Talk:Capitalism/Archive 2

message: not really a very accurate page...
perhaps some mention of Adam Smith and generally understood capital principles? No practicing capitalist would quote Marx's definitions...
I also question the use of Marx to define capitalism.  To true capitalists, Marx is irrelevant.  Those who hold onto Marx's labels are at risk of falling far behind in today's world.  A Wiki article SHOULD reflect this.  (DJ November 8 2004)
----
I think the small section on mercantilism should be re-located once more.  Mercantilism is an ideology, but it is also a system that predates capitalism. Morreover, by some accounts it is not "capitalist" domestically since it relies on slave-labor and indentured servitude and not just free labor. Slrubenstein
----
I have removed the implication that the slang word "buck" for "dollar" has anything to do with slaves. This is folk etymology and an urban legend. Cite: . --FOo 03:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  er.... 

message: I think the intro should be a simple/basic as possible.  I removed two kinds of detailed information from the intro: first, stuff on the development of free markets.  There is evidence of free markets prior to the development of capitalism.  I also removed stuff on finance, which developed later in the history of capitalism.  In fact, I believe both of these issues (or sets of practices) DO belong in the article.  But they should go in the body, where they can be discussed with greater nuance.  I just don't see how they are so essintial they belong in the intro. Slrubenstein
I've restated my brief definition of the financial aspects of capitalism, but in accordance with your suggestion I've moved it out of the intro into the pro-and-con section. --Christofurio 19:40, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
:I think some people use "capitalism" as synonymous with or embracing "free market", so this should definition should probably go back up. - Nat Krause 04:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that this notion is wrong. 172 04:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you mean wrong?  I agree that it is confusing, because people use the same word to refer to other concepts, but how can we say that this usage is incorrect? - Nat Krause 05:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Capitalism" has to do with financial investment in capital. "Free market" has to do with trade. It is possible for nomads (e.g.) to have a free market, but not capitalism. --FOo 04:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, here's what Merriam-Webster has to say on the subject: "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".  Now, I don't think that dictionary definitions are decisive, and, further, I think the third clause, specifying a free market, goes a little bit too far.  But this definitely reflects a common usage, so it should be incorporated into the article. - Nat Krause 05:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  This Merriam-definition is what i think about capitalism. Can we take it or is there a problem with? --80.133.94.84 16:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We could probably tweak it to avoid copyright problems. - Nat Krause 15:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I follow the distinction you're making.  It's true that encyclopedias are not dictionaries, because they provide a broader range of information.  But don't we need to start with the right definition or definitions so we know what subjects to give a broader range of information about?  I'm all for introducing the article, which is a difficult task because the article is something of a mess, but I don't see how expanding the definition detracts from this goal. - Nat Krause 11:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, I certainly agree with your first point: there is no "true" or "right" definition.  And therefore I agree that the dictionary definition above should not be incorporated as the one authoritative definition.  I didn't mean to imply that that's what we should do.  I think that we should include the dictionary definition as part of the list of possible uses (which used to have something similar in an earlier version of the article).  I think that capitalism can be seen as either a historical manifestation and as an ideal type, so simply to organize the article around historical manifestations is not completely sufficient, but this seems to me like a fairly minor point. - Nat Krause 14:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Should it stay or should it go? There's been some back-and-forth in this article, and we may as well discuss it here.  --Christofurio 13:11, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
:I don't see anything wrong with it.  It's pretty much just explaining how the CCP uses language. - Nat Krause 13:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The China Material

message: I took out some stuff that was added by anonymous contributors today.  Here are the paragraphs:
24.157.36.242: "This argument [that the uneven distribution of wealth is sustainable because even the poor in capitalistic countries maintain a higher standard living] is not universally accepted. One notable counter argument is that population dynamics will realign to reflect the uneven distribution of wealth. This argument points to clumping of human capital around idealized cores while sustaining fringes subject to grossly inefficient use of resources." Because I just have no idea what this is referring to.
:I think I know what that anonymous editor had in mind. Its a reference to the ideas of Jane Jacobs about the urban/rural continuum, as it applies to the unequal distribution of wealth. If so, its poorly expressed. I'll try to do better. --Christofurio 18:14, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
81.136.211.103: "It should be noted that due to differences of ability between individuals, not everyone is capable of meeting the requirements demanded by employment, thus leaving a marginal percentage of unemployment. This plays an essential role in the evolving network structure--as explained above--due to the "survival of the fittest" law. Improving efficiency requires the removal of the "weakest link", and when left alone a free system naturally practices this method. In this case, that would mean that the more capable people will provide their talents, possibly improving the system even more." There's probably some material worth salvaging here, but the basic gist is a specific POV, so we should at least say who it is that thinks this (preferably not just "some people think it").  Specific problems with this material: when we say "not everyone is capable" of meeting employers' demands, are we assuming anything about what kind of employers, what kind of work, what kind of demands, etc., what kind of employees (are we just talking about the elderly, children, and seriously disabled people, or is this meant to include some able-bodied adults as well?).  How much is a marginal percentage?  Who says it plays an essential role in evolving network structure.  "Survival of the fittest" a law according to whom?  Logically, improving efficiency does not necessarily involve removing the weakest link -- it could also involve improving that links efficiency, or leaving that link the way it is while improving other links.  And so on. - Nat Krause 15:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed paragraphs