Talk:Capitalism/Archive 18

message: Include the chart :Image:World GDP per capita (1000-1998).png within the "Proponents" section of this article?
Support
# Conditional support since I consider my image superior. See the discussion above and continue it if objecting.Ultramarine 11:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that the uneven interval generally decreases rather than increases the visual slope; but that doesn't make it less misleading.  A better chart would space the times where they actually occur.  But given that at least half the chart entirely precedes capitalism emerging, the relevance is quite poor either way.  Moreover, this concept "international dollars" is distinctly non-obvious, and is an indirect theoretical unit that abstracts many measures (its not just conversion rates by a longshot, most of the chart falls before any central currencies). LotLE×talk 21:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can easily make a chart with reference points equal in duration. Data that precedes emergence of capitalism is important for perspective. If someone argues that there was an acceleration of growth, previous rates of growth must be shown for comparison. International dollars are best measurement there is, and they are often used in statistics.-- Vision Thing -- 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I don't think any great harm would be done be a very concise clause (or at most a whole short sentence) that mentioned that Madisson's data supported that sentence.  But the chart is definitely undue weight by far (even minus its other flaws... it still isn't quite free of the original research concern, for example, as much better than Ultramarines as it is). LotLE×talk 21:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have still not manged to explain why this chart is supposed to be original research. Please try again. Why is it undue weight? It has been cited by many other researchers.Ultramarine 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick poll 

message: There are a number of fairly general claims in the article that I feel could use better citation.  I confess that I recently came across Template:Specify, but I think it is very useful.  There is a good discussion of a number of related "citation needed" tags at Template:Fact.  The useful thing about {specify} is that it lets us indicate that while editors do not particular doubt a claim, the article would still be improved by more specific citation supporting it.  The overused {fact} is more along the lines of "this simply cannot stand w/o citation"; which is often too strong.  And {dubious} is more or less "calling bullshit" on a claim that appears untrue on its face. LotLE×talk 05:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specify 

message: Not wanting to open a can of wyrms or nottin' but - I was recently flicking through some official statistics, and most of Britain's shares are actually owned by Insurance and Pension firms, with Banks coming a distant third and private shareholders well off into the distance.  Of course, some pension firms are private concerns, a great many are public bodies, and theoretically they are a sort of commonhold for their contributors (especially company pensions where you can't sell up your stake and re-invest it).  I know some have wittered in the past that share ownership by pensions means the end of capitalism, but should it effect what we say here, by the lead in the current article, is Britain a capitalist country if most of it's shares are held collectively?--Red Deathy 10:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both insurance and pension funds represent specific individuals or firms. They are not socialist, any more than a stock company is because it is collectively owned.Ultramarine 10:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a difference between a stock company and an insurance/pension firm in that their investments are not property (i.e., say, I pay my premiums, those premiums buy shares, I never get my omoney back, I cannot realise those shares).  Mind, I also think the issue of stock-companies is one worth more addressing, Engels for one considered them a forerunner of communism, since they represented a bug change from the private firm.--Red Deathy 10:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have some kind of accident you will get far more money than you paid in premium. The important thing is that both insurance and pension firms and stock companies are that they are agents for specific individuals or firms, and what they may in the end pay back is proprtional to the initial amount of money given to them.Ultramarine 11:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But not (necessarilly) to the original investor (teh premium buyer to the pension fund member).  These funds are owned by corporations, which are creatures of the state (a corporation of any kind has no existence beyond the law that summons it into being), so they are, quasi (at least) state actors.  Anyway, I'm not debating the toss, just  thinking aloud about a way in which this seeming fact relates to the article and authors on capitalism--Red Deathy 12:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  You're saying that the assets of an insurance company aren't really privately owned, because each insured person doesn't get all his premiums back?  As for corporations: the idea that they are "a creature of the state" is hotly contested, so you don't get to include it as a matter of fact. MrVoluntarist 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm saying that the Insurance company is privately owned, but the shares it in turn holds are of a mixed status - they are the property of the firm but no one private individual can liquidate them and return them into money for themself. As for corporations, I agree is a tendentious area, and one that maybe needs exploring in the section on capitalism and the state.--Red Deathy 08:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Of course an individual can liquidate his shares at any time.  I think you mean an individual can't order some specific illiquid asset sold and the proceeds given to him.  So what?  Are you saying any time anyone enters into a contract that restricts his access to something, that something is no longer private owned? MrVoluntarist 13:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a note: I think you mean all notable POV's.  The earth article doesn't need to say "the earth is widely held to be an oblate spheroid, though some disagree".  Also, I don't see why this distinction matters.  Some hold that corporate ownership counts as private ownership, and some hold that corporate ownership is separate from private ownership.  People in both groups call themselves capitalist under their definitions. MrVoluntarist 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess I wasn't clear above; I don't disagree that the distinction needs to be explained.  My point was that it doesn't need to go up top with the definition.  Capitalism is defined and understood to refer to mostly "private ownership".  The debates about the intricacies regarding what exactly constitutes "private ownership" can come later, where it can be explained in greater detail without loss of continuity. MrVoluntarist 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Privately owned

message: Instead of this sentence: "Research on the democratic peace theory further argue that democracies rarely make war with one another and have little internal violence.", that comes out of nowhere and looks like it doesn't belong to this article, some arguments from here could be included. Comments? -- Vision Thing -- 12:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned as a response to the claim that captialism is imperialist and causes wars. While certainly capitalist states have made many wars, democratic capitalist states have not made war on one another.Ultramarine 13:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then is should be noted that it's talked about capitalist democracies. Currently that isn't mentioned. -- Vision Thing -- 13:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In "Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century, James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer carefully run through several case studies that demonstrate why the DPT amounts to a load of...ideology...that has erected artificially narrow definitions of central concepts like "war" and "democracy." They run through 7 case studies where democratically elected popular regimes were overthrown by military forces backed by a capitalist class and a hegemonic power. The case studies include Finland (1918), Guyana (1953, 1961-64), Chile (1970-73), Guatemala (1950-54), Iran (1954), Haiti (1991 and 1994), and Nicaragua (1984). BernardL 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the DPT article. The theory and the empricial reserach does not claim the absence of coups supported by foreign democracies, only the absence of outright wars. None of the above are wars between democratic states. In those cases where there have been such foreign supported coups, this is usually because the regime was not perceived as democratic or communist dictatorship was feared, correct or not. Some of the examples above are extremely strange, how can the Finnish Civil War have been a war between democracies? How can the coup against Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his return have been a war between democracies? Ultramarine 14:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, you have not given an example of a war between democracies. Yes, there have been some coups supported by the US of elected regimes, the best probably being in Iran and Guatemala (there is no evidence for any direct US involvement in the coup against Allende). But in all those cases these regeimes were seen, correct or not, as becoming Communist dictorships and thus not as democracies.Ultramarine 15:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, no battle or battle deaths between the armies of two different nations, no war. When there were support for coups against elected regimes, it was because these were perceived, correct or not, as abandoning democracy in favor of a Communist dictatorship.Ultramarine 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic peace theory