Talk:Capitalism/Archive 12

message: Why is this link a spamlink? seems relevant to me, I can't understand why it was removed.  -- Dullfig 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems more relevant for an article on objectivism. -- infinity0 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: www.Capitalismcenter.org

message: I've seen multiple conflicting definitions, and none of them seems to fit, either because of ambiguity, redundancy, or plain old POV.  Please provide a source. MrVoluntarist 01:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "wage labor" is a Marxist term, so it's not used very much. But, yeah, "workers are paid for labor" would be more inclusive. Communists don't think people should be paid for their labor no matter if it's a wage, salary, or commission. RJII 15:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: They are paid a wage, specifically - money per unit time of labour. Infinity0 talk 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait -- so your point is that capitalism is defined by payment per unit time of labor?  I'm afraid that is in no standard definition, not even left-wing, not even Marxist definitions. (To see the point more clearly, do you agree that if migrant farm workers were paid per fruit picked instead of by how long they worked, that would still be capitalism?)  That's original research right there.  So do you now agree that "wage labor" is not part of the definition of capitalism, as you use the term? MrVoluntarist 18:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A wage is the amount of money paid for some specified quantity of labour.  is what it says on wage. I just said time, I was too specific. Infinity0 talk 19:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then let's talk about what you do mean.  When you say capitalism has wage labor, what are you saying?  You're saying that in capitalism, wages are paid for labor.  And what is a wage?  Money paid for a quantity of labor.  So what is unique or a defining aspect of capitalism is that... drumroll please ... labor is paid with money.  Is that what you're claiming is a defining aspect of capitalism?  Is that what you and perhaps Marxists mean when they refer to wage labor?  Labor being paid with money?  Is this what Marx got in a huff about? MrVoluntarist 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically, yes. Labour is paid (ie. compensated) for with a pre-specified amount of money, as opposed to what the labour really earns (the profit it gathers for the employer). Read what SlRubenstein wrote below. Infinity0 talk 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  You just agreed that paying labor money is wage labor.  Now you're saying that it's only wage labor if the employer collects a profit on it.  Can you see why I'm having trouble understanding now?  That is definitely not a remotely NPOV term because, among other things, it assumes a certain formula about when the employer is "profiting" versus "paying the labor what it's really worth.  That assumes a theory of value.  In other words, miles from NPOV.  Out of the intro, period. MrVoluntarist 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the payment isn't always "pre-specified".  There are bonuses and raises.  Plus, you neglect to mention that employers don't get a refund if they can't sell the product due to, e.g., market shifts. MrVoluntarist 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Now you're saying that it's only wage labor if the employer collects a profit on it.  - no, I'm not. Wage labour is labour paid for with a wage. What else do you think it could be?? Those bonuses you speak of aren't part of the contract and entirely at the discretion of the employer. Infinity0 talk 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Infinity0 -- you're switching between definitions repeatedly without, apparently, realizing it.  Let's say an employer paid a wage for labor and sold the product strictly at cost and thus could not keep a profit.  Is that still wage labor? Remember, they were paid a wage. MrVoluntarist 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Labor is not paid in kind in communism either. It's not paid at all. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In communism, you are paid for your  need, not your labor. RJII 15:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Slrubenstein, if you read this, can you help with Template_talk:Did_you_know#Markup_Bug.2C_please_fix? Thanks Infinity0 talk 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's what I got out of that: 1) You and Infinity0 have given me about four different definition of wage labor, so no one will know what it's referring to.  2) The assumptions underlying "wage labor" as differentiated from other labor are confined  to Marxist circles.  Given those, and that there's no page for "wage labor", you cannot possibly justify putting it in the intro.  Put in the "Marxist perspective of capitalism" or something, but definitely not in the intro. MrVoluntarist 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: When it becomes clear that something doesn't belong, and you keep re-inserting it again and again, that's not "being bold", that vandalism.  Just some advance notice. MrVoluntarist 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Your description of what constitutes vandalism is factually inaccurate. I would also suggest that you re-read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; I have some problems with some of your edits on that front. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, this is what it says: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia."  Now, if you're going to allow the "intent" loophole, nothings vandalism because we can't read minds.  But it's clear to Slrubenstein that what he's doing is POV, and he doesn't care and will insert it anyway, that's "deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". And what edits are you talking about?  I haven't edited this article in something like a month... I'm not even in the first page of the revision history.  Honest question -- do you have any idea what you're talking about? MrVoluntarist 14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's just been reverted by a guy who follows me around Wikipedia reverting my edits simply because they're mine. RJII 21:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you read the reasons I gave at all?  I am completely aware of this.  Nowhere did I say anything along the lines of "Marx is wrong, so that doesn't belong."  My reason for removing wage labor-terminology is because 1) it's completely ambiguous what it means (Infinity and Slrubenstein give conflicting, time-variant definitions), 2) there's no article to tell people what it means (it redirects to wage), and 3) some definitions given assume a minority POV.  Where in that do I debate the merits of capitalism or Marxism?  All of that speaks to what belongs or doesn't belong.  I have always been okay with talking about "wage labor" where it's confined to "Marxist perspectives" or whatnot.  Please re-read my complaints.  Thank you. MrVoluntarist 14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. There is no way the term "wage labor" should be used in the definition. That term is Marxist jargon. Use neutral english. RJII 15:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is ludicrous to claim that a perfectly straightforward term like "wage labor" is Marxist jargon. No basis whatsoever was provided for that statement. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "no basis was provided"?  I think you mean "you didn't find a basis" which means "you didn't look for a basis".  Please read the last few sections of this page please, where this was discussed extensively. Here's a test -- you tell me what is meant by "wage labor" and if it contradicts Infinity, Slrubenstein, or the definition of "wage", it's out. MrVoluntarist 17:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, wage labor refers to any situation in which an individual worker engages in work for an employer in exchange for a given wage (or salary). It does not refer to self-employment, profit sharing, capital income, or other such forms of financial remuneration. This is how I understand the term and it is how the term is commonly used. You may be familiar with some arcane Marxist use of it, but I see no reason why we should not use it in its plain English meaning. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The wage is pre-specified.  The employer buys the labor.  He refuses to accept an amount of money for it that would result in profit.  But you would not call that wage, even though it's pre-specified.  It's clear you're not using it as two words smashed together.  It carries baggage about exploitative relationships and how much "keeping" constitutes "profit". MrVoluntarist 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, you've lost me.  What is "pre-specified"?  What's is "based on the value of the product"?  Here's what the employer does -- he offers $X for labor.  He buys the labor.  He sells the fruits of that labor (the widget or whatever) for $X + material cost.  The labor cost determined the price.  He made no profit.  Yet he paid a "specified amount" for the labor.  That's not wage labor? MrVoluntarist 17:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In your first scenario, the employer cannot offer $X for the labour Sure he can. MrVoluntarist 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Because maybe (like I said before) he sells it at cost? If you mean to say output prices influence (labor) input prices, welcome to The Marginal Revolution!  That has nothing to do with this though.  The employer estimates how much he can sell it for.  He bids for labor accordingly.  He sells such that he doesn't profit.  How does this affect the status of the labor? When you say "pre", what is it before?  Before he goes into business?  Before the beginning of time? MrVoluntarist 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say he "could not keep a profit".  I said he "would not keep a profit".  You can always sell below the market price, remember?  And since he's not keeping a profit for himself, that should keep it under the market price, right? MrVoluntarist 18:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC
Oh, ok. Well in that case yes, it's still wage labour. What's your point? But, if he does make a profit, and he doesn't keep it for himself, where does it go? To the worker? Infinity0 talk 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So, whether or not it's capitalism depends on how much workers get paid.  That's not even in the same country as NPOV. MrVoluntarist 05:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, well, I don't know of anyone at all who defines capitalism in terms of "when you specify a payment for labor".  If I "pre-specify" a roofer a payment for fixing my roof, is that wage too?  Ambiguity again. MrVoluntarist 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What's getting tiresome is having to navigate around your ever-changing conception of "wage labor" which amounts to "labor relationships I don't like".  You never had the part about once vs. repeatedly in your original definition.  This is about the fifth time you've shifted.  So apparently, capitalism is defined by "workers regularly providing labor to the same person and having their payment specified before the end product is sold" ... sorry, no.  Good luck finding a definition of capitalism that says anything about that. MrVoluntarist 19:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment is precisely the kind of debate on the underlying issues that we should try to avoid here. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHAT are you talking about?  This isn't a debate about the "underlying issues".  No one's debating if Marx is right.  I pointed out that the term "wage labor" includes certain assumptions about how much payment consitutes a "wage" and thus, certain theories of value.  Infinity's responses confirm this!  It is not a neutral term. MrVoluntarist 16:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You wouldn't call a one-time payment a wage. That's all. Infinity0 talk 20:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, once y'all settle this internal dispute over what wage labor really means, you can come back to me and explain why it's obvious to almost anyone who would read Wikipedia. MrVoluntarist 21:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone please define "wage labo[u]r"? 

message: Who is John Galt? Uh, sorry. This is not the Ayn Rand article. Yet we've got one illustration that is a portrait of her, and another that's a photo of the cover of one of her books. That's overkill. One or the other of those illustrations should go. --Christofurio 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remove them. They've annoyed me for a while too. 172 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Take the book out then if you have to take one out, because there's no person more notable for promoting self-interest in capitalism than Rand is there? I can't think of anyone else's picture that would be more appropriate for that section if there is going to be a picture --not that there has to be a picture there. RJII 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be careful not to give the views of fringe thinkers more prominence than they deserve. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view specifically states: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Although it's easy to get the opposite impression when online, the fact is that Ayn Rand is simply not that influential in either philosophy or economics. Serious academic discussions of modern capitalism would include figures like Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, and James M. Buchanan. Rand would not be included. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 13:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's got to be the understatement of the year (though it just started). Do you realized how many books of Ayn Rand's are sold each year? Her influence is extensive. Who hasn't heard of Ayn Rand? Everybody knows that Rand is pro self-interest and pro-capitalism. How about a quick Google test: Milton Friedman: 1,810,000, Ronald Coase: 138,000, James M. Buchanan: 92,100, Ayn Rand:  2,060,000. It looks to me like she's more influential than all those combined. I know what you're going to say, most colleges don't teach Rand, but education and influence of society consists of more than what happens in college. A group of academics writing papers to impress each other is hardly more influential than one is is selling books by the millions around the world. Even Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve was heavily influenced by Rand (wrote an essay in one of her books, even), and through him her philosophy certainly has a huge influence on the economy of the U.S. and by extension, the world. And, the list could go on ..there are many others, especially business leaders who have been influenced by Rand. RJII 14:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google searches are often a good way to address notability, but in some cases, such as this one, the system breaks down. There are a lot of issues where the online consensus seems wildly at variance with the real world, and this is one of them. I reiterate: libertarianism and Objectivism have a prominence online far out of proportion to their popularity in the real world. The libertarian candidate for President routinely gets less than 1 percent of the popular vote; we have no libertarian Congressmen or Senators (I suppose you could consider Ron Paul, although he is nominally a Republican). I've never even seen someone run for office as an Objectivist. Nor does the average man or woman on the street know who Rand was. You may reply that the average man or woman on the street could not name Friedman or the other economists either, and I would agree. That's why I think we should focus on serious academic sources; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all. And the fact is that most of academia considers Rand a fringe crackpot. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 16:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it to the "real world" then. Compare how many books all those people have been sold. Rand leaves them in the dust. Someone is more likely to have an Ayn Rand book in their home than any of those other names you mentioned. By the way, most libertarians are not in the U.S. Libertarian Party. Economic libertarianism is pretty mainstream. RJII 16:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect most of those Rand books in the "sales" figures wind up right back on the shelves. Scientology boasts huge figures for books sold; if you went just by that, and by their Internet presence, you might think that this tiny cult was a major world religion, on par with Christianity or Islam. Nothing could be farther from the truth, of course. I see no reason to believe that the Rand sales figures are any different, considering the utter lack of real-world influence. Sure, plenty of politicians talk up laissez-faire policies - and when they do, they usually bring up Friedman or some other academic economist, not Rand. I've never once heard a national US politician bring up Rand or Objectivism. The fact is that she had no impact on US politics and no impact on US academia. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 16:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, businessmen run the economy in capitalism, not the government and not academics. (I did mention that Alan Greenspan was an early Objectivist and wrote an essay in Rand's book Capitalism the Unknown Ideal (I know what you're going to say..the Federal Reserve is technically not part of the goverment, right?)) RJII 16:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bang my head against the desk whenever I read a post of yours, Crotalus.  First, does Al Gore count as a national US politician?  (search for Rand).  Second, do you have any basis for your allegation?  The Scientologist tactic is well-documented.  No one has ever seriously alleged Objectivist fake sales. MrVoluntarist 17:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A letter from Ronald Reagan: "Dear Mr. Vandersteel: Thanks very much for pamphlet. Am an admirer of Ayn Rand but hadn't seen this study. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan."  Ayn Rand ...massive deregulation of the economy. See a connection? RJII 17:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ron Paul, Republican Congressman: "To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive – and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government." RJII 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is superficially appealing and does make some sense. But I feel that it is an inaccurate comparison. Dozens of governments in the 20th century have claimed to be Marxist. How many have claimed to be Objectivist? Again, I think that being active in Internet discussion often tends to give an exaggerated view of Rand's influence. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 16:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many governments have claimed to be Hayekian, Smithians, Chydeniusians, Austrian's (austrian school, Chicagoan's (Chicago school, etc.? None, but does that mean they haven't significantly influenced ideas on capitalism? Anyway, capitalism isn't a government system, it's an economic system. Those actually operating private economies (businessmen) are who you need to query. Government, by definition, doesn't operate the economy in capitalism. RJII 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Under modern capitalism, government most certainly is a major player. Furthermore, it is government that determines the ground rules under which capitalist activity takes place, and the extent to which a mixed economy will lean towards or away from full capitalism. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The complete opposite of that is true. In capitalism, the government is NOT a major player. It engages in minimal interventionism. That's what is meant by "free market." If there's a lot of intervenionism then it's not capitalism ..its'a mixed economy. For example, the U.S. State Department says the U.S. is a mixed economy.  So do many textbooks. RJII 04:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am referring to capitalism as it actually exists, not as you might wish it should be. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 04:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you assert that it exists, in the article, that's POV. Not everyone believes it exists. What you call a capitalist economy is what someone else calls a mixed economy. You can't just pick out a country's economy and then define capitalism by describing that system. The definition comes first. THEN you see if a particular economy fits the definition. RJII 04:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must we include a statement in the intro to the Earth article indicating some people think it's flat? Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - fringe POVs don't need to be given the same prominence as those with widespread acceptance. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Earth" has a specific definition. To find out if anything fits that definition you look around for something that has those characteristics. You can't just pick out an object at random, and call it "Earth." "Earth" has already been defined.  Likewise, with capitalism. You can't just pick any economy out an label it capitalism --you have to see if it fits the definition.  What country are you looking at to base your personal definition on? Don't you see how absurd that is? RJII 04:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough Rand-related illustrations 

message: We currently have a paragraph-length quote from Robert Hessen, a Stanford grad student, opining that only laissez-faire is true capitalism and that the mixed economy is not a form of capitalism but its opposite. What is Hessen's claim to prominence? I think we should reconsider both the inclusion of this quote and the length of the accompanying section, as per the NPOV policy listed above. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 13:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He looks pretty credentialed to me, if that's the criteria you're looking for:  "He received his B.A. from Queens College, his M.A. from Harvard University and his Ph.D. from Columbia University. He taught in the Graduate School of Business at Columbia until 1974. Since then, when he joined the Hoover Institution, he has taught in Stanford's Graduate School of Business." I don't know what you're saying there though. Of course a mixed economy isn't capitalism --that's why it's called a mixed economy. Capitalism is laissez-faire by definition. RJII 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hessen's In Defense of the Corporation is an important book, like it or loathe it, and is oft cited in the debates over the rights-bearing "personhood" of corporations, etc. You're being too restrictive in your notions of notability, Crotalus. --Christofurio 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that sounds fair to me. The original text simply cited him as a Stanford economics graduate student, but it appears he does have genuine notability in his field. Objection withdrawn for this instance. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 16:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unneeded quotes

message: To claim that only laissez-faire is true capitalism constitutes an insertion of Objectivist POV into the article. In common parlance, the United States and other advanced First World economies are considered to be capitalist, but they most certainly are not laissez-faire. To claim that only this hypothetical system is real capitalism (and, conversely, that all of the problems with existing capitalism can be shrugged off on this basis) is a hallmark of Objectivist and Libertarian fringe thinking. I do not know what is written on Wikisource, but it cannot override the common use of the English language that our readers will understand. Ironically, communists often make similar claims, arguing that the Soviet Union and other such disasters were not "really" communist. It's an example of how the opposite extremes, while bitterly opposing each other, often use the same methodologies and fallacious thinking. (World War II is a clear example of this.)
It is also unnecessary to use the term "socialism" in conjunction with a reference to the mixed economy; "government involvement" is a more neutral term. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a hobby horse for your anti-government views. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 04:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people call the U.S. capitalism. Some call it a mixed economy. All I'm saying is to be NPOV we can't assert either. By the way,  saying that US is a mixed economy is not restricted to libertarians. The US State Department says it's a mixed economy.   So do many mainstream economics textbooks. For example   Lots of people don't consider the U.S. to be capitalism --because they use the mainstream definition of capitalism --a free market (laissez-faire) system. RJII 05:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening statements

message: I think that the entire "contrasts with capitalism" section should be removed as POV and original research. The only actual citations given are from Karl Marx, where capitalism is explicitly contrasted with Communism. The rest of it is just opinion, and highly debatable opinion - it is clear POV to say that "capitalism can be contrasted with various kinds of mixed economies", when most people would consider mixed economies to be a form of capitalism. This is just another attempt to smuggle in the "unknown ideal" crap through the back door. I'm renaming the section to "Capitalism and Communism" and removing everything but the sourced information, as per Wikipedia:Cite sources and the above listed policies. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 18:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Contrasts with capitalism" section

message: In the Article it says Karl Marx first used the word "Kapitalist" in 1848 and Thackeray used "Capitalism" in 1854. Even though the articles specific name is "Capitalism" it would make more sense to put a picture of Karl Marx on the page instead of Thackeray, especially since (when searched) "Capitalist" is redirected to "Capitalism." Any objection to the change? --Taboo Tongue 20:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. That section is about etymology. The first use of the word "capitalism" that we know of is from Thackeray. Anyway, Marx wasn't the first to use the term "capitalist." RJII 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use picture Marx VS Thackeray 

message: I have a mainstream source for laissez-faire economy being a synonym for capitalism: "Among the synonyms for capitalism are LAISSEZ-FAIRE economy, private enterprise system, and free-price system. In this context economy is interchangeable with system," -Barron's Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms.  So, stop removing the note that capitalism is also called "laissez-faire economy." RJII 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing POV at all about saying that capitalism is laissez-faire. Did not Adam Smith advocate a laissez-faire system?  Adam Smith's philosophy is supposed to be the classic description of capitalism. Capitalism is, by definition, laissez-faire. What do you think "free market" means? It means laissez-faire --a market free from government interventionism. RJII 23:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And, yes public services are intervention. It's government-directed, rather than privately directed investment. RJII 23:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Adam Smith did not advocate a laissez-faire system. He recognized the existence of market failures. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Laissez-faire, in common usage, does not mean absolutely no government intervention (unless you're an anarchist). Adam Smith advocated laissez-faire --that the government should only intervene if absolutely necessary. Nice cheap shot the other day, by the way, with the 3 revert thing. I'll remember that. RJII 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Laissez-faire most certainly does mean no government intervention. That's what separates it from less stringent varieties of capitalism - such as the mixed economy that is prevalent in most advanced industrial nations today. As for your other comment, you may remember or forget what you choose. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't mean absolutely no government interevention. Merriam-Webster dictionary: "a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights" Total lack of government interference would be anarchism. And, a mixed economy is no more form of capitalism than it is a form of socialism. It's a mix, so you're defining it wrong when you say a mixed economy is "largely capitalist." RJII 15:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by "restricted"? What's an example of such a restriction? RJII 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is fact though that there has never been a complete separation of government and economy. If you want advocation of that .. I suggest you go and edit the anarcho-capitalism article -- max rspct leave a message  00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, sorry, my mistake. I didn't think of that type. I suppose you should go add it in then. Infinity0 talk 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you say what you mean by "social services"? RJII 03:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant things like a health service, transport system, water supply, etc. Infinity0 talk 17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's kind of a awkward term then, because businesses also provides social services. Government-owned means of production (or enterprises) covers that. RJII 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, I didn't know what else to call it. Public services maybe? Infinity0 talk 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Most modern, first world economies? Sure, go look at all the corporations out in the world today. Infinity0 talk 17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, look at all the government intervention and state-owned industry in the world today. RJII 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a lot less than the corporations... I don't see the problem of saying "largely capitalist". Infinity0 talk 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unsourced. It's just a guess to say most modern economies are "largely capitalist." I'm sure it would be no problem to find people saying that most are largely statist. RJII 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "largely capitalist" is a ambiguous term. I suggest "modern first world countries accommodate more aspects of capitalism than other countries", subject to tweaking. Something like that.  Run!  21:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds pretty good. RJII 15:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As opposed to what, private individuals?? "Private sector" isn't really that useful extra information. Infinity0 talk 20:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to the state. Individuals are part of the private sector. Everything that is not the government is the private sector. If the state directs the investments, it's a planned economy. RJII 20:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Equating "privately" with "private sector" makes it sound like the whole private sector is acting through that one individual. The whole private sector doesn't determine anything. To put that link there as privately would be really out of place... Infinity0 talk 20:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Private sector" is exactly what is meant by "privately." It coul interchangeably say "investments are determined by the private sector." Investment is not determined by government but by the private sector  --the private sector is the totality of everything that's not government, all of the businesses and individuals deciding for themselves what they're going to invest in. RJII 21:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's much less bloated now, isn't it? The word is unneeded. Infinity0 talk 20:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: laissez-faire

message: I noted that laissez-faire economy was a synonym for capitalism and provided the source of the Barron's Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms but maxrspct is deleting it. He even claims it's POV which is odd, because capitalism is defined in terms of a free market --a free market is laissez-faire. RJII 18:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been over this; that is not a good enough source to go in the intro, and to put it up there is to introduce POV. Unless you want to include "wage-slavery system" in the intro too? Infinity0 talk 18:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What POV???  That capitalism is a laissez-faire system? It already says that in the definition --"free market". A free market is a system where government doesn't engage in interventionist coercion, but simply ensures an orderly market. THat's what laissez-faire is. RJII 19:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Laissez-faire literally means NO intervention. Infinity0 talk 19:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't --it means minimal intervention. Merriam-Webster defines laissez-faire as "1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights." American Heritage Dictionary: "1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws." So, where is the POV? There is no POV issue; it's just a lack of knowledge on the part of some of you guys of basic definitions. RJII 19:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The POV is that it asserts the definition of capitalism which has minimal intervention. Capitalism has always existed with intervention. It's a fringe view that it hasn't. Infinity0 talk 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalism doesn't mean a system with no intervention. It means a system with 'minimal intervention. What do you think "free market" means? Capitalism is widely understood to be based in a free market. What is a free market system? A laissez-faire system. Merriam Webster defines capitalism as :"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." That's laissez-faire! RJII 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Capitalism isn't necessarily minimal intervention, though. It includes a "free" market, but that could very well be significantly regulated, though not controlled. Your definition means capitalism has never existed, which invalidates the origins of the word. Infinity0 talk 19:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant whether capitalism has ever existed. You don't understand how economic definitions work. Definitions are abstract. For example, a monopoly is defined as a situtation where there is only one provider of a particular kind of good --no competition exists. But, who would dispute that a situation where a firm had 98% of market share was a monopoly? A free market by definition has absolutely no interventionist regulation, yet capitalism is defined in terms of a free market. You're just supposed to know that economic definitions are abstract ideals. First you have a definition, then you look at any particular existing system and see if it corresponds closely enough to the definition to be reasonable called by that name. If the system in the US is reasonably close to a free market (laissez-faire), then it's capitalism --if it's not reasonably close then it's a mixed economy, and so on. RJII 19:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's assuming capitalism IS a free market economy, which is false. Capitalism includes other things too. Saying capitalism equates to laissez-faire is as much POV as saying capitalism equates to wage slavery. Infinity0 talk 20:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalism IS a free market economy. Capitalism is whatever the definition says it is. Saying capitalism is also called laissez-faire econnomy is no more POV than saying that Merriam-Webster defines it as a free market system. It's not POV at all. I think your reasoning may be a little screwed up here. It seems like you're looking at a particular economy then labeling it capitalism, rather than looking up the definition of capitalism then looking at an economy and see if it accords with the definition. Am I right? That's backwards. Would the US economy be capitalism no matter what was happening? Of course not. It's either capitalism or it's not, and the way to make that determination is to know the definition FIRST. RJII 20:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: RJII, the word capitalism was first used to describe the system where the people with large amounts of capital controlled and owned the MoP. Free-market is a spin off from that. Many people think that wage labour is more part of capitalism than free-market. Add neither or both. Infinity0 talk 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That definition is obsolete. Mere private ownership of the means of production is no longer a sufficient condition of capitalism, according to modern definitions. Meanings of words change over time --you need to change with them so you can communicate. RJII 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevertheless, many people still think of wage-labour as being more part of capitalism than free market. Infinity0 talk 21:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then they're wrong, as can be seen by a survey of definitions. What a word means is contingent upon common usage. If you say a word means something else, you're simply wrong. RJII 21:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's only POV. They are a significant part of people (most leftists), and in common usage, everybody who isn't extremely right-wing recognises the wage labour employer-employee relationship in capitalism. Infinity0 talk 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is POV. But, it's mainstream POV, which by default is the correct definition of capitalism. Words are defined according to common usage. Obviously, you're wanting to inject some type of fringe Marxist POV instead of making the article accord to the mainstream definition. And, you have the gall to call my push for the mainstream definition POV. How dare you. RJII 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow man, chill out. Why don't you go out into the street and ask anybody whether their boss paying them a wage is part of capitalism or not? It's not a fringe view. Infinity0 talk 21:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fringe to not accept that capitalism is defined as being based on a free market (laissez-faire). It's obvious by surveying the mainstream recorded definitions. RJII 21:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm just saying, if laissez faire deserves to be in the intro, then for the same reason, so is wage labour. It's obvious by asking anyone off the street. Infinity0 talk 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not all you've been saying. You said that saying that capitalism is a laissez-faire system is POV. But, it's not. That accords with the mainstream definition. Capitalism is defined as a free market system --you can't have a free market without laissez-faire. RJII 21:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's where we disagree on definition. I don't think of capitalism as necessarily having a laissez faire market economy, because otherwise it has never existed. Infinity0 talk 21:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has a free market economy ever existed?  RJII 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at the way other economic systems are defined, such as socialism, or communism. Have those systems existed as defined? Those are defined abstractly as well. Whether such a system has existed is totally irrelevant in regard to what the definition is. Definitions of economic systems are IDEAS --abstractions. They are not necessarily descriptions of something that exists in the real world. Maybe capitalism exists, or it doesn't. Maybe it existed before but not anymore. Maybe it's yet to exist. But that is all irrelevant to the definition. RJII 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But capitalism is different. The meaning evolved out of a circumstance, not a theory. I know that you say the meaning has evolved, but not in most people's minds. No ordinary person believes that capitalism is fully free-market. It tends towards it, which is why "free market" is a good description. Laissez-faire is only a more extreme version of capitalism, just like communism is a more extreme version of socialism. Infinity0 talk 22:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. Capitalism as it is defined today originated in theory. Adam Smith was describing how he thought things should be, not how they are --he was arguing against mercantilism. And, what he was describing is a generally laissez-faire system AND what he was describing is widely understood to be capitalism. "Free market" and "laissez-faire" come down to essentially the same thing --a marketplace with minimal government intervention. In fact, "free market" is more extreme than "laissez-faire." A free market is absolutely free from government intervention, whereas laissez-faire is minimal government intervention: "1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights" -Merriam-Webster. So, you're reasoning just doesn't make sense. RJII 03:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maxrspct deleting sourced material

message: See this arbitration case.  "No decision was reached in this case - the original dispute appeared to have long been resolved (an article "definitions of capitalism" was created and linked from the opening paragraph of capitalism) and healthy amounts of interaction were occuring between the disputants (see e.g. recent edit history on capitalism and recent discussions at its talk page.)"
Thus, the arbcom dropped the case since alternative definitions were linked explicitly. Thus, this should be restored.Ultramarine 19:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a good way to start an encyclopedia by saying the topic is defined in various ways. It's too wishy-washy. A good encyclopedia takes a stand. So, I restored it, but in a more presentable encyclopedic way. I sourced Wikiquote and put it in the references. RJII 19:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regading your arguments for not presenting the alternative definitions, they were presented to and rejected by the arbcom. Your are still ignoring the conditions for dropping the case, the introduction still only gives one definition and there is no hint that this is very disputed.Ultramarine 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. I demand you cite the arbcom rejecting that. And, you're wrong to say the definition is "very disputed." That's not the case. Quite the contrary --the general definition is widely accepted as anyone can see in Wikiquote. That's why I am a strong supporter of a link to the definitions there --to put a rest to false claims such as yours. RJII 19:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The case was dropped since the opening paragraph linked to an article presenting the many alternative defintions. This is no longer true.Ultramarine 19:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one that put the BOX there recently after it had been deleted. I want a link to the definitions. You're arguing against the wrong person. RJII 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article misleading gives the impression that there is only one undisputed defintion. Please restore the situation that the arbcom found correct.Ultramarine 19:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition is not disputed. Pretty much everyone agrees with that definition. All one has to do is look at the definitions in Wikiquote. They don't use exactly the same wording but they give the same general definition. Anything that differs significantly is fringe. There is a source link to the definitions on Wikiquote, as well as a big BOX there that links to it. You have no basis for complaint. RJII 19:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously false, one has only to look at the different definitions used. If you argue that the wikiquote box is the same as the version endorsed by the arbcom, then you should no have objection to the restoration of that version. Added tempalte.Ultramarine 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had it my way, there would be a big box across the top of the article that said "See definitions of anarchism in Wikiquote." What I have a problem with is the style of the writing. I don't think it's good form to start out an encylopedia saying "capitalism has been defined in various ways" especially when the various ways pretty much agree. Look at every encylopedia out there --capitalism is defined --a stand is taken. RJII 19:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbcom found nothing objectionable to stating that there are many alternative defintions.Ultramarine 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any big problem with it either --I'm not going to fight it. I just prefer not to say that --it's wishy-washy --doesn't make for a good encyclopedia article. Of course it's been defined in various ways --so has everything else. RJII 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good. Then you will not again revert if I change the text? Ultramarine 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I'll take out the unsightly "See definitions of capitalism in Wikiquote" or something like that. Just the footnote to Wikiquote is fine. RJII 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not acceptable. This gives the impression that there is only one definition that is not disputed. Please do no repeat your earlier arguments.Ultramarine 20:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it says "capitalism has been defined in various ways [1], but in common usage it refers to..." ? You would have a problem with that?  I don't understand. RJII 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I know that. RJII 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template will remain until the situation that the arbcom found acceptable is restored.Ultramarine 20:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying put the thing about being defined in various way it you want. I just think it's a silly, because the differences in definitions is small. As far as the template being there, I couldn't care less. RJII 20:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration case 

message: Uh, no shit? I don't see the point of adding an obvious statement like that; also, the passage doesn't even imply the opposite. Infinity0 talk 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an equally "obvious" statement that is included and arguably false "that GDP/capita does little to indicate the amount of poverty in a nation if the Gini coefficient, which measures distribution of income, is not taken into account." The poorest can be comparatively rich even with high inequality if the GDP/capita is high.
"The poorest can be comparatively rich"??? I believe "poorest" is a comparative adjective. Infinity0 talk 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The poorest in a nation can be comparatively rich compared to poor people prior in history or in other nations.Ultramarine 22:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth is essential for reducing poverty 

message: OED has usage of "capitalist" in this sense going back to 1792 - so the 1848 usage isn't the "first" - in English at least.  Its first site for capitalism is indeed Thackeray in 1854.  Morwen - Talk 17:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antedating 

message: Infinity, you're the one that keeps stating in the article that most economies are "largely capitalist." Do you have a source for that claim? I have plenty of sources that say most are mixed economies. RJII 04:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because a mixed economy doesn't have to be largely capitalist --it can also be largely socialist --or in the middle. And, look how many economies there are in the world. It's saying "most" economies are largely capitalist. That's a pretty bold claim to make without a source. RJII 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, the source you gave does not say that most economies are largely capitalist. We still need a source for your claim. RJII 14:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you realize how many economies there are in the world? There are around 200 countries. You've listed 5 countries, and even out of those 5 the factbook only says Australia is capitalist, the US is "market-oriented", and Canada "closely resembles the U.S." It doesn't even say that about the UK economy or the French economy. It says the UK has reduced socialism, but it doesn't say that it is largely capitalist. It says the French are "in the midst of transition" --the transition is not made. RJII 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: All economies are "modern economies" --that means economies that exist today, rather than historically. So, that includes every economy in the world. If the UK, France, and Gemany are reducing the public sector, that still doesn't mean that they economies are largely capitalist --it depends on how socialized they were in the first place. You're going to have to do better than this if you're going to make the claim that most modern economies are largely capitalist. RJII 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "developed" is vague. Can you source a list of "developed" countries so we can go through each one? Certainly there are more than 3 developed countries in the world --you've only given a source for 3 economies being "market-oriented" or "capitalist." Having a bigger private sector than a public sector is not a sufficient condition of being capitalism --the private sector has to be free of significant governmental intervention. RJII 15:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You're the one that is using the words "largely capitalist" so you should know what it means. In the context of a mixed economy, it means more capitalist than socialist/planned. RJII 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not for me or you to decide. That's why I'm requesting sources, since you're making the claim that most developed economies are "largely capitalist." There's quite a list of developed economies, but you've only given evidence of an explicit source for 1 --Australia, and an indirect source for 2 others ("market-oriented"). RJII 16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "America has socialist elements through the government's massive land holdings and government-owned businesses like the post office. Also, the government sponsors a huge social welfare system, and some experts describe America's economic system as welfare capitalism." 
In that same source, "In the world today, economies are characterized by corporate capitalism. Manufacturing is now dominated by corporations, which are large business concerns owned by thousands of stockholders and managed by boards of directors." Infinity0 talk 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Where's a source for that claim? US and Australia are not "most" developed countries. RJII 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL @ "US has little intervention".MrVoluntarist 17:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Largely capitalist" mixed economy does not mean little intervention. It means a lot of intervention, but not so much that it's a planned economy. RJII 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: infinity, most capitalist

message: Maxrspct, you wrote "The indices are released by neo-liberal organisations, funded by corporations and business people or capitalists."
If you can find a source for this, I think it may well be worth adding into the article. The section is POV, since it asserts that they are correct. Infinity0 talk 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-liberal organisations 

message: Max rspct, do you have a source claiming that most developed economies are largely capitalist?  This source you are linking that Infinity provided does not say that. What you have to say? RJII 18:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop trolling, its says this: "For rough comparisons, it is now useful to divide the world in two and compare developments in the advanced capitalist group" I think it's clear capitalism is global. - max rspct leave a message  19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "it" and where does it say that? What is the "advanced capitalist group"? RJII 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm still waiting for a source. What is your source? Where is it? RJII 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The claim that they're largely capitalist links to the Factbook. I don't see that in there. RJII 19:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I see you changed the source. Where in that source does it say most developed economies are largely capitalist?  You're quote doesn't say that. RJII 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: governments can call themselves whatever they want. Just because a country says it's capitalist, doesn't make it so. There has to be some objective evidence of capitalistm.  Dullfig 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Max rspct putting in information without source after source was requested and providing false source

message: :Pro-capitalits points out that it is now more than 150 years since Marx's predictions and that it was the Communist states that collapsed. They also argue that the owners of capital indeed also work. Deciding how to allocate the limited resources available is a very complex and essential work.
The section is about Marx's critique of capitalism. Marx's predictions is NOT a "critique of capitalism".
:However, many communists reject the Communist states for their lack of democracy, despite their central planning and common ownership of the means of production. Similarly, many pro-capitalists reject states having some characteristics of capitalism but lacking democracy.
The section is about Marx's critique of capitalism. Lack of democracy in "Communist" states is NOT a "critique of capitalism".
Infinity0 talk 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV states that Wikpedia should include all views. Communist arguments and counter-arguments are both allowed. Only allowing Marxist criticism would be extremely pov.Ultramarine 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both paragraphs are counterarguments. The first pointing out the very long time that has passed since Marx's prediction. The second that many pro-capitalists, like pro-communists, only support democratic states.Ultramarine 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand. The text states that capitalism will collapse. A valid counter-argument is that very long time has passed without this happening. And why should it not be allowed to point out that many pro-capitalists only support democratic states? Ultramarine 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultramarine irrelevant additions 

message: Why? Because corporations exist, and they control the huge majority of the economy. "Free market" is half of capitalism, stop pushing that side of it. Also, source:
"Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery"
*"The Cold War's over, Austin."
*"Ah!" <says something in Russian to the Russian general>
*"No, Austin, we won!"
*"Er.. yay! Go capitalism!"
The fact that the producers of the movie were not sued by neoliberals suggests that most people do in fact believe modern countries to be capitalist.
And yes, that IS the best source I can find. It's a mainstream film, reflecting mainstream opinion. Seriously, it's not as if there are people doing opinion polls on who thinks today's countries are capitalist. It is in my personal experience that most people I have come across acknowledge today's modern countries to be capitalist, especially considering all the corporations out there controlling your lives. Infinity0 talk 20:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal experience: zero weight on Wikipedia.  Your belief that corporations control everything: zero weight on Wikipedia.  Jokes in moves: zero weight on Wikipedia.  Non-action of so-called "neoliberals" in response to comedy movies: zero weight on Wikipedia. MrVoluntarist 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Infinity, this is an encyclopedia. What "most people" think capitalism is, is irrelevant. Most people have no clue one way or the other. We're not supposed to be presenting what the guy on the street thinks. What matters is what most educated people think --scholars, philosophers, etc. And, you're even quoting Austin Powers for a source? Go the edit the Sesame Street Encyclopedia or something. RJII 20:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sources for what? RJII 20:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't understand how to research the claim that most regard the western economies as capitalism. You don't start citing sources that say a particular country is capitalist. How are you going to prove most sources say it unless you compile every source in the world? You need to find secondary sources that say something like "most scholars regard X as capitalism." I'm comfortable with saying that most economics textbooks I've seen call the economies "mixed economies," but I can't make the claim of "most" in the article unless I provide a source for every economics textbook in the world. So, look for a source that claims what most scholars think. If I can't find a source that say's otherwise to contradict it then the assertion has to stay. RJII 20:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If government intervention is insignificant, then it's laissez-faire. A mixed economy certainly isn't laissez-faire. This is just common sense. But, if you need sources, "Certain sectors of the economy are left to private ownership and free market mechanisms, while other sectors have significant government ownership and government planning."  "The United States is said to have a mixed economy because privately owned businesses and government both play important roles."  RJII 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I do seriously disagree with it. I think most academics regard the economies as mixed --a mix of capitalism and socialism and/or government planning. RJII 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Discuss socialism as an alternative to capitalism: People are still looking at alternatives to capitalism. I think we all agree we live in a capitalist society, even people who greatly support our present social arrangements. They say this is a capitalist society and how marvelous it is. Others of us look at it and say, “Well, look at the poverty, look at the inequality, look at the problems of joblessness, look at the problems of the crisis of social expenditure,” and also we look at the aggrandizement of the corporations and the chief executive officers. And really an alternative is needed to this form of society, something that’s more socially just and equitable, kinder to the planet, gives people more opportunities to develop themselves, express themselves. I think here at the conference you can see there are still hundreds, a few thousand, people still thinking about this issue.
Howzat? Infinity0 talk 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Who is "we all"? All the socialists? RJII 21:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heaven and Earth is a TV show, and so I assume the guy was doing an interview, and therefore he would be referring to everyone. Infinity0 talk 21:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what "everyone" thinks, if that includes your average Joe on the street. The Average Joe (which includes many Wikipedians) has no clue how to define any economic system. This is an encyclopedia --we need to report what educated people think. RJII 21:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose by "educated" you mean the economists who have been fed the "modern" definition of capitalism? Infinity0 talk 21:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how definitions work. Reference sources come up with definitions by surveying how educated people use the term. Economists haven't been "fed" the definition --they came up with the definition. Dictionaries and encyclopedias report how they're using the term. RJII 01:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What does that mean "most Western developed countries are ideologically capitalist"? Individuals have ideologies. I'm not aware of any official national ideology. RJII 18:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting Google search: "United States has a capitalist economy" 48 hits.  "Unites States has a mixed economy" 106 hits. RJII 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've always thought that the average person thinks that the western countries are capitalist, but then the average person couldn't define capitalism if you asked them. It's not important what the average person thinks, really. What's important is what educated people think. We can't just query "average people" off the street and use them as a source here. My point has always been that a lot of credible sources consider them mixed economies rather than capitalist, so we can't assert them to be capitalist. What I've been fighting here all along is the "average person" that come on to edit Wikipedia with no more than a nebulous perception of what capitalism is. RJII 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: Infinity is lying. RJII 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wage labor is dead. disproven. No longer considered a valid theory outside marxism, which has a vested interest in keeping it alive. Deal with it.  -- Dullfig 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most people think modern countries are capitalist 

message: "Ireland has a mixed economy. The constitution provides that the state shall favour private initiative in industry and commerce, but the state may provide essential services and promote development projects in the absence of private initiatives. Thus, state-sponsored (“semi-state”) bodies operate the country's rail and road transport, some of its television and radio stations, its electricity generation and distribution system, and its peat industry. State companies also are active in the fields of air transport and health insurance. The advent of a single European market in the 1990s encouraged many of these enterprises to privatize and become more competitive." -Encyclopedia Britannica RJII 19:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting Google search: "United States has a capitalist economy" 48 hits.  "Unites States has a mixed economy" 106 hits. RJII 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've always thought that the average person thinks that the western countries are capitalist, but then the average person couldn't define capitalism if you asked them. It's not important what the average person thinks, really. What's important is what educated people think. We can't just query "average people" off the street and use them as a source here. My point has always been that a lot of credible sources consider them mixed economies rather than capitalist, so we can't assert them to be capitalist. What I've been fighting here all along is the "average person" that come on to edit Wikipedia with no more than a nebulous perception of what capitalism is. RJII 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: Infinity is lying. RJII 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wage labor is dead. disproven. No longer considered a valid theory outside marxism, which has a vested interest in keeping it alive. Deal with it.  -- Dullfig 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources regarding the Western economies as "mixed economies"

message: I need a source for this. I speak spanish, and I always thought "peso" (weight in spanish) refered to "weight in gold or silver". Here is says that the origin has something to do with animals ("pecu" or "pashu"). Which is it? -- Dullfig 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of word Peso

message: Max rspct, please explain why you deleted the link to the peer-reviewed article? Ultramarine 15:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not verifiable. Infinity0 talk 15:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave a link to a peer-reviewed study. Most peer-reviewed articles are published in journals that are not free. There is no requirement in science or Wikipedia that only the very few that are free should be allowed.Ultramarine 16:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can usually be accessed in a library. Your policy would remove almost all science from Wikipedia.Ultramarine 16:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Your proposal would state that almost all the information in the articles about physcis, medicine, biology, and so on are unverifiable because they rely on information from studies published in not free journals. Are you really advocating this? Ultramarine 16:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not true. People post sources that aren't posted on the net all the time. I do as well. Can you imagine how limited we would be if we could only post sources that were on the net? Do you realize how many books there are that haven't been copied on to the net? We should be bringing information ON to the net, not just copying stuff over to Wikipedia that's already on the net. Your objection is bogus. If you want to verify something, then get off your butt and head to the library or open your wallet and purchase a book or study. You're just trying to make it easy on yourself, at the expense of keeping knowledge out. RJII 21:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because you have to pay to see it doesn't mean it's not accessible. RJII 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It costs next to nothing. Whose fault is it if it's a problem for you to come up with the funds? If you can't afford to purchase the articles, maybe you should get off Wikipedia and go make some money. That's just pathetic. RJII 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most readers will not pay to read it, for reason stated above. Please remember that wikipedia is free, and that most readers come here because they want free information. Why should we include a source only a select few will be able to access? Infinity0 talk 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only will most reader not pay to read it, most will not even read it if it it's free. I find it reprehensible that you will censor information from Wikipedia because it costs money to access the source of that information. Apparently you don't have the same goals as most of us who are here to bring knowledge forth, rather than sacrifice it for economic "fairness." RJII 16:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, RJII, if a reader sees a source for claim they dispute, they will click that link. But if it goes to a service you have to pay for, they'll think, "screw it", and most likely edit the page to remove the link. Infinity0 talk 17:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. I pay to verify sources. If you care about knowledge you'll pay to verify. If you don't then you'll censor the info instead. RJII 19:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you care about knowledge you wouldn't make it inconvenient for people to access. Infinity0 talk 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of peer-reviewed study

message: I just want to know an answer to a rather simple question. Would it be in any way possible for a state, capitilist or not, to survive without taxes? WASTREL 14:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without taxes the government would have to look for sponsors, and become essentially privately owned (and you could buy shares in the government). Something like that. Infinity0 talk 18:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How are you defining "state"? RJII 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wastrel, IMHO, the answer is "yes" in a very abstract sense, but success in that endeavor over a period of months, much less years, doesn't seem very likely. I gather that you're using "state" as a rough synonym of "government" here, and that you refer to a monopoly on the use of force, or on the licensing of force by others, within a given territory. Without taxation, such a monopolist could try to support itself by, say, the sale of lottery tickets, or by toll booths at the highways. But it seems unlikely such measures could produce the revenue necessary to maintain such a monopoly for long, especially since anyone willing to challenge that monopoly could also sell lottery tickets, and the psychology of legitimacy in the affected population (the idea that the government's force and lotteries were better because of the nimbus of official-dom) would quickly fade. --Christofurio 15:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxes 

message: I think I see what is wrong with the pros and cons. The pros are not related to the cons. For example, ther first point in cons is "workers are exploited". there is no rebutal point in the pro section saying "workers are paid in full for their work. profit is due to the value added by the employer". or something like that. I hope you see what I mean, each point is unrelated to the other, leaving you confused. Dullfig 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pros and cons section

message: Destroyed me soon, didn't you!
You wanna do something about capitalism, go out there and do something, or even edit the criticisms section of this article. Writing what you did is pointless and only invites attacks from pro-capitalists, since they make up most of the people who read this page. Posting here doesn't do anything, since nobody except us editors read this page. Infinity0 talk 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: 

message: I hate to say it, but for once I agree with User:Infinity0.  All he did was move the criticisms to their own article to save space.  It is exactly parallel to how others were handled, to which no one has objected. Now, we should probably provide more of a summary of each of the anti-capitalist arguments in the capitalist article.  And we should make sure the criticisms article doesn't *become* POV.  But what Infinity0 did is fine. MrVoluntarist 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww. ^^ Infinity0 talk 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subarticle not a POV fork 

message: Why is this being deleted by Infinity and Zsinj? It's well established that leftists dictators oppose capitalism. RJII 19:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Critcised. They didn't publish their original criticisms of capitalism. -- infinity0 19:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, they did. Mao Tse Tung wrong extensive philosophy opposing capitalism. I provided a source. And Fidel Castro has a lot of material opposed to capitalism. And, there is no requirement that a criticism has to be published. A vocal criticism from a famous dictator is quite notable. Dictators can't stand capitalism --that needs to be made clear. RJII 19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're wrong. What capitalist supports dictatorship? Also, an important point is that to prevent capitalism you have to impose a dictatorship to keep people from having private ownership of the means of production and engaging in trade, unless somehow everyone is going to just volunteer to do otherwise. We already know that when people are thrust into anarchy, they default to capitalism, as has been seen in Somalia experience. Anyway, aside from all that, they are strong and notable critics of capitalism, so they be noted. RJII 19:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it have to be a dictatorship? It could be any form of government. And if capitalism is the "default", how come there isn't a pure laisez-faire capitalist society anywhere in the world? Cadr 19:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All governments hold a monopoly on violence. Coersion is the halmark of governments. Our constitution was written to limit the government on purpose, because the founding fathers had observed that all governments slowly try to stick their nose in every aspect of life. Most inhabitants of a country would slowly drift towards laissez-faire, if it where not for the gorvernment trying to "fix things".  -- Dullfig 19:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so you mean capitalism would be the default in a paralell universe where governments don't exist? Unfortunately, governments exist by definition, since a government is simply the most powerrful institution in a society. Cadr 03:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You've got to be kidding. Mao is much more famous than Kropotkin --or other names you included. Few people have heard of Kropotkin, Prouhon, or Tucker. Anarchist philosophy is very obscure. RJII 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes he is. And Fidel Castro is as well. Stop deleting this information. I've provided sources. I'm going to put an NPOV tag on the section, because you're making it look like obscure anarchists oppose capitalism. RJII 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes they are known for that. Those anarchists you listed are very obscure. If you think Fidel Castro is not known for opposing capitalism, then those are was less known for that. RJII 20:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh gosh. How does one in good faith co-operate in the task of formulating an informative reference work with people who aren't aware that Maoism is anti-capitalist? --Christofurio 15:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of the fact Fidel Castro and Mao Tse Tung oppose capitalism

message: Added two links...American System economics and dirigisme for further study with the rest of economy thought. American System was America's economic system prior to 1929 and Dirigisme was the French System after WWII for about thirty years until 1981. --Northmeister 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American System and Dirigisme