Talk:Capitalism/Archive 17

message: This is taken out from old version of Capitalism. Maybe it can be used as a starting point for new section on advantages of capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 17:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.Ultramarine 20:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've put the text itself in a subsection to separate from discussion.  In general, I think there are some good and usable concepts in the copied text.  It is a bit rambling though: I'd like to see about 1/3 as many words used to cover the concepts addressed.  Minus the OR chart, I think we could use a neutral sentence like I have proposed to the effect that "Monied exchange has increased rapidly for four centuries in nations where capitalism has predominated"... and give a footnote to Maddison.  The use of "GDP" is really off though, since the formation of nation-states (i.e. "domestic product") has largely been more recent than this. LotLE×talk 17:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do editors like the section title "Proponents of capitalism" or "Advocates of capitalism"... or something else? LotLE×talk 18:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the former titles "Economic growth" and "Self-organisation" were good. These sections also contains criticisms, not only pro-capitalist arguments. These criticisms could be expanded if needed.Ultramarine 21:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the titles. Add more criticsm if needed.Ultramarine 06:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this. It is better to have sections based on topics, where arguments for and against are mentioned. See the much perferable earlier version of the article I have added an alternative text below.Ultramarine 07:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a complete non-starter.  There is no way in hell we're going to go back to the old, badly-written article, and throw out the vast improvements.  Masturbation is fun and all, but I'd rather work on writing an encyclopedia article.  Still, I'll give your "repeat the old article" stuff a section, and you can have at it. LotLE×talk 07:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a borderline personal attack. Please be civil. How about a separate article called "Characteristics of capitalism"? Ultramarine 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a topic does not seem unreasonable.  If it were sufficiently NPOV to keep, we could well link to it in several places within the Capitalism article, and it could flesh out a number of concepts that don't fit well in this topic.  Quite likely even a discussion of growth rates and GDP that stuck to NPOV and wasn't WP:OR.  Why don't you make a start at that article? When it becomes reasonable to unlock this article, we can add appropriately concise links to the new article. LotLE×talk 08:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a start I will simply copy the relevant parts of the old version: Characteristics of capitalism.Ultramarine 08:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section 

message: ::::::::Over a 12,000 year spread, and with many more reference points across the whole spread, yours had something like four before 1825 (and world population is probably easier to estimate from archaeology than GDP (whatever that is).  As an aside, ISTR a story that when the former Soviet states changed they altered their national accounting, moving from Gross Material Product to using Western style GDP.  This led to a massive leap in their recorded growth because of the way that state activity is recorded in GDP.  Just an interesting Factual I once ran across.    Anyway, I reiterate, could you find a betetr graph, or just truncate the period presented to 1825 onwards, that shows enough growth to make your point.--Red Deathy 08:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about 1500?Ultramarine 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be amenable, certainly more relvent sinc it covers teh period of the rise of capitalism.  I'd still have grave doubts on a notion of GDP stretching back that far (AFAIK tehre were national accounts in the 19th century, hence why I favoured that period), but convince away and I'd back inclusion.--Red Deathy 10:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Angus Maddison has many papers regarding his calcualtions available on his homepage. For some reason it cannot be linked to directly but can be easily found here http://www.ggdc.net/ since his data is prominently mentioned.Ultramarine 10:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree. More interesting with world data. As noted earlier, Maddison is very widely cited, so the data are significant. If you are critical, you should really cite a paper.Ultramarine 12:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I need to cite a paper to suggest that the use you're putting it to isn't all that helpful - my disagreement isn't with the data (at this point) but with the graph.  Now, it follows that no capitalist state is an island, so a well documented history of capitalist growth can tell quite a story of world growth.  As I've said elsewhere, just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean it has to be included nor included in a particular article--Red Deathy 13:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, since it is cited by many, it is significant. Exactly what is the problem with showing a chart for the period after 1500? Ultramarine 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it is significant it does not follow that it belongs - considerations of style, context and presentation apply.  As for post 1500, my problem is that much of the data is scanty before the 1820 mark, and i'm dubious about GDP before national accounting (c. 1650 odd over here, IIRC)--Red Deathy 07:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Exacly what is wrong with "style, context, and presentations"? Fortunately, orignal research is not allowed. ´Do you have any sourced criticism? Ultramarine 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think charts can be disruptive to the flow of text, can deter non-mathematically minded readers and do not necessarilly add to the information on the page - they can and should be included where they can clarify matters or where they are central to the argument.  In this pag, many of the subjects could and often are subjected to graphical treatment, but we haven't room to include them all, so I'd suggest a general prejudice against graphs unless absolutely necessary.  That is a matter of style and context and nothing to do with the content of the chart nor its citations, nor anything else.--Red Deathy 08:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting unprotected

message: I have created some nice charts for the text mentioning Economic freedom. Thoughts? Ultramarine 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not specific countries but all nations in the world.Ultramarine 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Freedom charts 

message: I've unprotected this article...play nice please.--MONGO 05:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: Lulu, do not hide my comments and arguments, even if you do not like them. If you do it again, I will report you.Ultramarine 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not edit my talk page comments 

message: I do not mind Lulu´s edit at all, maybe in Christianity it is only Catholicism that was opposed to lending money at interest.  I know traditional Judaism is opposed to it squarely (there is an extensive discussion in the Talmud about how to get around the prohibition against charging any interest) and I am pretty sure the same is true for mainstream Islam. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have some interesting traditions in Islamic countries.  Some of the really strict ones strongly enforce the anti-usury stricture.  But in places like Turkey, they tend to arrange loans as "joint stock" companies.  I'm not sure exactly how the accounting all works out, but it's something like members pay to be a member (i.e. if they borrow money at "no interest"), but if they make deposits they get a share of revenue of the company.  In Christianity it's not just Catholics who worry about the prohibition: "mainstream" denominations have sort-of forgotten it, but many of the evangelicals still believe interest is prohibited, especially the "revivalists".  And obviously, Judaism has been a mixed bag too... a lot of the "Jewish banker" stereotype stemming from the European middle ages stemmed from a Talmudic interpretation that allowed lending money for interest to goyim, just not to other Jews. LotLE×talk 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, of course.  Don't take my little digression as anything I think should go in the article.  One concise sentence (as we have) is more than enough to address the general direction of the concern.  I just meant on the talk page to point out there is not just one precise usage of 'usury', nor one precise prohibition... which is pretty much what the current version says. LotLE×talk 23:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interest 

message: What's wrong with this ? To me it looks plausible. -- Vision Thing -- 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In previous periods de jure all property belonged to the head of the tribe or the king, and could be revoked by his permission. (ref: Ayn Rand. "What is Capitalism?"; "Capitalism: Unknown Ideal". Signet (1986), p.13)
The rather simplistic Rand comment conflates many different times and places with many different legal regimes of property ownership in a way that conflates much more than it reveals.  While conceivably, the legal status of property under capitalism (itself a widely varying, and actively changing thing) could be illuminated by a less caricature contrast with the feudal period that immediately preceded it, but the Rand quote strongly fails to do that. LotLE×talk 21:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you know of any historical example that contradicts that sentence? -- Vision Thing -- 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know of far more historical examples that contradict that sentence than I do of examples that support it. LotLE×talk 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fact that contradicts it is that land in England nominally belonged to the crown until, IIRC, the 1920's, well after capitalism was established and advanced.  More relevent than legal fictions is that land was not consaidered alienable, look at teh shenanigens feudal magnates got up to to prove that they had blood ties to a piece of land they were trying to snatch...--Red Deathy 07:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The king 

message: There's a sentence that someone added about Marx's comments on the enclosure acts.  Specifically:
:Karl Marx, focusing on a different legal aspect, argued that the Enclosure Acts in England were an integral part of capitalist primitive accumulation; and so the state was, he suggested, integral to the origin and growth of capitalism.
I think this observation is quite germane, and makes a very nice parallel with de Soto's thoughts on the role of a central bank.  It's been taken out a couple times, I think out of some general anathema to the fact it's Marx who's quoted.  I don't think the Marx part is all that important, but I do think a mention of the role of enclosure in capital formation is extremely relevant.  Anyone have an idea on who else we might cite, or if it might be phrased slightly differently (it's not just England that had similar laws, so that might be possible to generalize). LotLE×talk 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enclosure acts 

message: This sentence was part of a few that VisionThing moved from "proponents" to "legal frameworks".  Most of the moved stuff makes sense in its new position, but this one doesn't:
:Capitalist democracies are argued to be peaceful both internally and externally against other democracies.
I'm not against including the sentence somewhere, most likely under "proponents", but we need to figure out how to make it flow naturally (and it desperately needs a citation). LotLE×talk 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More peaceful