Talk:Capitalism/Archive 22

message: This article needs a section on supply and demand which are the only two forces determining pricing in true, free market capitalism. If no one else wants to take a stab, I can work on it. Netsumdisc 15:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a (poor) article on free markets, and the supply/demand model is contested by one or two theorists at least.--Red Deathy 15:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see supply and demand Joel Kincaid 06:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marxists dispute that supply/demand are the only (as Netsumdisc says)  two forces, I thik Keynsians would give it short shrift as well.  Supply/demand is a feature of markts and this belongs in the markets article, which is linked to.  It is not a defining feature of capitalism.--Red Deathy 08:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is a definining feature of capitalism! It's in the definition in this article! There is no way to have capitalism without markets. Goods and services are traded with their prices being determined by supply and demand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by In Capitalism We Trust (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no, the dfinition of this article begins with ownership of the means of production, and then looks at markets, but supply/demand is not the defining feature of capitalism - it featured prominently in Mercantilism if nothing else...--Red Deathy 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on Earth are you talking about?! Just because ownership of the means of production is listed first in the definition it doesn't mean markets are not just as important. They're both essential. Do you understand what is meant by supply and demand? If a business cuts production of a good then the prices rises. If it increases production the price falls. If consumers stop desiring a good then price falls. If consumer demand increases the price rises. Markets are an essential part of capitalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by In Capitalism We Trust (talk • contribs) 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed.  Now, the article already mentions markets are essential, there is an article on markets where the minutia of supply/demand can be discussed.  it's not relevent or necessary in a general atricle about capitalism to discuss it ehre.  Supply/demand is not unique to capitalism, nor is it the sole or even most important characteristic.--Red Deathy 13:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is saying that it is the sole characteristic? I am saying and the definition is saying that it is AN essential characteristic. In order to have capitalism there has to be markets and the operation of supply and demand determining prices in those markets. This page should definitely have a discussion on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by In Capitalism We Trust (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Netsumdisc did.  Supply/demand is an intrinsic part of markets and so should be found on the markets page.  As a proponent of the state capitalism thesis i'd say capitalism can operate without the supply/demand mechanism, but that's an argument for anotehr day, the point is it is stylistically unnecessary on this page.--Red Deathy 14:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are you defining "state capitalism"? And how would supply and demand not determine prices? In Capitalism We Trust 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's more or less what i was trying to say - although I was adding an WP:NPOV angle. Frankly I favour the status quo and don't see any need to look into supply/demand because they are better dealt with elsewhere, as are all aspects of the theory of price formation.--Red Deathy 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the government directly dicates prices then supply and demand and nothing else but supply and demand determines prices. And if the government directly dicates prices then it's not capitalism because it's not a "largely free market." In Capitalism We Trust 14:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If a basic conceptual understanding is lacking then how do you expect the article to be improved? People at least have to have a clue of what the basic concepts mean. In Capitalism We Trust 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your blustering doesn't impress or scare me. I'll say it again too. People have to understand what the basic terms mean in order to discuss the article in order to improve it. And that's why this discussion is taking place. I'll continue to discuss these terms if I wish and you can't stop me. In Capitalism We Trust 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slrubenstien I suggest you stop interfering with discussions that can help improve this article. People need to discuss and understand the meanings of the terms they're discussing so we can speak the same language and improve the article. You're not helping at all with your interference. In Capitalism We Trust 15:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I'll continue to discuss these terms if I wish and you can't stop me." Sorry bud, but we can and will stop you from using this discussion page to air your original research and unverified claims. In other words, base your arguments on reliable sources, or you will be blocked. -- WGee 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? Let's see you block me then if you think you can. You can't stop me from speaking here. I'll discuss this article and how to improve it all I want. In Capitalism We Trust 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supply and Demand

message: I am open to discussion but I wonder why some insist that pride of place should be given to the term 'crony capitalism' in a paragraph concerning the evolution of capitalism? Presently I find this dubious because crony capitalism seems to be a controversial term that has come into currency relatively recently. Moreover it is not so much an established economic theory or sub-theory, let alone a well-articulated time-tested doctrine describing an aspect of the current stage of capitalism, as an observation of a tendency. There is much more I could say, descriptions of the origins and evolution of capitalism are extremely complex matters, and I do not really think that the article gets it right. But for the time being I would simply like to express my skepticism of the insistence to include ‘crony capitalism.’ Based on evidence from an undoubted partisan capitalist perspective, provided by Stephen Haber of The Hoover Institution, usage of the term “crony capitalism” is recent; it is not really part of the extensive body of work that tried to describe the relationship between big business and the state and its wider influence on the mode of production and society as a whole. This body of work should be described, and if there are genuine differences, amounting to different "schools" of thought, an attempt should be made to include all significant views rather than merely push one pov while excluding others. 
  
::::"Cronycapitalism" is a noun, first used early 2002. (as distinct from "crony capitalism", first used about 1998) meaning as above (for "capitalism") but with "by arrangement among cronies" substituted for "by open competition in a free market". (Stephen Haber, The Political Economy of Crony Capitalism)
I don't care about removing that but don't remove the definition preceding that statement. "State monopoly capitalism" is defined as state intervention to protect big businesses from competition. In Capitalism We Trust 04:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As 172 said, derive your contributions from scholarly sources on economic history. And as Slrubenstein said, start abiding by WP:OR and WP:V. -- WGee 05:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought is a scholarly source. In Capitalism We Trust 06:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholarly sources on economic history, not political theory. -- WGee 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. State monopoly capitalism is a political concept, not an economic one. It's the idea that the state is protecting big business from competition. In Capitalism We Trust 13:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Murray Rothbard was a well-known libertarian writer. Avoid presenting a minority viewpoint as a consensus viewpoint in the article. 172 | Talk 07:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: From what I recall the term monopoly capitalism is hotly disputed in economics anyway - so I'd suggest it doesn't really have a place in a history section, perhaps further down in the criticisms section, which is slightly more open.  Lets not forget, Libertarians and Marxists alike are heterdox, which means we should be hesitant in putting undue prominence upon their views, esp. in a general article--Red Deathy 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I generally reject encyclopedias as sources for content of our articles (we ourselves being an encyclopedia, we should in my opinion draw more on books and journal articles) I think WGee was wrong to reject ICWT's point because it comes from political theory rather than economic history: if political theorists have written about capitalism their views are as relevant as economic historians (as long as their view is proprly identified as the view of political theorists). As to ICWT's other point, I suggest we see if someone has Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capitalism to see to what extent there is divergence or convergence between the way marxists use the term "monopoly capitalism" (I never heard them use it with the additional modifier "state" though) with Rothbard's view.  These may both be heterodox views, as Read Deathy says, but there should still be a place for them somewhere in the article.  As to 172's comment, in general I think we should try to avoid presenting any view as a consensus view. There are multiple views, we should represent all the major ones, and explaine whose view it is, and provide sources. As long as we do this, we should be fine. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: BernardL, you are quite right about Baran and Sweezy, I feel pretty dump now!  You also make some important points.  The question is where, if at all, this belongs in the article.  If it does go in I think it is important to be clear about the difference between institutionalist, marxist, and liberal or libertarian understandings/uses of the term (properly sourced of course). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ". . . if political theorists have written about capitalism their views are as relevant as economic historians." Certainly many political theorists can write knowledgeably about economic history, but the views of experts or specialists in the field are more relevant, as economic historians can provide a more refined, thorough, and probably more accurate analysis of economic change, continuity, and cause and effect relationships as a result of their specialized research and education. I must clarfiy, though, that I did not reject the source because of who wrote it; I rejected it because its subject is political theory rather than economic history. A source that focuses on political theory discusses economic history only to provide the context in which political theories developed, not for the sake of analysing economic change, continuity, and cause and effect relationships. Thus, the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought is not necessarily an authoritative source on the causes of the monopolization of capital in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. -- WGee 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW:The entry "state capitalism" in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought is written by Bob Davies, who has written extensively on Soviet (economic) history. Intangible2.0 08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Are we talking about "monopoly capitalism" or "state monopoly capitalism"? In Capitalism We Trust 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a difference? Intangible2.0 07:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some there is. One theory goes that monopolies start arising and that's monopoly capitalism. Then they join forces with the state and protect themselves from competion, with protectionism, regulations, etc. That's state monopoly capitalism. For example, Dictionary of Marxist Thought: "state monopoly capitalism...In most analyses of this state the state is linked in some way with one fraction of capital, monopoly capital represented by gian enterprises and large financial blocks. The existence of such a stage, distinct from monopoly capitalism..." Lenin said: "That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodament, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndiate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism...The dialectics of history is such that the way, by extraordinarily expediting the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily advanced mankind towards socialism." In Capitalism We Trust 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no page number on that Scott source so how can anyone look it up to see if it's a bastardization? In Capitalism We Trust 17:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd rather we followed an economic historian who says soemthing along the lines of bernardL.  might be more concise.  (I think BernardL's para above would, with small tweaking, suffice as a para in the text proper...)--Red Deathy 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Crony capitalism" and "state monopoly capitalism"

message: It is important that we comply with NPOV and not present views as facts.  Not all economists agree that Friedman's explanation of the depression was correct. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  supporters of capitalism 

message: First of all this is Marxist theory. Capitalims becomes "finance capitalism," where the investors own a large portion of the capital. Then "monopoly capitalism" comes about where a handful of people control all the capital. Then "state monopoly capitalism" come about when the monopolists have influence in government and they are protected from competition from smaller capitalists. The early 20th century is suppsed to be the ere of "state monopoly capitalism" not simply "monopoly capitalism" so why does it just say "monopoly capitalism". I think a source is being misrepresented. And I'd like to know why information that is being backed up by sources being deleted by the same few people when it's added? In Capitalism We Trust 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From (Scott, 2005): "Marxists have taken a different view. Rudolf Hilferding, for example, maintained that the characteristic form of advanced capitalism is a fusion of monopoly capital in banking and manufacturing into ‘finance capital’, or capital not restricted to one sphere of industry. Banks, insurance companies, pension funds, investment trusts, manufacturing, and other commercial corporations all own shares in each other. Large industrial enterprises are controlled not by managers but by bankers. Cross-shareholdings are reinforced by a complex web of interlocking directorships—and sometimes by kinship and friendship ties—which restricts ‘effective ownership’ to a financial oligarchy, comprising only a few hundred or few thousand individuals, organized into financial groups or knots of financial power. The capitalist class consists of finance capitalists." Intangible2.0 06:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's great. Could you give the quote relevant to the "monopoly capitalism" information that's claimed to be from that source? Can you see if the sentence is truly representative of what that source says? In Capitalism We Trust 02:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finance/Monopoly/State monopoly capitalism

message: Saying 'Some X think Y' implies that some don't, and the other view should be represented.  Otherwise it's undue weight for a specific (possibly minority) view.  Considering causes aren't discussed at all, it strikes me as unnesecceary and unhelpful to the flow of text/understanding of the article to include that point.
Please, assume good faith and don't throw around accusations of vandalism, a very serious charge.  If you think I am vandalsing the article, report me to the admins, but I'd rather you ddin't go around rules lawyering a genuine textal disagreement (not a factual one, this is a stylistic/content based dispute).--Red Deathy 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section clearly requires an explanation for "movement from laissez-faire".  Assuming you know this (it was in the summary for previous edits), I must also assume you intended to vandalize.  If you missed that bit, then I apologize for accusing you of vandalism.
(JoeCarson 17:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could be disagreeing with you on that "need" so even that basis for the accusation of vandalism is invalid.  Further, you are only offering a partial, not to say, POV, explanation. To be quite frank the chicken/egg argument of what comes first, state intervention or political proponderance of wealthy elites is something for a different page, the article reads better with just saying it happened.  i'd accept a line saying "the cause of this is subject to debate" or some such, but I think a full complex explanation is not in order.--Red Deathy 17:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it does by attributing monopolies to state intervention, whereas some would argue the monopolies come first and hence begin to dominate the state - essentially the difference between the left wing and right wing positions.  The current version is better, but it would be hard to make more exact without getting complex, IMNSHO, I'd have rather'd that the can of worms was left unopen.--Red Deathy 08:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Focussing on governments moving from the ideology of laissez faire seems to me to be a reasonable compromise...it still focusses on the what not the how/why.--Red Deathy 14:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some do, some don't 

message: I'm not sure if it is correct that liberal historians attribute the rise of monopolies to non-market forces.  Certainly, they resulted from non-free market forces but are not these still market forces?  You will find criticism of big business and the pressure it places on government among proponents of capitalism as well as among Marxists.  The article seems to make a distinction where there is none.
(JoeCarson 11:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Forces 

message: Why do sources keep getting deleted? State monopoly capitalism is the same concept whether it's a Marxist or a capitalists. It means the state intervenes on behalf of large capitalists to protect them from smaller capitalists and at a detriment to the public. Someone keeps putting in that some say it is the "result of" the state intervening but that's not what they say. It is state intervention by definition. In Capitalism We Trust 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State monopoly capitalism

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}} 

message: I removed the claim that it has been said that the late 19th century and early 20th century is the era of "monopoly capitalism." The source that was alleged to say that does not say that. The rest of the section was a response to that so I've deleted that too. The John Scott source simply defines monopoly capitalism. It doesn't say that that is era of monopoly capitalism. In Capitalism We Trust 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all what does RJII/IWCT mean?  Secondly, why should we take your word for it? On what page number from the book may we find the claim that the 19th and early 20th century is the era of monopoly capitalism? Also what country are we talking about? In Capitalism We Trust 03:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all Marxist theory. The term "finance capitalism" was introduced by Rudolf Hilferding in 1910. Intangible2.0 10:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. The term is used from authors of a variety of perspectives, as any of the other terms to which the headings allude. That Marxists use the term is neither here nor there. Marxists have used all of the other terms alluded to in the headings. 172 | Talk 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is here and now. Scott especially uses these terms coming from a Marxist perspective. These are the references you are using, therefore the section is POV. Hell, even the first entry from Google Scholar, a book by Richard Deeg, references Rudolf Hilferding directly. Intangible2.0 19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the section also discusses authors that use terms from a libertarian perspective. Another article cited comes from the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Murray Rothbard is now cited twice in the section. We are supposed to refer to a variety of academic perspectives on this subject; and Marxian accounts happen to be among them. 172 | Talk 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not many libertarians who use the concept of state capitalism; Rothbard wrote about this specifically to give one "answer" to Marxist theorists in their own language. The section remains POV. Intangible2.0 09:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Marx adopted concepts from the classical British political economists to give them an answer in their own language. We can keep going in these circles with just about any term that comes up in political economy. Insisting that the article not mention certain terms because they have been used by Marxists is abusurd. By your reasoning just about any article on political economy "remains POV." What is important for NPOV is that a variety of major perspectives on a given subject be presented; and the section does this. 172 | Talk 11:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you lack familiarity about a subject, do not expect other editors to do your homework for you. You do not have to take my word on anything; you are free to search the book yourself. You can read much of the book at books.google.com/books. Search for relevant keywords. Do a little reading and you will see that like many writers of surveys on capitalism, Scott has discussed descriptions of the late 19th century in terms of finance and monopoly capitalism. 172 | Talk 10:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not correct. Scott is only discussing (Marxist) theories of capitalism. I'm not sure what that has to do with history of capitalism. Intangible2.0 11:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Academic historians of capitalism work within a variety of theoretical traditions in elaborating on the history of capitalism. One of the major traditions is Marxian political economy. The other major perspectives include classical, Keynesian, neoclassical, Austrian economics; and Weberian historical sociology. These perspectives underlie just about all Western academic accounts of the history of the subject. 172 | Talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so why intertwine them? It's pretty much POV to start talking about "history of capitalism" in the context of say, "finance capitalism." Intangible2.0 13:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really. These is no universal, standard periodization of the history of capitalism. The terminology used in sourcebooks and encyclopedias vary to a degree. The discussion of finance capitalism in the Oxford Dictionary overlaps with Britannica's discussion of late industrial capitalism and early state capitalism. Both the Britannica and Oxford outlines of the history are within the realm of major scholarly discussion of the subject. Either outline is acceptable. This discussion is really much to do about nothing. The current outline of our article is best left alone, as an extra heading in the history section merely serves to make the article more reader-friendly. 172 | Talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Number of headings will remain the same if we add commercial capitalism. I will see what I can do about it in the near future. -- Vision Thing -- 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term commercial capitalism generally refers to the period described under mercantilism before industrial capitalism. There is no problem with changing the mercantilism section to "mercantilism and commercial capitalism." 172 | Talk 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: These views should be mentioned but as part of other sections. -- Vision Thing -- 12:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what should be happening to the history section. Maybe it should be partitioned in perspectives as well, like the first part of the article; althought I am not convinced that historians only write about the history of capitalism from a certain political bias - they should be able to write objectively about it. Intangible2.0 16:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: On second thought, I don't think the article needs a history section anyways (nor are those other articles on the history of capitalism very helpful). Intangible2.0 17:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been thoroughly discussed. There is no need to rehash this question. The article needs a history section. We cannot assume that general readers come to this article fully aware of the historical context. 172 | Talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which discussion? I'm not readily finding any in the talk archives. Intangible2.0 13:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed monopoly capitalism assertion

message: I can't see any comment on the undoing of my changes to citation - but I've restored them quickly - basically, citations should exist as separate entities (especially when one source is repeatedly referred to) - it is a shame that WP won't let you group citations in one footnote, but there it is, until the tech improves we're stuck with ugliness.  Obviously, the creation of seprate entries is a prelude to me sitting down one day and hopefully standrdising the format of thecitations using the cite templates (as have already een used on some).  Sensible objections welcome--Red Deathy 08:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The "Industrial Revolution" was long "over" before Marx or Sombart started talking about capitalism. I have asked for references to the contrary, they did not come. Why I am being reverted? Intangible2.0 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Industrial revolution generally seems to come up to the 1830's-40s, and I suppose for marx it was just starting to kcik off in garmany (i,.e. his discussions on Rhineland peasants) - it's a bit of a nubuklous term anyway, and certainly he was reacting to it, as it were...--Red Deathy 09:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still took Marx 20 years after Engels coined the term. If Marx said he wrote in response the "Industrial Revolution," that can be added, but it should not be construed as fact that these theorists were developing in the context thereto. Intangible2.0 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  industrial revolution 

message: I can hardly see Weber's "more positive note to the use of the term" capitalism. Weber was, over all, a pesimist about capitalism possible transformation and parties systems, but his metaphora about capitalism as an "Iron Cage" doesn't sound very happy. Generally, you can understand a weberian possitive scope over modernity (specially rational action), but all about specifically capitalism seems to me a sad reflection. The latter is obviously an opinion, but so its too the affirmation on the article. I think we can state Weber has a less "militant" view about capitalism criticism, but not a more possitive view about the subject.
"In economics, Weber opposed both capitalism and socialism. The latter simply would not work, as it is technically impossible; the necessary information for running the economy cannot be attained by a central power, and the subjection of workers would merely be transferred from the owners of capital to the bureaucracy of the state. With respect to capitalism, Weber worried about the inescapable impersonality and senselessness of work, as well as the ethos wherein the successful view the poor as morally inferior. Also, for Weber, politics was unquestionably higher than economics. Economics cannot be self-contained, setting its own standards for itself; its guiding concern must be the welfare of the nation, not autonomous economic values such as productivity. Social policy should not be based on charity, but neither should it be based on narrow economic considerations". -Philip J. Harold 2005; Journal of Markets and Morality 8(2). IsmaelPR 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weber "positive" view 

message: Where is Ayn Rand's contribution to capitalism? An entire political party was dedicated to her, she met with a president, two of her books were best-sellers, and yet not a whisper of her on this article? Jcchat66 05:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could add her to the proponents of capitalism section.JoeCarson 13:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do add her. Talking man 14:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Who among those Chicago school and Austrian school people were not influenced by Ayn Rand? Probably all of them were. Her influence can't be overestimated. Not to mention Alan Greenspan was a objectivist. Talking man 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I highly agree. However, we must be careful of two things. First, we cannot over-emphasize her. As much as I idolize Rand, in order to be npov, we cannot go too far as past versions have (although this one under-emphasizes her terribly,) which is what resulted in her being removed completely. Secondly, we need to be very careful in representing her properly and in the context of this subject. Note, for example, that although she was highly influential on the libertarian movement, she herself was against what she believed the term meant, and many libertarians disassociate themselves with her, and the party had no direct or official association with her. Considering the consensus in this section and the obviousness of her relevance, I expect I am going to add her pretty soon myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D prime (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am strongly for the addition of Ayn Rand, and will add her myself if no one else wants to.  I believe her influence to be very important. Turgrid 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  She is vastly over-rated in some quarters, although she did some good work in a minor key by introducing some young people to the terminology of serious philosophy, and some of them went on wrestle with the books they were now prepared to read. They really had to get over her to do it. As for the momentous fact that she 'met with a President,' -- large numbers of not-especially notable people do. Still, I'm not of course denying her notability or that she ought to be here. --Christofurio 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's a novelist who writes about philosophy, not an economist, and her popularity is restricted to the US. Should we also include Charles Dickens, because he showed the effects of capitalism on society in 19th century England? At least he is popular internationally and universally acclaimed. Grant | Talk 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a search of a library catalogue of economics books, I dcouldn't find any about her economics.  At most, I'd say, she merits a passing reference of the "...some, such as Aynn Rand, say..." variety, along with all the otehr comm,entators who get passing mention in the article.--Red Deathy 07:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Ayn Rand? 

message: This article, on "Capitalism", makes great strides to present only one world-view on the development of "Capitalism" following the principle pattern of the Anglo world view without respect to the American world-view and the development of "Capitalism" in the leading "Capitalist" nation - namely the United States of America.  I see nothing on earlier American "capitalists" who shared the same time-frame with the so-called "Classical" school but nothing of their ideals. There also seems to be a distinction between "Mercantilism" and "Capitalism" that is of distinction only to the "Classical" school of economics which emerged in the United Kingdom and France especially. Such a distinction was not made in American history of economic thought prior to the modern era of "Austrian" and "Chicago" schools of thought which emerged from the Anglo/French physiocrat "Classical" school.  Hence a lack of any coverage of American industrialization and economic growth until the mention of the Great Depression and Keynes who can be said to emerge from the American School of thought on Capitalism - ie. government intervention, encouragement, promotion, and regulation of industry to foster growth and sustainability of prosperity over large segments of society (the unique Middle Class society America developed) without control of or ownership of any productive or merchant enterprise which is as much "Capitalism" as the opposition to such policies by the "Classical" economists who favored "free markets" without government intervention. In light of America's, Germany's (under the German Historical School) experience of Capitalism pre-WWI there needs to be accurate coverage of "Capitalism" in its real sense from all schools of thought and actual policies followed by recognized "capitalist" countries like the United States. I am wondering others thoughts on this; and how we can remedy this articles bias and make it neutral and historically accurate. --Northmeister 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has serious flaws