Talk:Capitalism/Archive 19

message: If a corporation is a public entity is it properly considered part of a capitalist system? For clarification, a corporation grants limited liability to its owners, protecting their wealth in case of any wrong doing. This limited liability status accrues to parties that do business with the corporation and to parties that do not do business with the corporation, such as neighbors or other third parties (this last type of limited liability, without an implicit or explicit contract between the parties, is granted by the state, making the corporation a public entity rather than private entity). So why does the 'private ownership if capital' definition of capitalism include corporations? Mrdthree 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it exclude corporations? Some corporations are privately owned and some are state owned (such as the U.S. Post Office). I don't see limited liability status having any bearing on determining ownership. Just because the corporation has limited liability status for the owners, that doesn't mean the state owns the corporation. Economizer 00:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not whether the state owns it, but whether corporations can exist separately from the state which creates the legal framework to bring them into existence.  Most corporations are not controlled by their owners but by employees who are controlled, IIRC, by laws which state they must act in the interest of the owners.  A clear example of this in action was the behaviour of Union Carbide staff over the Bhopal disaster in which, despite being personally horrified and shocked to tears they still had to go out and deny responsibility because otherwise they'd be acting against the interest of shareholders. (Yes, CEOs are poften shareholders, or given shares, but that isn't necessarilly the case).  Anyplace, the point is corporate capitalism probably deserves some comment in the article, along with teh fact that in advanced capitalist states, such as teh UK, corporately owned shares make up the bulk of share ownership.--Red Deathy 07:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is either a matter of semantics, or of people working within two distinct theoretical frameworks.  To put it in the terms of our NPOV policy, neither of you is right or wrong, but you are representing distinct points of view.  My understanding is that liberal advocates of capitalism (in the Austrian tradition) would see corporations as private rather than public not because they deny the existence of legal frameworks that regulate (or protect) the ownership of capital, but because the "public" activities of the state that they oppose are limited to direct interference in the market and the actual ownership of capital.  My understanding of Marxist critics of capitalism is that they would not see corporations as "public" as such, but that they would acknowledge that the creation of many corporations required the destruction of prior forms of private ownership of the means of production (e.g. cottage industries), and reflect ways in whcih the state (through legal frameworks) protects one class at the expense of another.  I wonder whether "public/private" and "bourgeois/proletariate" represent two very different ways of making sense of capitalism.  Perhaps people used to one way and people used to the other way will often misunderstand or just talk past one another. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marxists WANT to abolish private ownership of mean of production. Economizer 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct.  Marx believed in "progress."  He felt that bourgeois society, which had partially destroyed private ownership of the means of production, was superior to the economic system that preceeded it.  he saw communism as finishing the job capitalism started. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course limited liability laws can't exist without a legal framework. So what? Economizer 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am for private ownership. My point is that corporations are political or public entities and not entities created by contracts between private parties. A buyer and seller can contract to make an exchange that limits liability between them, but they cannot contract on behalf of third parties.  Corporations are a legal entity that can bind not only business clients to limited liability but also third parties (people it does not do business with, i.e. the public). The owners of a corporation do not have full control over a corporation, they must commit to an executive structure defined by law that they cannot alter. A democratic-republic is 'controlled by the people' in a similar manner that a corporation is 'controlled by the shareholders' (we even have limited liability for government debt). Mrdthree 18:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I see some of your point, a government has 'public ownership' because all people over 18, etc. have a voice in its policies. A corporation has 'private ownership' because only shareholders have a say over corporate policies. However, it must be acknowledged that a corporation   must make additional agreements with the government (acting on behalf of third parties or the public) in order to gain limited liability from the public at large. I would still claim the corporation violates the usual assumptions of market capitalism as the public is an implicit party to contract between corporations and other businesses, i.e. the contract involves more than proximate buyers and sellers.Mrdthree 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrd, even if I were to accept that limited liablity is "state-created", that wouldn't make corporations "state-created".  Limited liablity is not an inherent part of corporations.  They can have, or not have this feature.  The only defining feature is entity status. MrVoluntarist 19:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree there are entities such as sole proprietorships or general partnerships and there is no reason one could not have an entity like the corporation based on small loans acting like stock. That would shield lenders ('stock owners') without shielding corporate officers. My point is twofold, first capitalism doesnt rely on the coporation and second I believe that to a large extent 'market externalities' such as pollution are a product of the government policy of allowing limited liability. Corporate decisionmakers are shielded from concerns about 'unintended consequences' or 'market externalities' more than individual agents in the marketplace, and can make decisions without risking personal wealth.Mrdthree 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is a corporation a public or private entity?

message: So, I created the Capitalism portal. I originally did this in order to help reduce some of the conflict found in the main article, figuring that maybe the portal would be a good place to highlight the different points of view, give more room to these points, maybe reduce the main article down some...I discussed its creation on the Business and Economics portal talk page, but I realize I should have discussed it here. The reason I didn't is because I wasn't sure that creating the Capitalism was warranted. I'm still not sure. Feedback and/or work on the portal is appreciated. Hires an editor 20:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal Created 

message: Frankly, I'm content with the current def, but to offer a possibility to those who find it contentious this occured to me as a way round too tight a def. "Capitalism is the term generally used to refer to the economic system most commonly associated with that in the  United States and Western Europe.  Its precise definition is subject to dispute by both critics and supporters, but is most generally thought of as being a system in which the production and distribution of consumer and productive goods is predominantly governed by market relations." etc. etc. - or something like that, lead with a concrete real world example and then mention that the definition is contentious and then move into the contending accounts.  Owzat?--Red Deathy 07:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New def. attempt

message: In the definition, there is a line, "Capitalism is an economic system of distribution which totally sucks..." I don't know if you guys agree, but that doesn't seem neutral. I was just wondering if my deleting the words "totally sucks" would be apporpriate.
:Hopefully, someone has deleted this vandalism. Next time you see this, just do something! Like delete it. :-) Hires an editor 22:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "...totally sucks"

message: I think their needs to be an article or sub article on capitalism in eastern Europe
--J intela 04:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really agree with that, something defining the differences between capitalistic, or semi capitalistic markets, like from the United States, various capitalistic markets in Europe, and other counties. For instance, the American market takes a large interest in philanthropy, and social benefit programs that are supported by the market and separate from government socialistic programs, whereas a large majority of other markets aren't involved in such programs (Examples in the states are the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, or the billions of dollars that are donated for educational causes ever year). Like here in Brazil, donations from businesses and those of wealthy persons are rare, and just about all student scholarship programs, school funding, social programs, etc, are funded by the federal state. There could also be an article of how capitalism supports socialistic views in many aspects, again pointing to philanthropy. 
My two cents 201.43.6.118 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalism in Eastern Europe

message: Well, it's come up again - we had a largely stable intro - 
1) We don't need to insert privately everywhere, as if it's some sort of mania, if the Means of Production are privately owned then investment into that MoP is private.
2) Whilst there is some dispute over whether state capitalism exists on this page, the previous wording had the virtue of being silent on the question - if you accept that state capitalism exists, it is still capitalism, albeit qualified.
3) As I said, my works pension is owned by an Incroporated body (a university) Funded by the British state, it invests in Means of Production on a market - what status does my pension fund have?  State or priovate?  the answer is, Market Agent.--Red Deathy 16:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, but what of my example of a state funded self-organised corporate body?  As the article said, the means of production are mostly privately owned, that means most of the investment is therefore private.  As for state capitalism logically, it is capitalism, qualified by a state doing the acting, in much the same way as a blue coat is a coat, that has the added quality of being blue.--Red Deathy 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If the government invested in those businesses, it would be the owner, and you wouldn't have private ownership.  I can and do construct a definition of capitalism that doesn't include private ownership as an essential quality, see somewhere above for a definition of capitalism from the Oxford English Dictionary that does just that.  State capitalism does get a reference, in the article, but the def. in the lead para can and should be kept to the sufficient level to avoid vast conflicts.  Let's try taking my owrkplace, again - it is a private body, a chartered corporation, funded almost exclusively by the state, are it's investments private?  What about investments by charities?  What if all companies were co-operatives?  Wouldn't really be private then.  Capitalism is the employment of wage labour in order to produce goods for exchange at profit.  That's a reasonably well used def. that I work from, and I was moderately OK with the previous wording, but I think  that the changes you've made are incorrect and unnecessary.  Now, I've cited one source, the OED, you got any better?--Red Deathy 08:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it is not true that if the government invests in those businesses that it would be the owner. For instance, the government can tax people and invest in businesses that engage in alternative fuel research. The government doesn't become the owner of those businesses. If you're workplace is funded by the state, then no, that's not private investment. That's public investment. Investement by charities is private investment. What do you mean if companies where cooperatives? Cooperatives are private companies. An economy with only, or mostly, public investment would not be capitalism. There is no such thing as capitalism without private investment. That means that the private sector decides where capital goes. Yes, I do have better than the OED. THe Merriam Webster Third International Unabridged Dictionary: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by INVESTMENTS THAT ARE DETERMINED BY PRIVATE DECISION rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." I agree that "state capitalism" probably shouldnt be in the intro. But I put it there beause you are trying, as you admitted, to make the definition fit "state capitalism." Improper Bostonian 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we're working on a different meaning of investment, traditionally one invests by becoming a shareholder.  Government investment by subsidy simply means a government gift to the owners of the company.  So, if my corporation, University, funded by the state's investments are not private, what about investments by an employee of the stae - if I put my wages, which wholly come from taxation, into stocks, is that state money or private investment?  When does teh magic fairy descend and change it?  Capital is capital when it acts like capital - if a government invests commercially as if it were a private actor that does not change the nature of its capital.  I tolerated what i thought was a slightly incorrect definition of capitalism before, because it wasn't too wildly out.  Finally, why is teh Webster Def. better than the OED?  Surely it is equal?--Red Deathy 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Private investment means the DECISION about where to invest is not made by the state. Subsidies, also called "investment subsidies" are just one example of state-directed investment. Also, the state could directly tell private enterprises that they must invest in particular projects. What is essential about capitalism is that most investments are voluntary. If I have a business I am allowed to choose for myself where my profit is invested. Just saying in the definition that "capital is invested" doesn't distinguish capitalism from socialism. In socialism, capital is invested as well. I don't understand why you're fighting something that's so easy to note in the definition. Improper Bostonian 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, because there could not be capital in socialism, it would not be invested with a view to making a profit, it would be allocated to meet a definite end.  A state actor can freely ivnest, and invest to make a profit, as if they were a private capitalist, so long as their actions can be seen to be commercial - as most state pension funds are run commercially.  Take it anotehr way, what is teh sifference between my employer running it's own pension fund, as a nationalised, say, industry, instead of handing over a sum of money to a private commercial pension fund to do the same?  In the former case it is state investment, in the latter, it is private investment, apparently.  In socialism tehre is no money, so we cannot have pension funds.--Red Deathy 16:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In socialism there is no money? What?! What are you talking about? You must be talking about utopian communism. That's not what is typically meant by socialism. In socialism, the state owns the enterprises or heavily controls private enterprise and investment. If the state is doing the investment then they are not as a "private capitalist" because they take their money from the private sector. They don't earn from trade. It's entirely different. Because it's taken from taxes, that takes investment funds out of the private sector. It does not allow the private sector to decide where to invest those funds. Improper Bostonian 16:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically socialism and communism meant the same thing - stateless, classless moneyless society.  If I steal money, or inherit and then begin ivnesting it, I remain a capitalist, if the state starts up a firm with money taken from taxes, then as long as it invests it and relies on profits from ivnestments rather than subsidising from taxes, it is behaving as a capitalist.  You don't even want to start me on the fact that according to Adam Smith wage and salaried workers cannot be taxed, such a  fun argument. Anyway, state capitalismis where the state owns the MoP and behaves like a capitalis, producing goods for sale with a view to maing a profit--Red Deathy 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you steal money and invest it, you're only a "capitalist" in the sense of being an owner of capital. That's not what is meant by "capitalISM." In capitalism, you acquire wealth by trade, not by theft. Again, you're equating "state capitalism" with "capitalism." They're two entirely different things. If you want to talk about "state capitalism" then you should write a few sentences about it. This article is about "capitalism," not "state capitalism." Or why you don't you work on the state capitalism article? Improper Bostonian 16:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PLenty of capitalists get their start up wealth from inheritence.  Some get it through gambling windfalls, some get it through luck on the stock exchange, the point isn't the original source, but what you do with it.  If I won the lottery,a nd ivnested my money, I'd be a capitalist as long as the money I won was invested as capital in order to produce for profit.  If you take your start-up capital and invest it for profit, you're a capitalist and that's capitalism.  I'm talking about capitalism, cheers.--Red Deathy 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got it wrong then. In capitalism, it does depend on where you get your wealth. If wealth is not obtained through trade, then it's not capitalism. If I go to you and pull a gun on you and demand your money, that's not capitalism. Similarly, if the state confiscates all yours and my wealth then invests it, that's not capitalism. Improper Bostonian 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotta go home, but I'll leave with this - a great many capitalists, such as the Getties, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers inherited their wealth: do they cease to be capitalists because of this?  Capitalism itself was founded upon the theft of human lives called the slave trade, not to mention the judicial theft of the common land.  Capitalism is capitalism is teh predominent econjomic activity is investment of capital to make a profit, if, twenty years ago, a state body used taxpayers money to start a fund which it invested profitably and without subsequent input from taxation, that is capitalism.--Red Deathy 17:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inheritance is not theft. It's a voluntary transfer of ownership. That's what is essential about capitalism. A society where people are slaves, is not capitalism either, because that's not a free market transaction. Theft of land is not capitalism either. Transfer of land ownership in capitalism has to be voluntary. Improper Bostonian 17:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inheritance is unearned and it is not got by trade nor investment, necessarilly.  My point was, the source of the statr up capital is irrelvent, money has no smell, it's what's done with it and how that counts.  Imagine if a local council borrowed money (either from another council or from private persons) and then invested it in a business, run at a profit and all the debt was paid for from revenue - would that be capitalism?  Or is it solely the quality of being a public body, some existential mystical property taht disqualifies it?  Personally, I think it is the act of investing through a market in capital that is teh significant feature, not who does the investing...--Red Deathy 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the sources of start up capital is relevant. If capital is being obtained at gunpoint, that's not capitalism. Improper Bostonian 02:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No a market is not a market. There is a free market, and then there's a controlled market. In a controlled market, the government sets prices, either directly or by dictating production policies. In a free market, prices and production decisions are left to private decision. Improper Bostonian 03:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is commodity exchange, one way or another, the government is going to have to obey market froces in its pricing.--Red Deathy 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. The whole point, ostensibly, of a controlled market is that the government can do a better job at distributing resources by setting the pricing and production policies instead of leaving it to those enterprises themselves. There is only a market in the sense of people buying and selling things, but the prices of those things aren't determined by supply and demand so it's not a free market. Improper Bostonian 17:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, think about it, supply and demand is real - if the government sets a ludicrous price, then real world factors will start to take control - if the price of bog roll is greater than that of a Rolls Royce peope will wipe themselves on bank notes - unless you can compell purchases you cannot completely control price - you can distort price, but the critique of contrlled markets is that they fail.  Controlled markets are not a synonym for ecopnomic planning or state control, you could have non-market methods of distribution - free housing, etc.  So long as there is an element of market, of goods actually being exchanged in some ratio or other, then market forces will apply.  teh difference between a free and a controlled market is one of degree only, hence conceptually they belong in the same article as facets fo the topic market.--Red Deathy 17:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course state control of the market causes problems. That's why command economies have shortage, surpluses, and other inefficiencies. If the market is not largely free, that is, if firms are not allowed to decide for themselves production and pricing policies then it's definitely not capitalism. Improper Bostonian 17:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead para