Zero population growth would be disastrous for a capitalist society.

It would require many companies to restructure their business model, but i don't think this would result in a "severe economic downturn". Change, Yes, Disaster, No.

Wouldn't there necessarily be a downturn while that restructuring was taking place? I don't think capitalism would fail completely, I just think there'd be a pretty rough ten or twenty years while the world adjusted.

I reckon we could read up on Western Europe to find out. But I'm too lazy.

Why do companies insist on making more than they did before? Enough more to compensate for inflation, sure. But if we continue at a steady, good pace, all should be fine. If you're making enough to live on and support your family, then you're fine. You don't constantly need more.

Besides, if all we need is more people, we can get them from poorer countries, not by making new ones ourselves. Let people immigrate. It'll be a long, long time before everyone is at the average standard of living of the US, and until that point, we certainly don't need our population increasing.

Strong, stable companies that aren't increasing their profits don't do well in the stock market, because stocks are only worth investing in if they increase in value. This is why small Internet startups are much more appealing to investors than large, well-established companies like Procter & Gamble.

YES, you've hit the nail on the head, Ryan.  And if capitalism collapsed, I say it would be wonderful!

Rachel, the heart of capitalism is the return on capital investment.  When you invest money or save for your retirement, do you accept zero interest?

Companies that receive capital investment (virtually all of them) must continually provide surplus production that creates profits for investors.  Even Whole Foods and Wild Oats are about to merge, so that they can reduce competition and grow faster for their do-gooder investors.

You can create wealth without creating more people. Wealth is created all the time. We are far wealthier than anyone in the Middle Ages ever could be, because we have indoor plumbing, air conditioning, and email. You couldn't buy that for any amount of money at that time. You can have return for investment by creating new wealth.

"You can create wealth without creating more people."

Yes, I agree.  That's a good point.  But will they?

In the wake of the important question you raised earlier about immigration, I say that it's easier for an extravagantly wealthy society to grow its numbers than its per capita consumption.  And that is precisely why corporate America is so much in favor of mass immigration.

True... it is easier. And maybe it would be disastrous because people are stupid. But it shouldn't be, because it could be dealt with intelligently if people weren't stupid.

I suppose I just lost this argument.

Capitalism requires a constantly expanding marketplace

Rachel wrote, "I suppose I just lost this argument."

No, I think your point still stands:  "You can create wealth without creating more people."

I just think it's more lucrative (and therefore, more likely) for capitalism to turn impoverished immigrants into consumers.

But it's not so bad, as Capitalism is badly overrated.

Disastrous for the society? No.

Disastrous for the capitalism? Perhaps.

Capitalism is just the process of trade which naturally sits on top of human interaction. Sorry socialists, but so long as humans exist, capitalism will exist too (although you can send them to prison camps for trading with one another - that's another matter, alas).

TM: Huh? What's that got to do with the need to keep up population growth to have a really expanding economy?

What would be truly disastrous for the capitalist system would be zero consumption growth. Sadly (or happily - depending on your view) there are clearly physical limits to the global rate of consumption, which means that business as usual is a doomed model.