First; thanks for the thoughtful reply. This is why I really enjoy NH.

Why do you think that the "feudal mode" of production was only localized and over a short period time? I would argue that since the agricultural revolution some 12'000 years ago, most people that ever lived, lived in some kind of feudal system. Chinese feudalism is well documented back to about 1000 BCE. It is not unreasonable to assume that this is true for most of the cultures at the time; there are countless examples of how tribal societies change with the introduction of agriculture and how this in term leads to stratification and thus to some form of feudalism or another.

But really; the point I'm trying to make is that the capitalistic mode and thus capitalistic exchanges are really something new in the history of mankind. Before the agricultural feudalism people weren't living in capitalism for sure.

Rome is an interesting exception. And it really is just that; an exception. Yes, there were vast trading networks, bringing goods from all exotic places to the center of the universe, hundreds of ships transporting tons and tons of loot and slaves and culture. But only a very, very small percentage of the Roman populace was ever involved in such trades. Even in Rome (the republic/empire, not the city), most of the population was living in farmsteads, producing most of what they consumed themselves, trading surplus for additional calories or goods.

Very few would have had any capitalistic exchanges, most of them would have had none at all. Yes, much of the Roman land was owned by the elite of Rome itself and even today's oligarchs would pale if they knew how rich Marcus Licinius Crassus was. But that ownership was very different from anything that we could honestly classify as capitalism. If there was capitalism in Rome, it probably was in the manufacturies and in the mines. (E.g. Terra sigillata was manufactured on a ginormous scale - but only for a fraction of a percent of the population)

And again; Rome in this shape existed for less than four hundred years. And for most of the world, Rome wasn't terribly important after that.

So, if we go back to your (very apt) definition of capitalism, we can see that the three core properties really only arise around the year 1600 and 1700, at least in Europe. There we have the faint beginnings of a capitalistic system, akin to what imperial Rom might have had (for some time); wealthy merchants trading goods that - produced in a manufactory (1) by hired labor (2), are shipped and sold in a foreign market (3). Again; it is only a small fraction of the population that takes place in this value-adding. Most of the population is still not taking part in any capitalistic exchanges. Most of the population is still living a nasty brutish and short live in agricultural settlements; still producing most of what they consumed themselves, trading surplus for additional calories or goods.

That's the time when the term 'capitalism' is termed. And I think it is quite different from what we have today; nowadays; most of all exchanges are capitalistic ones, for much of the population all the exchanges are exclusively capitalistic. This exclusivity is something that is new (since about ~70 years). And it is this exclusivity that I think is something that was neither obvious not expected when 'capitalism' was first being used to refer to systems that satisfy our three core properties.

So, there you have my reasoning. I understand that you might not agree with my assessment, but I hope I was able to explain my reasoning for using such an inflammatory term as "hyper capitalism" to refer to the manifestation of capitalism we have today.

Thanks for having this exchange and thanks for making me work for it. ;)