The “Steady State” concept is perfectly possible. However, the reason it does not appear possible now is because capitalism has been so horribly distorted. Capitalism was designed to be an open “playing field” for many small companies producing products that would compete for customer purchasing. The idea of the current, monolithic corporation that we have today is anathema to capitalism and is not in any way reflective of how the original system was supposed to operate.

With many smaller companies competing, government regulation would have been more easily enforced and less complex making it somewhat less intrusive since the governance of a small company requires a lot less work than that of a huge conglomerate.

With many small companies, capitalism could have achieved a normal sense of ebb and flow within the market place without the massive traumas that we currently experience since all such companies would have had less influence politically let alone within the market place.

Capitalism was also not formulated around the “corporation” but around small companies or businesses whereby the owners were responsible for everything that happened to them. The corporation of today was actually designed to get around early capitalism’s inherent limitations on wealth creation by actually being created as a scam that became banned for two centuries throughout Europe.

It wasn’t until Britain opened the doors again for this atrocity in the late 18th century (I believe) that the corporation was able to establish itself and metamorphose into the monster it has become today…

Thatcher: “We need not bother too much with our old industries and ways of creating wealth, the banks and the markets will do it for us.”

Hart: Events were to prove that she could not have been more naive and more wrong, but before they did American presidents starting with Ronald Reagan had followed her lead.

Marshall: A better way to obtain proper behavior is to have misbehavors suffer the consequences of their actions. Regulation just invites a whole new category of misbehavors … with more power than the misbehavors they are supposed to regulate.

As long as we have a concept of “too big to fail” we have an ailment of “too big” … period! This is not mitigated by making bigger.

The root of all our problems is mismanagement of our medium of exchange. The most important result of this mismanagement is that INFLATION is not zero as it must be.

Todd Marshall
Plantersville, TX

I would like to know what the future holds. I don’t mean what it promises but a real crystal ball. It is a very worrying situation. At this point I am hoping at least that the worst will happen first in the US and from your post Britain; giving us Aussies a small chance at least of preparing for the zionist takeover.

After this happened, where would the next “growth” come from, a growth (in consumers) needed to sustain capital? And why are not today’s consumers in the North enough to sustain today’s capital?

Something wrong here. If an economic steady-state is possible (and I’m doubtful that it is), then a purely Northern steady-state would have been possible. But in fact things are breaking down.

If an economic sterady-state is not possible, then adding a large set of consumers via education and enrichment of the South will not create one.

What might happen, however, is that the GROWTH of consumers by educating and enriching the South might sustain the growth-demanding capitalism for a while longer. After that it would either CRASH, as it may do now, or find a way to come into cooperative equilibrium with people, nature, climate, etc.

(Better start learning soon, though!)