People are working longer due to economic rationalism and an overemphasis on profit and a push to consumerism to that end. Greed is what happened, why it took off as it did with a swing to the RW economics I don't really understand.

If we were smarter we could work less hours and share the employment around, and be able to provide the goods and services we need rather than a continual cycle of excess consumerism and working longer to buy more things we don’t really need.

Profit sharing is another area often ignored as a valid incentive because it reeks too much of socialism for some.

Again fear seems to put any discussions of this kind on the back burner.

Dear Sqeers,

You ask some tough questions.
I guess capitalism does drive population growth
to a certain extent - as without people to buy
good and services - who would pursue personal
profits? And in its ideal form, that's one of the
essential ingredients contained in capitalism -
the deliberate pursuit of personal profit as the
goal of economic activity. There's nothing unusual
about people seeking their own self-interest, but
the distinguishing feature of capitalism is that it
defines this activity as normal, morally acceptable,
and socially desirable.

The second essential ingredient is market competition
as the mechanism for determining what is produced, at
what price, and for which consumers.

Why is the pursuit of profit and an atsmosphere of
unrestricted competition so necessary for capitalism?
Under these conditions the market forces of supply and
demand will ensure the production of the best
possible products at the lowest possible price. The
profit motive will provide the incentive for
individual capitalists to produce goods and services
the public wants.

Competition will give the public the opportunity to
compare the quality of and prices of goods, so that
any producers who are inefficient or who charge
excessive prices will be put out of business. The
"invisible hand" of market forces therefore ensures
the greatest good for the entire society.

However, for the system to work, there should be ideally
a minimum of government interference in economic life.
If the government attempts to regulate the supply of,
or demand for, goods, the forces of the market will be
upset, producers will lost their incentive to produce,
and prices will be artificially distorted.

The government shoudl adopt a policy of "laissez faire,"
or leave it alone.

Having said that however, in practice though, pure
capitalism has never exited, although it was perhaps
approximated in the early phases of industrial
development. Nowdays it has been generally accepted that
Federal Governments must supervise many details of
economic activity...

cont'd...

cont'd ...

For example, the government sets minimum prices
for some commodities and puts ceilings on the
prices of others. It intervenes in international
trade and concerns itself with the balance of
payments to other countires. It protects some
natural resources and encourages the exploitation
of others. It lays down minimum wage standards,
provides for unemployments benefits, and
sometimes supervises labour-management relations.
It tries to ensure the safety of workplace and of
manufactured goods. It regulates the level of
production and consumption through its fiscal
policies. It also has the authority to safeguard
competition in the markeplace by preventing the
growth of monopolies and oligopolies that dominate
industries.

There are therefore certain drawbacks, common to
all capitalist systems. Marked social inequality,
a large and impoverished lower class, and repeated
cycles of prosperity and recession, employment and
unemployment.

No capitalist socieyt has yet found a way out of these
dilemmas.

Nevertheless, many people remain convinced
that their social and economic interests
are best served if the means
of production and distribution are privately owned.
Political parties strongly endorse free competition and
the pursuit of private profit.

These features make the US the most capitalist society
on earth, and for, those who can afford them, this
economic system has certainly delivered the goods.
(Until recently - of course). With just over 5%
of the world's population, the US accounts for over
20 percent of its output. Over two centuries ago,
Napoleon commented that China was "a sleeping giant,
and when she wakes, she will shake the world." She's
beginning to do just that. With over, 1 billion
inhabitants - over a fifth of all humanity - China is
the most populous society on earth.

Dear AGIR,
I only think "Capitalism is EEEEEEVIL" in as much as it is comparable to a virulent cancer; cancer is not evil, unless you consider the "profit motive" evil--which of course Christianity ostensibly does, does it not?

Dear Pelican and Foxy,
your observations 'sound' perfectly reasonable, but it seems to me you fail to realise that our advanced state of capitalism is not here to serve us and cannot be controlled. And Foxy, the salubrious state of affairs you describe is surely the insular perspective of a rich western point of view, blind to the realities of the global system; you would not talk of capitalism's checks and balances if you were one of the exploited masses living without such chimeras and luxuries. Nevertheless, those 'others' are part of the 'same' system. Capitalism metastises across all borders and is now fundamentally a "world system" (in Emanuel Wallerstein's sense). When I talk of capitalism's "dynamic", I mean that Capitalism "is" dynamic--as stupidly as any cancer; its raison detre is the endless, and mindless, accumulation of capital; it crosses all borders and it is not concerned with the negative health effects on its host. It is breathtakingly naive to think we have any ultimate control over the tiller, especially in light of recent events.
Capitalism has prospered for the last century mainly thanks to a permanent war economy prevailing in wealthy countries, and other measures taken to try to maintain stability, such as concessions made to the material demands of workers during the post-war economic boom, which afforded entrepreneurs the rationale that the demands of workers cost less than the interruption of production. One of the hallmarks of capitalism, as theorised by Marx, is the constant of a "standing army" that insures against workers', dissent but at the same time precipitates revolution. Marx didn't adequately figure the self-destructive tenacity of ideology, hegemony, the third way, cybernetic technology or the permanent war economy. All these have extended capitalism's termination date, but at massive environmental and ethical cost.
Unsustainable population is merely a symptom of the disease.