Talk:Capital (economics)

message: At the very beginning of this article we find the statement "Not to be confused with Financial capital".  Yet we see that someone posting as "Battlecry" has taken it upon itself to violate that statement and reintroduce the notion that "money" is capital, in and of itself.  The assertion violates the actual reference being used.  That reference says that "capital is money or assets put to productive use".  For if and when money is put to productive use then the money disappears and a productive instrument of use, takes its place.  There was a time when money was actually a commodity or was tied to a commodity.  And in that world it was possible to confuse this issue.  But in our current system, all money is credit and produced on keyboards by the elected government in the form of treasury notes, or by the Federal Reserve and by banks in the form of Federal reserve notes and clearing balances.  Hint!!!  It has no labor component as does commodity money. It has no INTRINSIC value and all of its value arises from the enforcement of sovereign law in regard to the repayment of loans.  
The person asserting the misquoted phrase then further asserts that this magically created "money" is the cornerstone of "capitalism", attributing that ridiculous assertion to the same misunderstood referenced cited for the initial assault.  This second sentence and nothing remotely resembling it can be found at the cited reference.
Here is the statement: "Capital refers to sums of money or assets put to productive use. Capital, in the form of money seeking to expand itself through investment, forms the basis of capitalism.Capital, Economics Dictionary on Economist.com: http://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z/c#node-21529870"
The statement has been removed by ME and I will remove it again if it magically reappears.--The Trucker (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiat Money and Bank Money are '''NOT''' Capital 

message: To be sure there is much yammering, posturing, and pompous rhetoric regarding the term
"capital" in economics.  The classical economists did not define the term well enough even though they noted the difference between  land  and "real capital".
I wish to define this term "real capital" as a much better description of "capital" as
that term relates to political economy.  For now I will say that there is no such thing as "natural capital" because such a thing is included in the word  land
which is very much distinct from "capital".
Also there is no such thing as "infrastructural capital" unless, perhaps, one wishes to differentiate capital which is privatized from capital which is socialized.
In the discussion of "infrastructural capital" in this article we see the torturing of the concept of
depreciation which ONLY APPLIES TO CAPITAL.  Depreciation (actual deterioration or a wearing out) is one of the distinguishing characteristics of "capital" as distinct from land.
Natural resources are depleted (e.g. oil depletion).   The oil does not "wear out".
Farmland can be depleted, but left alone it will recover quite naturally.  Real capital
is created by labor and it will "wear out" and left on its own it will rust or crumble back into the land from whence it was harvested.  Such attributes are what distinquish land from
real capital.
There may be such a thing as individual personal capital and it is produced by labor and owned by the laborer (e.g. the individual studied hard or trained his body) and now has the result as personal capital. If it occurs naturally within the laborer such as any natural talent we might as easily styled it as personal "land".  The distinction is meaningless due to the inalienability of the asset.  There is NO WAY you can deprive the baseball player or the mathematician of his abilities and then make use of these inalienable assets.  The  return to individual capital or individual natural resource is normally regarded as wages as opposed to interest or rent.  And thus the asset is still encapsulated in the term labor as opposed to capital. 
As to intellectual capital we can see this as a particular manifestation of socialized capital in that education for the masses is part of the infrastructure of the society
no less than the roads and bridges.
"Natural capital" my Aunt Fanny!:) BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. :) :)
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em!" -- Bart Simpson
--The Trucker 07:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just two questions about farmland recovering quite naturally. If the land is depleted of trace minerals, what natural process recreates them? I understand that nitrogen, carbon and other nutrients will accumulate from dead plants, but these dead plants will not contain trace minerals if the minerals no longer exist in the soil, will they? If so perhaps you can cite the botanical method by which this occurs. ThanksStephenstillwell 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Capital 

message: Could someone expand the definition with some real world examples or a more layman explanation.
:How about this. If you go into some wooded commons and shoot some pheasants, you are living off the Land. If you apply for permission to enclose part of the same commons and start breeding pheasants to be released, and invite shooting parties who pay a fee for the shoot, you have invested some money to create an income earning capital asset. -- Janosabel 22:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks 99.236.220.155 (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  classical explanation 

message: I know nothing about this topic.  Someone who does should look at Risk capital and see if the content of that article should be merged into this one, possibly then redirecting that article here.  If that article is not worth keeping at all, someone could just redirect that here, and remove the "mergefrom" tag from this article.  --Xyzzyplugh 11:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mergefrom Risk capital 

message: What's with the picture?  It looks sort of silly.  Reminds me of BET
-Brad Kgj08 (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: It is non-standard to have a "quotations about" section. I think this is encouraged POV.
69.112.164.135 (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghandi quote? 

message: "are not themselves significantly consumed (though they may depreciate) in the production process" - isn't this the difference between "fixed capital" and "circulating capital"? The text gives the definition of fixed capital (which is what is usually denoted by K in the literature these days) but there's also circulating capital (generally referred to as "intermediate goods" now, more or less). Wouldn't a better definition be that it is goods produced with other goods which are not directly consumed (i.e. provide no utility in and of themselves)?radek (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ummm  

message: I find it strange that in the intro of the page on "Capital" that "Marxian Economics" is mentioned, but no other Economic philosophy is also mentioned. Propose deletion of that part entirely, with possible expansion of the discussion in a later section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.251.250 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: The first paragraph is is too much to bear. I couldn't go further.
# Why is the etymology of stock mentioned.
# Why isn't Online Etymology Dictionary used as a source or a reason to be skeptical about the stated etymology of capital?
# Is Karl Marx really a good source on Medieval French business practices? What are his sources? Has no one done better since? This like relying on Thomas Huxley for one's understanding of evolution. DCDuring (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusually poor article 

message: Capital is a term in economics models. What is its unit of measurement? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  units of measurement 

message: Dr. Breton has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Breton has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Theodore R. Breton, 2014. "A Human Capital Theory of Growth: New Evidence for an Old Idea," DOCUMENTOS DE TRABAJO CIEF 011999, UNIVERSIDAD EAFIT.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Breton's comment on this article 

message: Years ago, I put up a taxonomy of capital at this link: http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2014/06/elements-of-taxonomy-of-capital.html. Perhaps this would be helpful in editing the topic page. -- RLV 128.132.1.10 (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A taxonomy provided by an external link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Capital (economics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722064638/http://www.dse.unive.it/summerschool/course2007/accounting%20and%20rationality.pdf to http://www.dse.unive.it/summerschool/course2007/accounting%20and%20rationality.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first example of capital that the article brings up is a caveman's weaponry, however hunting would be an act of self-sustenance, so using it as an example in economics is really stretching the definitions and just seems to be the result of the whole "capitalism is human nature" narrative.
Orchastrattor (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Examples 

message: Merge with Capital goods FatalSubjectivities (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Klbrain (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They are both about what Smith says in this page to be what a businessperson "expects to afford him revenue". "good that is used in the production of goods". The pages discuss same thing. The capital goods page has few citations and could be reduced greatly. Thus, merger would create few wp:weight issues. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Why x 2? 2001:8003:913E:5D01:E459:423D:A45E:2DDF (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Please elaborate? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Support this merge, and propose that the contents of Capital good be merged into Capital (economics), while the article title be changed to "Capital good" for natural disambiguation. :3 F4U (they/it) 01:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I see is that Capital (economics) is broader in scope than Capital good. While the lead of this article reads almost as a synonym for Capital good, the content doesn't, particularly in the section Capital (economics)#Modern types of capital. For example, Human capital isn't a Capital good. While a merge might be possible, it should be from the narrower them to the broader, keeping the broader title (Capital (economics)) as the title. Klbrain (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Klbrain (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge