[stavros]

> My point there was that it's possible that an older tradition from a pre capitalist system that worked fine then is not compatible with how capitalism works. Many things aren't.

Oh, yes, agreed there. I can imagine that these communities were very insular in the past, so there wasn't really anything to own that wasn't what they could immediately see and touch around the village. Then again, there wouldn't be a need for this ritualistic spending back then, so the spending seems to be a direct reaction to capitalism arriving to these societies.

[kingofmen]

A herd of goats and an apple orchard both exhibit exponential growth in production, to the limits of the supporting land (which admittedly may be reached rather quickly). Indeed this is the origin of interest: I lend you my goats for a season and expect to get back a larger herd. The argument that non-capitalist economies can't have exponential growth from investment is a non-starter.

[stavros]

Good thing nobody made that argument! My argument was that you can't hide goats.

[komali2]

> to the limits of the supporting land

Exactly, under capitalism, "limit to growth" means "maladapted." Only things that grow forever are considered successful under capitalism, even if that growth is to the detriment of humans, society, the environment, laborers...

Whereas outside of capitalism, things may grow, to an extent, and then achieve homeostasis.