Talk:Capitalism/Archive 10

message: I would just like to point out that a market economy can exist without the capitalist system.  (anonymous)
:That's a valid point. A market in, say, orange soda or its ingrediant can exist in a socialist economy. But the free market approach to enterprise equity ... that IS capitalism. --Christofurio 20:05, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, a very limited market economy can exist without capitalism.  But I have a problem with the "but is not exclusive of it" clause below (from the current article in the Free Market section).  A free market is exclusive to capitalism.
::The idealized notion of a "free market" where all economic decisions regarding transfers of money, good, and services take place on a voluntary basis, free of coercive influence, is commonly considered to be an essential characteristic of capitalism, but is not exclusive of it (see for example Market socialism).
:If you go to market socialism, the first sentence is: "Market socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are socially owned".  This implies that not ALL economic decisions regarding transfers of money, goods, and services take place on a voluntary basis, since no one is allowed to buy the goods and services to produce other goods, and thus privately own a means of production without being forced to share the profits non-voluntarily with the workers.  By the definition provided in the very same paragraph, that means it's not a free market, since not all economic decisions take place on a voluntary basis.  I'm taking out the "but is not exclusive of it" clause, which was added here:
:: 01:09, 2 July 2005 Horzer m
:I made the change.  --Serge 01:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is voluntary: in an enterprise of one, this one is the only that decides.  In a bussiness of two, the two seat together and decide what to do with the bussiness.  When I said "socially owned" I was refering to the fact that all the workers in a specific enterprise decide what they do with their company.  Maybe I will need to change the phrasing there.  And sorry, but free market is not exclusive of capitalism.  The only freedom you don't have in Market Socialism is to coerce other people to make profit for you.--horzer 06:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Somebody simply deleted all the first paragraph.  I think that discussion is possible, the phrase "both predates and..." is not enough.  I don't know how to do revert, I'm new here.--horzer 07:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Remember that the definition of a market is merely a mechanism where buyers and sellers exchange goods. The existance of a market is in no way an indicator of capitalism; rather, the existence of a market is the indication of people or organizations willing to buy or sell goods. Capitalism addresses how those goods or services are traded. See: Free Market, Laissez-faire. Kp7 08:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Market without capitalism

message: RJII is right when he points out that possession is not equal to property. I remember now that we were told that in my first law course (I did management, btw). Property means that you have special rights (such as the right to use, to sell, to destroy, blablabla), even though you might not possess it (e.g. you just bought it, but it wasn't delivered yet; or you lend it to somebody). Possession doesn't give you any right per se (which explains why robbers don't have the right to use and sell the goods they steal and thus possess). Thus, private property comes with private property rights and cannot be considered apart from them. Luis rib 20:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an interesting example of property and property rights in a pre-capitalist society . Ultramarine 21:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Antiquity. It's not feudalism. Proto-capitalist societies existed in many parts of the world. In any case, please avoid the confusion between property and possession. In the case of feudalism (dark age style), there was almost no property, even though there could be a lot of possession. Ancient Rome was different, as it had a definition of property more akin to capitalism (with the exception that slaves were property too). I guess China also had some sort of property rights, but I frankly don' know anything about that. Luis rib 21:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. Proto is a qualification I use. Since I'm not historian or anything, you don't have to agree with it or anything. However, this whole discussion just shows what a fuzzy word capitalism actually is. Many economies in history had some characteristics we associate with capitalism. Should we develop a specific word for each of them? Also, capitalism today refers to totally different things: swedish capitalism certainly is different from american capitalism and from chinese capitalism and from japanese capitalism. Each of these countries have such specific characteristics that giving them the same name is an oversimplication. Luis rib 21:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, a patron system existed in Rome . The justice system was very weak and protection from an patron was essential. Ultramarine 13:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? That's a voluntary relationship. A patron is not comparable to a feudal lord, at all. RJII 13:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not voluntary. Rome had no police . In such a system, protection from a strong man is essential. Ultramarine 13:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was voluntary. No one had to deal with a patron if they didn't wish. Compare it to a lawyer today. No one forces you to take a lawyer. It's a voluntary relationship. RJII 13:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could choose which patron to support as client. But having a patron was essential for protection against violence. There were public courts who decieded cases but there were no official system for gathering evidence, arresting the criminals, or enforcing the decisions of the courts. You needed a patron for all of those things. Ultramarine 13:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a lawyer today is essential in protecting yourself from the police when they wrongly assault you. That doesn't make the relationship with your lawyer involuntary. There is a difference between taking on a relationship with someone because it's the smart thing to do and an involuntary relationship with someone. RJII 13:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Using this line of arguement, you could claim that a slave voluntarily obeys his owner.  Anyhow, I do not understand what this has to do with you deleting the information and link. Clearly Rome had property righs, but they were in some aspects much weaker than in the capitalist states with their state controlled courts and police. What is your objection? Ultramarine 13:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this line of reasoning, you could not say a slave voluntarily obeys his owner. What do you think makes interaction with another person voluntary or involuntary? It's coercion. If someone is not coercing you to obey them them then the relationship is voluntary. You're trying to stretch the word voluntary to a degree that it's meaningless. If there are criminals about trying to steal your money, it's your relationship with them that's involuntary, not the relationship with your attorney. They aren't using coercion to try to get you to get a lawyer --they're coercing you in order to get your money. You're entering into a voluntary relationship with a patron to protect yourself from coercion from someone ELSE. My objection is clear and it's what we've been talking about. The sentence doesn't seem to make sense. It looks like it equates private property in Rome with feudalism. RJII 14:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: 'atrocious' not 'attrocious'! RJII 16:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrite it to a better sentance if desired, but do not delete things in order to push your POV. Ultramarine 16:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? You think my POV is that if any of the MOP are owned by government that it's not capitalism? I'm not aware of anyone that holds that position, not even anarcho-capitalists. Stop your ridiculous presumptions of my POV and focus on content. That's your problem. You're so worried about me pushing some POV that you've convinced yourself that I have that you don't pay attention to the quality of the article. The sentence as it stood had absolutely nothing to do with that issue you're trying to bring up. RJII 16:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Property vs. Possession

message: Luis. I, too, have distant memories of law school classes in property, and I think you overstate a point when you say "Possession doesn't give you any right per se (which explains why robbers don't have the right to use and sell the goods they steal and thus possess)."  In Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence generally, it is theft for anyone other than the original owner to steal FROM 
a thief. If I take your car, I have the right to that car against everybody BUT you as my victim or agents of the sovereign, i.e. it is as wrong for some other party to steal it from me as it was for me to steal it in the first place. Hence the expression "possession is nine-tenths of the law." Also, peaceful possession over a long period of time can eventually protect the thief even from the original owner, i.e. in an adverse possession case ("squatters' rights".) --Christofurio 20:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
: I'm not sure about "stealing from robbers" in Continental European legal tradition. It might be the same. Of course I was oversimplifying things before, for sake of clarification. Indeed there are certain exceptions (though I'm not sure about squatters' rights... that sounds more like some ad hoc solution by governements that don't know how to deal with the problem. As a matter of principle, though, and as far as it was relevant for the current article, I think that the difference between possession and property should be noted. Apart from the awkward cases you mention, one might think about much more common things like borrowing, leasing, keeping in custody, etc. where possession does not equal property. Luis rib 20:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possession as Source of Rights

message: Just a note to let anyone who's interested know that the deceitful, frivolous, and  bogus arbitration case that was launched against me by Slrubenstein and Ultramarine (concerning my edits on this article) has been closed and dismissed. Thanks to those who supported me. RJII 19:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations RJII! Your contributions has seen a remarkable increase in quality since the arbitration case opened. For example, no use of personal attacks during the last weeks. Ultramarine 19:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not ceased calling you a liar, which you are. RJII 19:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have used personal attacks during the last weeks? Ultramarine 19:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it what you want. I and others find you and Slrubenstein extremely unreasonable to work with. RJII 19:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: arbitration case concerning this article closed and dismissed by arbitrators

message: The text says "Before the introduction of the capitalist system there was essentially no protection of intellectual property."  Patents existed in the 1400's in England. Are you saying that that the system there was capitalism? Also, why is it included under characteristics of capitalism? Whether a system is capitalist or not is contingent on whether there are intellectual property rights. A capitalist system is a capitalist system regardless of whether there are intellectual property rights. RJII 18:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the link. The early patent system in England was very weak and ineffective. Ultramarine 19:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Intellectual property is not a "characteristic" of capitalism. It shouldn't be mentioned in such a context. For something to be a characteristic of capitalism it requires that if that element was absent then the system would not be capitalism. This should be talked about in another area ..not in this context. A capitalist system can have intellectual property, or it can do without. It's not a characteristic of capitalism. RJII 19:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All modern capitalist states have a strong protection of intellectual property. No such strong protection existed before the industrial revolution. I have presented a study that indicates a link between such protection and the industrial revolution. Ultramarine 19:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: China doesn't have strong property rights and is capitalist. Luis rib 19:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you are talking about intellectual property. China is not very capitalist on economic freedom indexes. More than before certainly, but they still score very low. Ultramarine 19:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That index is not a measure of capitalism, but economic freedom. RJII 19:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, my mistake. Yes, I was talking about interllectual property. China is not a model capitalist system - far from it - but the parts that misuse intellectual property are the most capitalist ones (region around Shanghai; Guangdong province). In any case, many people (incl. economists) are arguing that int prop rights are much too strong in Western countries nowadays (The Economist, for instance, has repeatedly pointed it out). Indeed, by being too long (decades, sometimes), artificial monopolies are maintained long after the original development costs have been recovered. See Microsoft; music industry; pharma;...Luis rib 19:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already mentioned that there are those who think that patents should abolished and thus do not see patent rights as essential. Others do however see patents as essential. Both views should be presented but not censored. Ultramarine 19:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that patents should be abolished (and neither does The Economist). Just that they sometimes may be too long. Of course a certain level of patents is necessary to have incentives for research - after all it's not the generic pharma companies that develop new medicine. I was just arguing that patents may not be a strictly necessary condition for capitalism, even if it certainly helps it. Luis rib 19:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Some think that they are, some think not. Both sides should be presented. Ultramarine 19:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: intellectual property

message: Ultramarine, you are wrong to delete the paragraph of the private ownership of the means of production in the Private Property section. Private ownership of the MOP is absolutely essential to capitalism, and it deserves more than a one-sentence mention. Also, it is does not only contain pro-capitalist views on this but includes the Marxist opposition as well. A section about characterists of capitalism without expanding on private ownership of the means of production would be severely deficient. RJII 05:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your paragraph contain no arguments that is not mentioned elsewhere. It is empty filler. Ultramarine 05:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultramarine deleting paragraph about private ownership of the means of production

message: Should be changed to a characteristic section, since it almost exclusively discusses corporations. Any against? Ultramarine 15:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "How capitalism work" section

message: Why are you taking out a picture of a private factory and putting in a picture of a government-owned dam as an example of private ownership??? RJII 19:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: About the factory, I thought so too. Also I thought the pollution coming out of the factory was interesting. RJII 19:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what Ultramarine's motivation is, but now that I think about it, he may be upset that the picture showed pollution, since he's putting in pictures of windmills and dams. He wants to paint a overly-nice picture of capitalism with blue skies, water, and lush land maybe? RJII 20:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, maybe you're right. But that's a POV statement, since pollution is an externality and thus exactly one of the things that capitalism can't deal with very well. This factory picture has more and more layers of interpretation and becomes more and more useful... Luis rib 20:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The communist states had more pollution than the capitalist ones. So its is misleading to show dreary picture implicating pollution. Ultramarine 20:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, so I was right. RJII 20:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: So what? The factory was built in the 19th century. You can't seriously expect it to comply to 21st century ecologic standards. You're being childish, really. Luis rib 20:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have just stated why the picture should not be in the article. Ultramarine 21:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: don't get it. Capitalism existed then as well. If we just put pictures of capitalism from now, it will seem like it's a very recent phenomenon. Luis rib 21:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not have some pictures of slave ships? Ultramarine 21:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, everyone knows that pollution exists in capitalist as well as statist economies. It's simply an accurate portrayal of a privately-owned factory. You want to paint an absurdly roseate picture of capitalism ..one that's unrealistic. One could just as easily find a picture of a modern factory with even more pollution. The picture itself is not in any way alluding that capitalism causes pollution. And, your land picture is ridiculous ..portraying private ownership of the means of production by showing peasants manning a communist rice field? RJII 22:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding the picture to the other 2. This would make it balanced. Ultramarine 22:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The picture is of a tea plantation, very capitalist. Ultramarine 22:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is it called "rice.jpg"? RJII 22:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the picture page. Anyhow, Indonesia is not a communist country. Ultramarine 22:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Indonesian government owns tea plantations. For example:  RJII 22:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: If there's going to be a picture of land, at least there should be some certainty that the land in the picture is privately ownership of the means of producution. RJII 01:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Since you removed my picture on similar grounds, I ask the same of you. Present evidence that the company on the picture is privately owned. Also, do not post picture without giving a source so one can check fair use claims. Ultramarine 20:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, it's the H.A. Moyers Carriage Factory. It was not owned by the government. Look it up. By the way, I do not have to tell you where I got any particular picture. RJII 20:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You do have to tell where you got the picture. Unless you do, I will mark them for deletion. Also, you removed my picture without giving a source, only that it could be state owned. I will do the same with the factory image. Ultramarine 21:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the reason I removed your picture is because it could be state-owned, since the Indonesian government owns tea farms. Why not post something that we know for sure is not government owned? The H.A. Moyer Factory is not state-owned. You're just upset that the factory has a little pollution coming out as you admitted above, and you're trying to find any way possible to make capitalism look squeeky clean. It's ridiculous. By the way, look up copyright law ..old pictures don't have copyright protection. RJII 21:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But you have presented no evidence that my picture was of a state owned tea plantation and no evidence that your picture is of privately owned company at the time. Also, marked picture as copyright violation for deletion. Ultramarine 21:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, the name of the company is written right on the building!..the H.A. Moyer Carriage Company of Syracuse New York. It was not a socialist factory. You are a major annoyance. You contribute next to nothing to this article but only pick trivial disputes with people. You had no clue what capitalism was, hence I had to force a definition in the article. I even had to fight you to get in the article that private ownership of capital was essential to capitalism. What purpose do you serve here? Why don't you work on an article about something you have the faintest idea about? RJII 22:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't be ridiculous. I wrote most of this article before you even appeared here. I am the one who turned this propagande piece for socialism into an article using empirical evidence. Ultramarine 23:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote most of this article? No wonder it was so horrible. You had no clue what socialism was (nor what capitalism was) until I made the differentiation. Anything you do add is pretty much incoherent and needs to be reworded by someone else if they're able to determine what you're trying to say. We shouldn't have to suffer through your antics. Learn about a subject before you write about it. And alledging that the Moyer Carriage Company might be a socialist enterprise! please...  Get a clue. RJII 23:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultramarine what the hell are you doing?

message: Many good images. I think we should add some graphs that describes the advantages for capitalism or are otherwise interesting. Here are two from Heritage foundation: . The Frazer institute has several good graphs at end of this report . Does anyone know if fair use allows one take one such image? I doubt that the copyright owners would object. Ultramarine 10:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: In the Etymology section, it says: "Marx and Engels refer to the "Capitalist production system".  I'd like a source for this. Thanks. RJII 16:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read your edit summary where you call it "alleged quote". It is not alleged, it does exist, Marx/Engels really is one of the first sources where you can find this word. The book is called 'Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Collected Works'. It should be mentioned because it is widely known. --Fenice 09:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It says it's in "Das Kapital." It's not in there. Which "work" is it in, among the collected works? RJII 15:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term appears (at least) here (in German, scan page for 'kapitalistische Produktionsweise'), this is Volume 22 of the Collected Works of Marx/Engels. Collected Works seems to really be a collection of 43 Books, one of which is "Das Kapital".--Fenice 08:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that "capitalist production" is a phrase used, but I've never seen "capitalist production system." RJII 11:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The translation of "kapitalistische Produktionsweise" would be capitalist production system. The german suffix -weise often means -system. Luis rib 13:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking around and everwhere I see "kapitalistische produktionsweise" translated in Das Kapital, it's just "capitalist production." I asked a german person and he said it's something like "production way" or "way of production." RJII 17:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: source for Marx quote requested

message: I saw in a documentary that the Amish live in quasi-communist communities, where most things are shared. Is an Amish farm really the best example of a capitalist agricultural system? Also, it is my opinion that the initial factory picture was much better than any of the three that replace it now. Finally, where is that windmill from? It has no name or description - not to mention that power production is probably one of the least capitalist industries in the world, since in many countries it is done by state-owned entreprises. Luis rib 17:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a profit-oriented farm would probably be better. I agree that the other factory picture is better, but unfortunately Ultramarine has put a copyright dispute notice on it as a desperate attempt to keep it out for whatever bizarre reasons he has.  So, we have to wait for that to get resolved to put it back up I think. The picture is a scan of an old postcard ...predates copyright protection, and besides, it's fair use to take a photo of postcard. And, yes, the windmill picture is ridiculous ..if showing private power it should at least be a private power plant. The picture looks like it would be for an article about alternative energy. RJII 18:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on the windmill image, you'll see that actually it's a rooftop windmill from some guy in Canada. How the hell does that relate to capitalism? Am I allowed to put also a picture of our vegetable garden in that case? Luis rib 20:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Amish farm

message: I deleted some stuff about whether capitalism is "declining" and something about anarcho-capitalism since it didn't really pertain to market failure. The section was lacking focus. Besides that, I think the content in the section should be worked into the Free Market section, as it's about government intervention into the free market to overcome market failure. Possibly, some of the deleted stuff about decline of capitalism or whatever can be made into a new section, or maybe worked into the Which Economies are Capitalist section. RJII 03:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of government and market failures

message: debates center on whether capitalism ..."can exist without some measure of external governmental control, considering the dependence of the modern free market on legal currency and legislation defining the parameters of property ownership."  <- What does this mean? If it says anything substantial maybe we can rewrite it, because as it stands it doesn't seem to make any sense. RJII 23:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: questioning new entry in intro debates section

message: The term seems to have disppeared from the Wikipedia. It's stil an econmic reality for many people around the world. It would be convenient to put it back, or at least make a subsection of corruption
:Hey I fixed it. Looks like someone played a joke and had it redirected to capitalism. RJII 01:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crony Capitalism 

message: I have a real problem with the opening line: "Capitalism has been defined in various ways (see definitions of capitalism). In common usage it refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit"
First of all, historically, proponents of capitalism have never, to my knowledge, believed that families should be run for monetary profit.  Thus, I don't know how common usage could refer to an economic system in which ALL the means of production are run for profit.  Further, since I don't know of any historical "upper bound" on the percentage of the economy that "ought" to be run for profit advocated by capitalists, it doesn't make much sense either to say that in capitalism, "most" of the means of production are operated for profit.  It makes more sense to characterize capitalism - as it has been historically advocated by capitalists - as one in which private ownership of the means of production is allowed.  The more possible means of production can be privately owned, the more capitalist it is.  I tried to make this change already but it got reverted.  And explanation for that would be welcome.
:First of all, the definition there is not an attempt at being a correct definition, so to speak, but at presenting the typical definition of capitalism (and therefore since if it is typical, it is therefore correct). If everyone goes for what they think is intrinsically "correct" it just leads to absurd edit war. Everyone has their own definition which they think makes more sense than the next guy's. While it might make sense what you're saying, it's just that saying private ownership of the means of production is "allowed" is definitely not how it's typically defined. See the definitions of capitalism article for common definitions. As far as including "profit" in the definition, your call is as good as mine in regard to typicality. RJII
:: Well, definitions of capitalism is down for the moment, but I've personally always learned that captitalism was when the means of production are privately owned.  Period.  For profit, not-for-profit, has never entered the definition.  I agree it might be a connotation, but that's still not part of the definition. 63.98.86.134 21:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can still see the definitions if you do an edit history and a compare. Here you go:  RJII 22:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything for profit? 

message: I believe that, in addition to the well-known "exploiting workers" criticism, there was a second critique of capitalism raised by Marxists (I read it in a book of the collected works of Lenin, but it referred to Marx)
This was the claim that, under capitalism, because of the operation of competition, the continually raising quality bar, and the rising costs of business fundamentals resulting from the growth of existing businesses, inevitably production would wind up in the hands of a few companies and any new entrants would have no chance of gaining a foothold.  At that point, they argued, free enterprise in that field was effectively dead (after all, if something is guaranteed to fail you can't be considered "free" to do it) and the market was effectively behaving as a socialism.
For example, take Coke.  They would argue that the division of the market into Coke and Pepsi, with little or no opportunities for other companies, was an inevitable result, and that that market is effectively now socialised.  Furthermore, they argued, an actual socialist economy could therefore run as efficiently as Coke and Pepsi do now: all that would be necessary is for the study of economics and market development to advance sufficiently far that economists could predict in advance how the soft drink market would reach solution under capitalism, and then set up via legislation a socialism that behaved in exactly the same way.
Is this considered somewhere?  Have I flown off the handle and gotten mixed up somewhere?
:"after all, if something is guaranteed to fail you can't be considered 'free' to do it" -- you can  be free to try. Or, central planners can prohibit you from trying because they can decide you inevitably will fail. The first is freedom, the second isn't. Freedom, as Jefferson understood, involved the "pursuit" of happiness. Nobody has the right to get there, only the right to pursue. Sorry. And that's enough to know that central planning is an infringement on the rights of those whose pursuits don't fit into the plan. And, after all, feel free to start your own cola bottling company. I had to say that. Now I'll get off the soapbox. --Christofurio 19:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry, I don't agree with that.  You might as well argue that you're free to commit murder in the US, because you can shoot someone, you'll just go to jail afterwards.  And, starting a new business in many areas is already inevitable, predictable failure, and rather than being decided by "central planners" it's decided by another artifical system, that of capitalism.  The fact that there's no individual who you can point to and blame for it doesn't change the morality of the situation.  By the way, I shouldn't be anonymous, as I did sign in..
::You can agree or disagree as you wish. Starting a cola business is not destined to "inevitable" failure, as the Coke/Pepsi duopoly is far from perfect. Furthermore, even if the duopoly were statistically complete, it would always remain possible that the next entrant would succeed and carve out a niche. No central plan should prohibit that, because this judgment that failure is "inevitable" is not the planner's to make. Your "freedom to murder" example just baffles me. Freedom can mean different things in different contexts, of course, but one important meaning of "freedom to do X" is simply that no agents of a sovereign will be chasing after me trying to punish me if I do X. I have freedom in precisely that respect to open a cola company, as part of my pursuit of happiness. I don't have any right to succeed. By the way, if you want to let us know who you are (without requiring us to use page history) you could simply click the signature button above after writing your graf. --Christofurio 12:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
You (anonymous user) point out why socialism would be inferior to capitalism. Take the coke and pepsi example: in this case, only two firms compete. We are thus in a situation of a duopoly. As predicted by economics and game theory, the price in a duopoly is much higher than the free-market price. Indeed, Coke and Pepsi use their brand names to ask a higher price than no-name coke brands. If you consider just one firm dominating a market, such as a monopoly (and in a socialist economy there are only monopolies), the price would be even higher. Historically, the example is telecoms, where (at least in Europe) fifteen years ago state monopolies dominated markets and consequently prices were extremely high. With more competition, prices have gone down a lot, and new innovations have been introduced to lure the customers. In the end, the customers were the big gainers. BTW, consolidation usually takes place in very mature industries (e.g. car industry right now), where no big innovations can be made anymore and economies of scale are very big - favouring big companies and mergers and acquisitions. In new industries (e.g. internet, biotech), innovation is still very important and economies of scale not very important. Therefore there's a lot of competition in these industries. Finally, the role of the state is not to work out a way to run companies as efficiently as Coke and Pepsi, but on the contrary to encourage new players and to foster competition. If the state cares for its people (i.e. the customers) it will wish for low prices, and thus have tough anti-trust laws. If the state doesn't care for its people it will encourage mergers of companies to create national champions, and the customers will bear much higher prices. A socialist economy is the extreme of the latter approach. Luis rib 20:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market solution 

message: There is no equivalent section in the socialism and communism articles, despite the fact that socialist and communist regimes have often been as murderous or even more so than capitalist ones (e.g. Gulags, Great Leap Forward).  Do we need to do some rebalancing here?  195.92.40.49 12:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Human rights violations, imperialism, and democracy

message: Any change made by User: Ultramarine seems to be based in his desire to eliminate any possbile critique of capitalism.  Why do that?  Don't you want to even consider the possibility of a flawed system? User: Horzer
It's true. I do not know why he does it but he certainly has a tendency not to allow any arguments to stand alongside his advocacy of capitalism, and additionally does not apply his authoritarian editing practices consistently, namely to the positive arguments for capitalism. BernardL
:Don't be ridiculous, I wrote many of the arguments against capitalism in many of the sections, like sustainability or  inequality or free market. Right now I added some other critical data from a study.Ultramarine 2 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)
Which only explains why the "criticisms" seem so apologetic. You are hardly seriously presenting the best arguments in a lucid manner. For example, there is hardly a hint in your "critique" that capitalism is prone to crises with implications both in terms of immediate consequences for the most vulnerable people but also for the long-term development of capitalism. Yet this subject occupied the thoughts of Ricardo, Keynes, Marx, Schumpeter, Sweezy, etc. in different ways. (But I suppose if I made a contribution you would be inclined to AUTOMATICALLY delete the whole contribution, as soon as you found a few words that did not suit your sensibility). And again there have been many methodological critiques of capitalist economics from Marx and even more so from Veblen and the critical institutionalists, but herein there is no section on methodology. BernardL
:I would certainly at least change it in the form you present it, as if it was a proven fact that "capitalism is prone to crises with implications both in terms of immediate consequences for the most vulnerable people but also for the long-term development of capitalism". Please understand that there is an enormous differences between having theories and having experimental and statistical support. Nor is this article the place to write down the whole Marxist and Socialist theory, there should only be a summary and those interested can go to the appropriate Wikipedia article. Ultramarine 2 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)
the article does not contain the subject at all, even though not only Marx wrote about it, but it was a main preoccupation of both Keynes and Schumpeter. Issues are often much in dispute- I have no problem with the presentation of multiple perspectives...on the one hand a Marxist view explaining how the crisis prone nature of capitalism skews its development (through centralization of capital, the sales effort, imperialism,etc.) alongside a Keynesian view, and something like Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction. BernardL
:By all means add relevant short summaries of other articles, I will certainly add that they are mere theories without any supporting statistical evidence or studies, unlike the strong empirical evidence for the relevance of the Index of Economic Freedom. Ultramarine 2 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)
::I don't think you know what are we talking about (sorry for being blunt, but it seems to me that History of Economic Thought was not a class in your degree).  About crises, well, the last 200 years are full of them (do you know how the New Deal was born?).--horzer July 3, 2005 14:18 (UTC)
::I recommend for you "The Wordly Philosophers", of Robert Heilbroner, or if you want the full monty (and to be envied by your friends) Joseph Alois Schumpeter's "History of Economyc Analysis"... Have fun :) --horzer July 3, 2005 14:24 (UTC)
:::Please give the the studies showing that something essential in the nature of capitalism caused these crises. For example Austrians claims that the state, in the form of central banks and state monopolies on paper money, caused these crises and that they thus were caused by restrictions in capitalism. Ultramarine 3 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)
::::In his book from (i think) 1933, John Maynard Keynes proved that savings (S) is not always equal to investment (I) in capitalism.  If many capitalists think that the future is bleak, they throw people to the street (so Agregated Demand - AD - goes down, because there is less Consumption -C-) and so the capitalists fire more people and so on and on.  Only the government can break the cycle investing in the economy through the "multiplier effect", bringing AD again up until, Keynes thought, full employment.  What Kenyes discovered is that exists (oh my gosh!) involuntary unemployment in capitalism, against the neoclassic economics of his time.  This is..., people that is prepared to work at any wage and still, they dont find work. (somebody correct me if i'm wrong, many years passed by).--horzer July 3, 2005 15:28 (UTC)
:::::Keynes didn't prove anything, he proposed a theory, just like for example Mises or Marx. There are many theories and without empirical and appropriate statistics there is no way of knowing who is right. Ultramarine 4 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
:: You sure are one to fetishize statistics and quantitative data without realizing the extent to which there is theory and value premises underlying practically any purposeful construction, selection, and presentation of facts. So statistics tells us "who is right"? Not even the World Bank believes that whopper. I'm wondering, does qualitative data fit in anywhere with you? Have you even heard of the term before? [user:BernardL 5 July 2005] 
:::Please read Scientific method. Ultramarine 6 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)
I found Heilbroner's arguments about the causes of the Great Depression lying in the maldistribution of income affecting farmers and workers (and therefore AD) to be quite compelling. (see the Making of Economic Society) As Heilbroner noted, income was distributed in the direction of "those who were potential nonspenders (the 15,000 families at the apex of the social pyramid). [BernardL]
:And others have other theories for explaining the Great Depression. Ultramarine 4 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
::duh? You don't have to remind me of that, there's literally hordes of theories about it. I just happen to find Heilbroner's work compelling because it's a close low-level analysis of what happened at various times in various sectors of the economy and how these sectors interacted. An empirically-driven analsis too, I might add. [BernardL]
a dubious statement from our lovely article: "Rich people invest a larger proportion of their income than poor people, and according to the standard consensus from Keynes to the neoclassical consensus, this is more beneficiary for the society as whole." can anyone make sense of this? It seems to be saying that rich people invest more than poor people- well duh? - poor people do not have the capacity to invest! A startling argument. Keynes certainly did not think it was more "beneficiary" (sic) for the society as a whole to distribute income in favour of the rich on account of a supposed natural propensity to invest. For him the rate of investment was a function of other things like interest rates, and the expectations of future returns, in which government policy was to play a significant role.[BernardL]
:Again, Keynes have not proved anything, merely formulated a theory. Ultramarine 4 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
:Yawwwwn! much of which was backed up by empirical evidence in his day and since. But you're just sidestepping the issue. What is this paragraph about? What exactly is the standard consensus that Keynes apparently shared with the neoclassicals? I could suggest a great many things which they had in common, but I'm not going to make your argument for you. Unless you can make this paragraph comprehensible,and give it a source it will have to be deleted. I'm being much more cooperative than you would ever dream of being.[BernardL]
::You are right that the argument is strange and thus should be removed. Ultramarine 6 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)
Another dubious statement: "One explanation for [the modern decline of capitalism in Western nations] is that the Western nations have increasingly averted or regulated various market failures such as pollution, health care, unemployment, wealth inequality, and education."  Pollution is a reality of techonology development, present in any economy and hardly the result of a market failure.  Whether 'health care' has been a failure of the free market certainly seems to be a personal opinion, as many breakthoughs in modern medicine have occured in capitalist markets.  Unemployment is less a failure than a fact, as is 'wealth inequality'.  I have never heard of a capitalist that thought that the free market could eradicate either of these things completely, any more than a doctor tries to keep a person alive forever.  I'm almost surprised the article doesn't call scarcity a 'market failure'.  As to education, this assertion seems unsubstantiated.
::: I wonder... who's responsible for that fact that in the Critique section, every single piece of criticism is followed by several statements debunking said criticism. That seems like someone trying VERY obviously to push through his or her personal point of view. Robrecht 19:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critiques 

message: Where it's mentioned that socialist states have the "means of production" mostly controlled by the state, I think it should be mentioned in capitalist countries it is mostly controlled by capitalists.  When it's mentioned government bureaucrats run things in socialist countries, I think it should be mentioned that corporate managers/specialists make production decisions in capitalist countries.
:It already says that. The means of production are owned and operated "privately." A capitalist is a private owner of capital. RJII 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that means either is technically correct.  My main point is that the "means of production" is primarily controlled by capitalists in capitalism, and by the state in socialism.  Privately implies that this ownership is widespread, where actually it never has been.  For example, the US federal reserve in its last survey of consumer finances said that 46.5% of all bonds in the US are owned by the wealthiest 0.5% of the population.  So yes, they are privately owned, but the majority of them are owned by a small minority (55.8% of bonds are held by the richest 1%), and I want this to be pointed out - privately can mean that bonds are owned more or less equally, or are all owned by one person.  I want to be more specific. Ruy Lopez 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well that may be a good point for the "Unequal distribution of wealth and income" section but not the definition. Capitalism is not defined as an economic system where wealth is concentrated in a few private hands...it's defined as a system where the means of production are privately owned. In theory that ownership could be widespread or concentrated in the hands of a few. If it's widespread, it's still capitalism. The critique, I think, is that the system may lead to the concentration that you're talking about. But, this is a critique, not part of the definition. RJII 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But I dispute this definition.  A theory of widespread ownership of industry is fine, but I am concerned with reality, not theory.  Ownership of industry is not widespread, and never has been.  With the US government itself saying things such as that 55.8% of bonds being owned by 1% of the population, and the situation has been like this since the beginnings of capitalism, I think this feature that has always accompanied capitalism is an important one.  I would go beyond that and say I see the means of production as a chimera - the real question is labor time - the majority of people work, the owners of capital do not work, and live off of the labor time of others.  Regardless, I am not going into that now, and even the distribution of ownership is implicit - the important point is that capital is owned by capitalists.  Perhaps everything else I said belongs in the critique, but that the majority of production decisions are made by corporate specialists on behalf of capitalists is the definition of capitalism.  Otherwise the definitions are ownership is private (e.g. implicitly meaning possibly the average blue collar worker, which would be wrong) or centralized in the state (e.g. would not be the average person).  It seems obvious to me that in capitalism, capitalists control capital.  That would seem to be the case not only in reality, but even in theory. Ruy Lopez 19:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You dispute the definition? So if private ownership of capital is concentrated in 5% of the population is capitalism, then what is the system called when capital is owned by 51% of the population? It's still capitalism isn't it? You can't restrict the definition to saying capital has to be concentrated in the hands of a few. Also, the definition says it is how it is commonly defined. Your or my definitions that we may think are "better," don't really matter. The whole point of providing the ordinary definition is to prevent edit wars with every individual trying to get his own specialized definition in. The common definition is by default the correct definition, in an encyclopedia. The rule on Wikipedia is to rehash what's already out there. RJII 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main point is that in capitalism, capitalists control capital, the distribution of wealth is an important, but minor point with regards to that.  I don't agree that your definition of capitalism is the "commonly defined", "ordinary definition", and the "common definition".  Perhaps in the US it is, or perhaps amongst some quarters in Europe, but the common definition is the one I have given. Ruy Lopez 20:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, look at a compilation of definitions from english-speaking sources ((see q:Capitalism). It's hard to dispute that the definition in the article isn't representative of the most widespread definitions. Maybe some non-english language dictionaries and encyclopedias give a competely different definition? You'd need to dig some of those up, and there would have to be enough sources to show that's is how it's commonly defined across the world. I'd be interested in seeing translated definitions from other sources if you have any. RJII 21:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I looked at your source.  Definition #1 of your source - "The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists."  Yes.  This is exactly what I have been trying to put into the article.  Thank you for proving my point for me. Ruy Lopez 01:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "condition of owning capital" is already provided as a definition toward the end of the intro. I insisted on putting that one in, actually. But, that's not the definition of the economic system of capitalism. The first definition in the article is the economic system definition. Also, just picking out one definition that you agree with is not good enough. The definition in the article represents the average definition. And, that's easy to see when you look through the various definitions. RJII 02:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, Ruy Lopez's comment on 1% of Americans owning most bonds is biased, as such comments always are. What about the Asian central banks, that own even more bonds? How do they fit into the "capitalism is bad"-definition? Also, the fact that most people don't own bonds simply has to do with the fact that bonds are riskier than deposits, and people are risk-averse. In the same vein, equities are even riskier, and even less people own them. Another point: where do corporations and mutual funds fit into the 0.5% figure? People may not own bonds directly, but they may invest into mutual funds which themselves invest into bonds. Finally, bonds are debt and not capital and do not give any right to ownership of a corporation. Thus, the bondholders do not own the means of production; the shareholders do. Another point: the belief that big corporations control the economy is untrue as well. In all Western countries, family-owned companies create more than 80% of wealth; in some countries like Italy the figure is even close to 95%. Luis rib 20:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Another point: where do corporations and mutual funds fit into the 0.5% figure? People may not own bonds directly, but they may invest into mutual funds which themselves invest into bonds."  The Federal Reserve report takes this into account.  Whether it be directly, through mutual funds, through corporations and whatnot, 46.5% of all bonds in the US are owned by the wealthiest 0.5% of the population.  Not according to the looney-tune review, but the Federal Reserve, chaired by Alan Greenspan.  Anyhow, this is tangential so there is no need to go into it, it doesn't really matter what your view of wealth distribution is. Ruy Lopez 01:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It doesn't say that decisions in a socialist country are centralized. It says that the means of production (capital) are owned by the state (or community collectively in communist anarchism). To address your last sentence, capitalism is definined as a system where the decisions are not made by a centralized "state" authority. RJII 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the beginning it says "investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined...by centralized state control".  So my reading of it is that decisions in a socialist country are centralized.  I don't dispute that many production decisions in socialist countries were centralized, but it seems to me production decisions in capitalist countries are centralized as well.  Anyhow, this point is vaguer than the above one, which is more important.  The differences between the way production decisions are made is more complex, while who owns and controls the means of production seems to be a fairly straightforward proposition. Ruy Lopez 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition doesn't say anything about socialism when it says it's not determined by centralized state control. You may think that that's supposed to be an implicit contrast to socialism but I don't think so, especially when it explicitly says that it's contrast to a "command economy." RJII 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK forget about command economies, socialism and whatnot.  I am saying that production decisions in capitalism are centralized. Ruy Lopez 02:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How could that be? For production decisions to be centralized there would have to be only one business doing production. The large developed economies, whether or not they're capitalism, have a huge amount of businesses making their own production decisions. Centralized decision-making on production would have to be the government making the decisions for all these businesses. RJII 02:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean there was just one department in the USSR doing everything?  In the USSR you have different ministries, councils and committees dealing with different aspects of production, like agriculture, metallurgy and whatnot.  In the US you have corporations which often focus on one aspect of production (software, automobile manufacture etc.)  The ownership of these corporations are highly centralized, and the structure is basically tyrannical - the owners appoint the CEO and board, who have specialists give them production decisions.  I don't see what the difference is - production decisions are centralized. Ruy Lopez 02:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so change "centralized state authority" to "state authority" then ..no big deal. As far as production decisions being centralized in an economy where there are hundreds of thousands of business, your claim is ludicrous. RJII 02:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  socialism and capitalism 

message: Any idea where this should redirect to - or do we need to write an article on it? 83,000 Google hits deserves some form of article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did extensive search on the web (cause a friend asked me what it is :>) and I still am not certain what to tell her. Here is the answer I sent her, and I'd appreciate any comments (or a stub article :) ). "This term is rarely used and AFAIK it is not cleary defined anywhere. The most common usage seems to be the 'good capitalism' - i.e. the better version of the unregulated, `Wild West' 19th century pre-labour union capitalism or the turbo-capitalism as defined/demonised by the modern anti-globalisation protesters. Unfortunately, as the term 'liberal capitalism' is so rarely used, it is sometimes used incorrectly (or, in other words, it may have more then one meaning). As far as I can tell from what I have read, it can be also used in historical context to refer to 'economic liberalism' (aka Liberal theory of economics). And even if used in the modern sence, depending on the author's views it can mean a 'better, utopian capitalism' (see http://www.cqpress.com/cs/challenge/chapter17.htm ) or 'evil capitalism attempting to hide under nicer name' ( http://miraclerosarymission.org/hab160.htm )." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[liberal capitalism]]

message: Because of redirection, I can't add my two bits about the history of the word "Capitalist" prior to the whole Smithian economic system.  Originally, from its etymology, "capital" was what you wrote down at the head of a project. During France's ancien regime, the word "capitalist" referred to someone who bought the equivalent of a bond of the state debt. (It might not get paid off;  the king often renegued.) Only later was the word used for industrial tools and facilities. --Sobolewski 23:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Word "Capitalist" in the Ancien Regime

message: I've been looking through this article and it doesn't seem at all neutral. For example, it uses the term "freedom" to describe capitalism (free market, free enterprize) which is a loaded and much abused term. Who a country is "free" for depends on who owns the means of production (factories, banks, land etc.). In a capitalist society the Bourgeoisie or capitalist class own the means of production (the Capitalist class is the class that does not produce commodities, hoards great amounts of wealth, owns private property and buys human labour). In a capitalist society a working class (Proletariet), middle class person (Petty-Bourgeoisie)etc. can' criticize their boss because they'll get fired. They can't express their opinions on public television because they can't afford a channel. They can't move anywhere they wan't because many places are to expensive. They can't assemble anywhere they wan't because most buildings are privately owned.
User:Leon Trotsky 10:03 5 October 2005
:So, add that stuff in :) This is supposed to be a public wikipedia, if you have good points add them. Infinity0 17:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simply fallacious to say that every use of the word "free" as an adjective indicates approval, and consequently a POV. A physicist uses the term "free fall" and knows the associated acceleration given earth's gravity (16 feet per second per second, as Galileo discovered). This doesn't mean that the physicist who uses the term is expressing that POV that its a good idea to drop things off towers! Free fall means, well ... unobstructed fall. But you get to say it in one syllable rather than four. A free market means, likewise, that the instruments of soereignty don't, in a specific instance or aspect, infringe upon the market forces of supply and demand. Its no more inherently POV than is free fall. You can certainly work to ensure that the arguments that a particular fall, and/or market transactions, should be checked, i.e. shouldn't be free, are accurately presented. But that isn't served by quibbling with straightforward and accurate word usage. --Christofurio 14:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. A "free market" isn't necessary a good market. According to many, a free market leads to "market failure," so they advocate coercive intervention to make things more equitable --they don't want a free market. "Free" isn't a value judgement. RJII 16:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: He's arguing with the definition and usage of the word "free". He's saying that it's an opinion that capitalism gives "freedom", not that the word's usage means approval. Also, that gravity point is irrelevant. Infinity0 19:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It certainly is an opinion that capitalism gives freedom, but the article doesn't argue for that opinion, or imply it, as it stands, so that's no cause for dissatisfaction. What our Trotskyite friend is saying is that the very use of the term, "free market" implies such an opinion. Which is wrong. As the gravity example helps to show. Which makes it relevant! --Christofurio 19:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see the article saying that capitalism "gives freedom" or anything of the like. RJII 20:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Capitalism is Plutocracy''' 

message: Infinity0 you took out "employ capital" with the explanation: "whaat... how can you "employ" capital... capital is wealth, not labour." Maybe english is not your language?  Employ means to to make use of. If you use land to make a profit, you're employing that resource. See the dictionary entry for "employ":  RJII 19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't have the money to purchase or invest in means of production, you can borrow means of production. So, it's not just owners of means or production that employ them in pursuit of profit. RJII 19:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Happens all the time. One can borrow land from an owner who agrees to let you use it on the condition that you pay him part of your produce when you turn a profit. Also, note that money is capital if it's used for investment rather than consumption. You can borrow money and use it to make your own money, then give the borrowed money back with a rental fee (interest), or if the lender is your parents they may let you borrow without interest. RJII 20:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: How about using relatively neutrally descriptive words, such as industrial infrastructure and natural resources? --FOo 01:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the best thing to do is look at the sourced definitions for capitalism in Wikiquote that talk about profit and use their words. Just rehash what's out there ..no need to theorize. As far as the sourced definitions it doensn't look like there's a consensus either way on whether profit is part of the definition --whether there has to be profit for there to be capitalism. This part of the definition just seems like an eternal battle to me. RJII 01:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: employ capital

message: The feudalism term definition is invalid--Nixer 20:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feudalism 

message: "The first use of the word "Kapitalist", "capitalist" was in the Communist Manifesto in 1848 by Marx and Engels"  Anyone know if this is true? RJII 03:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. So the Thackeray claim may be wrong. RJII 05:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: first use of kapitalist?

message: Is it just me or does the following highlighted sentence not really belong where is is? 
"... sometimes referred to as a mixed economy, rather than a capitalist one. [1] If intervention occurs to such a degree that it overwhelms private decision, such an economy is often referred to as statist. Some economists, such as Milton Friedman, oppose all or almost all such state control over an economy. However, such distinctions are disputed. By some definitions, all of the economies in the developed world are capitalist, or as mixed economies based in capitalism. Others see  ... "
Its presence derailed my train of thought. Slinky Puppet 16:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non sequitur?