Talk:Capitalism/Archive 3

message: LETTER=C#CAPITALISM]
:"The winner, at least for now, of the battle of economic “isms”. Capitalism is a free-market system built on private ownership, in particular, the idea that owners of CAPITAL have PROPERTY RIGHTS that entitle them to earn a PROFIT as a reward for putting their capital at RISK in some form of economic activity. Opinion (and practice) differs considerably among capitalist countries about what role the state should play in the economy. ==A paragraph that needs some work==
I've removed one rather confusing paragraph from the introduction, hoping that its original author (or anyone else, for that matter) can clarify its intended meaning and help me re-write it into a less ambiguous version:
:"The term capitalism does not imply any inherent favoritism assigned to capitalists. It is an open question whether capitalists or consumers reap greater benefits from membership in a capitalist system compared to other forms of societal organization. Indeed it is inevitable that all members of society must consume. Arguably, then, it is the distribution pattern of capital among the members of a capitalist society that is the most relevant marker of the success or failure of this model."
-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: This page on Capitalism appears to have acquired a self-appointed anti-capitalist steward.  How can this be dealt with?  ---68.193.114.0 (13:46, 26 Nov 2004) (from the History file)
* Could you please copy here a few sentences that you think are inappropriately "anti-capitalist" so that everyone could talk about it?  ---Rednblu | Talk 19:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-capitalist bias 

message: "Capitalist economies have shown an uneven distribution of wealth." <--What are these economies? Can someone list them? (RJII) Dec 2
:The United States is one:  Rhobite 04:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
This is true.  But it is not a sufficiently defining characteristic of capitalism, as all stratified societies (including centralized and decentralized tributary societies, like the Inka Empire or Feudal Europe) have shown uneven distribution of wealth.  Better to say that capitalist societies are a subset of stratified societies. Slrubenstein
:Or to simply point out that stratification of wealth is not a unique indicator of capitalism. Which has been done repeatedly. Stirling Newberry 17:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution of wealth 

message: Someone deleted the third part of the definition, and someone added a new third point concerning trade.  I changed it for two reasons.  First, the previous third point is relevant and important.  Second, the new third point concerned trade, which is already a part of the first point.  So the new third point was redundant.  If there was any new content in the third point, it should be placed in the body of the article.  The introduction should be general, and the body is the place to develop specifics. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, any theoretical definition you might propose is one point of view.  There will be other points of view.  The way to comply with our NPOV policy is to present all points of view, stating whose view it is and providing some context.  My point is not that we shouldn't do this, my point is only that we shouldn't do this in the introduction -- there simply isn't room for it.  The introduction should introduce the whole article, but it is in the body of the article that we go into different views. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of any better place to provide a definition of captalism but in the intro. If you're not going to allow the mainstream definition of capitalism (so common that there's even one like it merriam-webster dictionary) then you should remove both of the other definitions from intro. Those, in my opinion, *are* POV because they make an assumption that capitalism has been implemented. If would be like defining "communism" by pointing to Cuba, and I'm sure you know what the problem would be with that. Why not have a "real" definition of capitalism that doesn't refer to the real world, and then take the usual route of edit-warring until a general consensus is reached as to what capitalism actually is? I don't want to come across as uncooperative, but if that's what it's going to take then that's what I'm going to do. RJII 21:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I disagree that it would violate either of these policies. The definition of capitalism I want to be there is the modern, commonly accepted definition. I'm not talking "original research." And I would like the definition to be NPOV as much as you would like it to be. Because you disagree with what I think capitalism means that my definition is "POV?" I don't think so. My only POV is my opinion on what the NPOV definition of capitalism is. The into, in my opinion, is bad. So, I'm going to work on it. I may put in another bullet or I may modify the existing ones. What the harm in a little conflict? RJII 22:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I don't misunderstand the NPOV policy ..believe me. I'm using my POV as much as you are using yours when you assert that the bullet points are true; that is your POV, and my POV is that they're shoddy. So, there are going to be some changes in the intro. Apparently you have something against defining capitalism in the intro. I disagree with your view on that. There's nothing more nauseating than a nebulous intro that's afraid to be explicit. Just because it's going to cause conflicts don't do it? I think that's a cop-out. I don't think these articles should be about us appeasing each other but creating quality articles. RJII 23:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: establishing a given practice as standard in a society, often through a legally recognized organization.  For example, a butcher and a baker trading meat for bread is an informal practice.  Building a marketplace where everyone comes to buy and sell is institutionalizing it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said that Milton Friedman would agree with the statement. I disagree with that. I do not think he would agree that capitalism has ever been institutionalized. I don't agree with that either. RJII 20:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be fine if just above that it didnt's say that that's what capitalism refers to. The article is saying that "capitalism generally refers to" that which has been institutionalized. Maybe some things have been institutionalized that are elements of capitalism, but the article is saying that practices that have been institutionalized *is* that to which capitalism refers. See? Friedman would not agree with that. And again, neither do I. RJII 21:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The third bullet point that says "a belief in, and arguments for, the advantages of such practices" covers the assertion that a theory itself can constitute capitalism. But, typically, "capitalism" refers to the system itself that is advocated by these theories. The second bullet point as it stands now is pretty bizarre. RJII 19:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Not to mention, the whole intro is bizarre as well. It looks to me like an attempt to do everything to avoid defining capitalism. It's nearly worthless. RJII 19:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The ideology recommends a system. That system, called capitalism, must be defined. RJII 21:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes you did, and I disagree with you. RJII 21:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please state your definition here so we can see if it possible to reach a consensus. (that is not original research) Ultramarine 21:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. Something to the effect of " an economic system where capital is privately owned and where pricing, production, and distribution of goods and services are determined by exchanges of money, goods, and services in a free market." RJII 21:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: An edit war has been heating up over the intro. I protected the page in order to give the users a chance to settle the dispute on talk, as opposed to reverting each other. 172 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Good luck. I'll try to post some comments the next time that I'm online, but I'm running late now for an appointment. 172 22:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: RJII, present your definition here (with sources/citations) and let's see what others think about it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't misrepresenting me, El C, but once you move beyond "system" to ask "what kind of system" I think you and RJll disagree.  Certainly, even Marxists (e.g. Althuser and Thompson) have disagreed.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but that should not amount to an insurmountable hindrance; the aim is not for any one editor to write how they regard capitalism (as a system), but rather, providing an account as to how notable thinkers have viewed it throughout history. El_C 22:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The only other definition of capitalism I know of is the one used typically by Marxists which is merely "the private ownership of the means of production." So, as far as I know there are two definitions, the simple marxist definition, and the much more widely-held definition that includes that but also refers to how the goods and services are priced and distributed. RJII 23:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other approaches: (pro-capitalist)Kenysians for example. They, Marxists, and others do not dispute supply & demand, they dispute that the results = 'balance.' For the sakes of NPOV, we can qualify this accordingly. I've edited the 'system' bullet to account for the dominant role played by capitalists (as owners of centralized wealth); noting that the balance between supply & demand under capitalism is an 'attempt' (its results on that front is disputed by economists); and noting that capitalism historically succeeded and superceeded mercantilism, also tying the latter to the protectionism it entailed and which capitalism strives to do away with. Hopefuly this will be the first step that will eventually lead to abandoning the current bullet structure and supplanting these with normal pargraph format. El_C 23:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that capitalism is a development only from mercantilism or protectionism. Far more important is the contrast to earlier feudal systems. Protectionism is an economic theory about how trade with other nations should be regulated and is contrasted with free trade, not with capitalism. The introduction of capitalism had for greater political, social and economic repercussions than merely advocating free trade with other nations. See Hernando de Soto's excellent article here . Ultramarine 15:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Revert. Capitalism developed in strongest state in Europe, England. Not all agree with anarcho-capitalists".  What does this have to do with anarcho-capitalism? RJII 16:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 2