Talk:Capitalism/Archive 9

message: Slrubenstein, you put in the statement that "Most proponents and opponents agree that capitalism provides the conditions for, and promotes, economic growth." I demand a source for this statement. According to you, editors are required by Wikipedia policy to present one when asked. What's your source? RJII 21:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above show academic research showing that economic growth started with the industrial revolution and is faster in more capitalist countries. Please give some sources that disagree. Ultramarine 21:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to me to do that. The burden is on whoever makes the statement. I demand a source that says most opponents of capitalism agree that it's good for economic growth. RJII 21:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point and it is good if you finally start arguing for academic research instead of dictionaries. The statement could be changed to some thing like "opponents have not argued against". Then it is up to you to find a source that do argue against. Ultramarine 21:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: Historical context is always important.  European Imperialism was a very important context for the development of these theories.  Keynes served in the India office, and was very much concerned with and informed by the economic competition and tension between European imperialist powers.  John Locke, whose theories of property were important for the development of theories of capitalism, served on the board of the East India company and of course studied British colonialism in the Americas.  Milton Friedman was not only an expert in econometrics and monetary policy, he was deeply concerned with debates about capitalism vs. communism.  Add context, don't subtract it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not in favour of adding for adding's sake. Keynes might have worked in the India office, his major contributio to economics is mostly linked to the Depresseion and the New Deal. Friedman was, like Hayek, an extremist. Locke may be considered a philosophical influence, but did not do any economics himself. What happened to Pareto, who lived in non-imperialist Switzerland? My point is that theories on capitalism were developped since Adam Smith, in all times, before and after the Cold war, before and after imperialism. Luis rib 21:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I still don't completely agree with it, but ok. I nuanced phrasing and added examples of economists that lived in those contexts. Replaced imperialism by great depression, which, I think, was  bigger influence since it was the first major problem capitalism had to face. Luis rib 21:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical context 

message: Could someone (e.g. Slrubenstein) explain to me how European imperialism and the Cold war have influenced theories on capitalism?. Hayek, ok, but that's just one theoretician. What about Keynes? Where does he fit in? What about Stiglitz and Sen, more recently, who criticised neoliberalism while remaining attached to capitalism? I think the refence to imperialism and Cold war should be deleted, since they are meaningless and POV. Luis rib 21:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  European imperialism and Cold War

message: Silverback, I've asked this twice but you're ignoring the question. Your version of the intro looks as though it has been directly lifted from one or more textbooks, which is why I reverted, so could you please say where you took it from. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
:Is it so hard to believe that someone might have somewhat of a coherent understanding of the economic principles behind capitalism that he's able to put it in his own words? Does everything have to be so badly written and devoid of coherence, as the other paragraph that's in there, before you will believe a fellow editor wrote it? Some of us actually have a decent understanding of capitalist economics. The guy didn't plagiarize anything. Back off. RJII 00:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the complement, however, I wrote it myself, but we all rest on the shoulders of geniuses.  There is nothing novel or original, although the concepts are strung together to serve our purposes here.  I make it available to wikipedia.  There is nothing POV about it, and it is not original research, as Slrubinstein and I view it, the correct view I think.  I quoted his position above.--Silverback 00:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Probably the best statement of intent is expressed by Jimbo, "The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks".  The summary does not present my theory, it is a fair representation of the most scientific part of capitalism theory, the part used to model and make predictions of the behavior of the system.--Silverback 01:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Silverback's intro

message: What on Earth is this trying to say? It seems to me it takes a conscious action to "valorize" something. I don't see how capitalism could valorize anything --it's just an economic system. People valorize things. I keep changing it to "theorists valorize a free market" but someone keeps putting it back. (Not to mention it's also an awkward use of the word, since to valorize typically means to set the price on something by subeverting the free market, as cartels or governments would do). RJII 17:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "people valorize things?"  People do not grow up in a vacuum.  They are born into a world not of their own making, and learn values from their culture.  If capitalism is their culture, they learn capitalist values.  Capitalist values are those things a capitalist system valorizes. In any event, it is not the theorists who valorize a free markte.  theorists are trying to understand and explain the capitalist system, it is that system that valorizes the market.  Unless you are referring not to theorists but to ideologues ...Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "system" *is* a "free market." What do you mean the system valorizes a free market? It's a very strange statement. RJII 19:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   No matter how many times you claim that capitalism "is" a free market it isn't going to make the claim true.  Capitalists can claim to desire a free market, but whether or not they actually do, and whether or not their form of "free market" is the only one, is a question that is open for debate.  Yes, even after people try to shut down debate by refering to definitions proscriptively rather than descriptively.  Kev 17:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Capitalism is not just a market place and a set of laws or customs governing its operation.  It is a cultural order.  Source: Marchal Sahlins, "Cosmologies of Capitalism," see also Sahlins Culture and Practical Reason. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I need a source. Can you cite something that says capitalism valorizes a free market, or something to that effect?  Otherwise I may have to file an arbitration case against you. RJII 21:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is such a strange wording that it is probably from a poor translation, by someone who was not a native english speaker.  Perhaps it is not even the right root word, or if it is an old text, it may be a rare or obsolete usage.--Silverback 23:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, so where is a quote from that source?  I don't see anything like that in that article. If you keep this up, I'm taking you to arbitration. RJII 18:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: We are already in arbitration, the committee doesn't restrict its deliberations to the accused.  RJII should feel free to present evidence against any other participants.  I don't have access to the  Cook sources you mention, is there a URL?  The language is still unclear, such strange language should probably come in as a quote later in the article rather than in the introduction, if enough context can be provided to allow it to make sense.--Silverback 19:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not so petty as to initiate an arbitration case. It was said in jest in reference to your bogus arbitration case against me. But, as Silverback points out, I can use this. I can use this of evidence of hypocrisy. RJII 19:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: =capitalism valorizes a free market?

message: Ultramarine, you put in this statement:  "The strong economic growth during capitalism may be a necessary precondition for democratization."  I added "or as more commonly asserted, vice versa --that protection of individual liberty provided the conditions that allowed wealth to be created." But, you deleted my addition. Can you explain exactly what you mean by democratization? Also you said in your edit comment "Capitalism and democracy are not identical." I agree that they're not, but I don't see the point of saying that. How does this relate? RJII 01:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the link the learn what democratization is. Are you trying to say that democracy increases growth? This is disputed. Please give a link to authorative acadmic research supporting this. Ultramarine 10:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Ultramarine on this one: India has been democratic for over 50 years, but only capitalist for 15. China, on the other hand, is not democratic, but has much higher economic growth. The general evidence points to a very weak link between democracy and economic growth. Luis rib 11:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I want to know what you mean by democracy? Are you talking about ability to vote or what? What exactly do you mean? Democratization is vague. If you're talking about expansion of individual freedom, it's thought by many that individual rights are responsible for wealth creation, and that hence, those countries that have the most liberty tend produce the most wealth. RJII 17:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: From the democratization article: "Wealth. It has been claimed that countries with a higher GDP are more likely to be democratic. There is debate about whether democracy is a consequence of this wealth, a cause of it, or completely unrelated to it. Some campaigners for democracy believe that as economic development progresses, democratisation will become inevitable." It seems like you only want to allow one side of this. RJII 17:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Democratization?

message: What does this have to do with capitalism and why is it there?: "Strong evidence exists that capitalist democracies never or almost never make war against each other (see Democratic peace theory) and have a low level of internal violence committed by state against its own citizens (see Rummel's Law)." RJII 20:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this section should be taken out. The tone is POV, and the subject is not really relevant to the main article on capitalism. Mgw 20:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I added an explanation to the text in the article. Ultramarine 20:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Human rights violation section

message: The article still seems to and that sub section use to make the general unbalanced claim that democracy and freedom are pre-requisites for capitalism.  The amnesty internation statement points out that alleged democracies may actually be the biggest violators of humman rights (arguably in the name of capitalism/imperialism), which is an important and general rebuttal to the overall tone of the article.  That section seemed to be the most appropriate place to put such info.  All that remains of that sub section now doesn't make much sense in isolation.  Please explain why such info is not relevant to the article?  Unless you convince me otherwise I plan to return it to the article soon. zen master    T  22:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then we are agreed that info on democracy necessarily leading to freedom because of capitalism also are irrelevant?  The sentence I added was meant to balance recent changes that I noticed, if both are excluded then I suppose that is ok, though I think it is important if we add some generic mention of the theory and counter theory that an economic system such as capitalism will lead to an increase in support for human rights, freedom, and democracy.  zen master    T  22:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights, capitalism and democracy relevance 

message: I added, as part of the definition, a contrast between defining capitalism as the ownership of private property, or the use of economic capital by businesses (which happens to be the result of the ownership of private property).D prime 05:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad someone else can't make any sense of it. It's bizarre. I've tried fixing it but it keeps getting changed back. RJII 01:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic-Capital v. Private Property, definition