Talk:Capitalism

sentence change

I have a problem with this part of the first sentence:

"supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions in the free market, rather than by the state through central economic planning"

The problem I have is everything after "supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by"

I could give a long list of reasons for what is wrong with this. One is, how is demand at a market in the old USSR different than a market in the US? If something is produced, and people don't exchange their rubles for it at the store, then it is no different than in the modern US. To kind of prove my point, the USSR bought US wheat throughout the 1970s - was the market demand any different due to this? It was not.

Also, this presupposes central economic planning through the state is not a feature of capitalism (although it is - TARP, the billions the US gives to government contractors every year etc.) and the only alternative to the theoretical capitalism is state central economic planning (whereas even in the USSR, not all production was owned by the state and centrally planned for. In Yugoslavia, this was even more so the case. And then there were systems like in Republican Spain when the CNT-FAI took control of production in some areas which was not centrally controlled state planning. Ruy Lopez (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What needs to be worked out, with this article in general perhaps, is that there are several theories of capitalism. For example, Ruy, you suggest that central economic planning through the state is a feature of capitalism, at least to some extent. There are various degrees of capitalism (laissez-faire, mixed-economy, anarchy-capitalism, libertarianism and libertarian socialism, etc), and not only is the type of capitalism practiced in the USA debatable, but, in general, the relationship between government and economy is constantly changing and challenging our views. The theories and debates within theories of capitalism are endless: How does one distinguish between socialism and pure laissez-faire (in other words, where is the line drawn?)? When does an economic system cease to be laissez-faire and become regulated, restricted, or absolutely controlled?

Perhaps, given that this is a discussion about an encyclopedia article, we should ask if an encyclopedia article should identify every anomaly of a widely understood--although, perhaps, vague--explanation. Should the article address every single theory and debate about what is or is not capitalism? Should it define each word used and include every single criticism of those definitions, ideas, and their implications? I'm inclined to say "no, they should not be included," because, frankly, it would be impossible to do all that (there are even disagreements within respected theories of capitalism, and that makes the task all the more difficult). An encyclopedia article is supposed to be meaningful, but it can be nothing more than an introduction to the concept and relevance of the topic. It can serve as the starting point of our general understanding and inquiry into a topic, but it should not be a catalogue of every idea, interpretation, argument, and criticism on the topic.

Despite my rant, Ruy, you've raised a question concerning the boundaries of the definition of "capitalism." No encyclopedia article (and probably no article or answer whatsoever) can acceptably address that in a concise, absolute, and accurate way. We can only capture the basic understanding of capitalism--its connotations and general meaning relative to other economic systems. So if you think that the definition in the lead does not accurately reflect the connotation and general understanding of capitalism, then provide reliable sources to change it. Treefingers1206 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Capitalism is a descriptive term not an ideology. It means that the means of production are privately owned. Whether the owners allow free markets or enforce monopolies, or get the government to subsidize or own loss-making industries like public transit makes no difference. TFD (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it was an ideology. I was talking about the definition and academic understanding of "what is capitalism?" It's not simply a "descriptive term," and it's not necessarily true that, in a capitalist economic system, the means of production are privately owned. The most significant--or powerful--capitalist entities are publicly owned (i.e., corporations), sometimes even by the government. What distinguishes capitalism from, say, socialism or communism or a democratic system is that the fundamental goal is the creation and accumulation of capital. If the "means of production," even if privately owned, are not organized with the intention of generating and accumulating capital, it is not capitalist. As an economic system, generating and accumulating capital is the function, obligation, and necessity of all participants. Treefingers1206 (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

M&Ms says: You do not understand what is meant by 'public ownership' mr./ms./mrs. treefingers. Public ownership of a corporation means that whoever wants to buy shares becomes an owner, along with the other share holders. The share purchasers are private individuals - not supra-entities such as the government. So, if a politician wanted to buy a share in Exxon (I'm not sure if there are rules on a politicians involvement with private enterprise, but anyway...) than his or her name will be noted on the share certificate and not the name of the government they belong to. The term 'public ownership' is used solely for companies who do not choose who the owners/investors are.

Now, the example given to support your claim that the US government acts as a central planner because it gives billions to contractors is wrong. In a centrally planned economy the state makes all decisions what & how much to be produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.133.9 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Treefingers responds: You're right, I wrongly equated public trading in a market of private owners to public ownership in which it is owned by government. Despite that being a bad example, my point is really this: capitalism is not defined by private ownership. It's defined by capital accumulation. Capitalism is not the absence of government. Governments can be (and, in fact, most are) capitalist. Capitalist refers to an economic system in which the incentive/motive for production is the creation and accumulation of capital. This differs from other economic systems such as: (1) feudalism, the incentive/motive of production is physical security (privilege to knights, food, etc); (2) communism, where the incentive/motive of production is utilitarian (providing the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people); (3) statism/totalitarianism/socialism, where the incentive/motive of production is fear (or enforced obligation to the state.)

Governments have long been capitalist, even the "communist" governments of the USSR and China were/are capitalist governments, although their domestic economies are statist/totalitarian. They still compete(d) in a capitalist global economy. Capitalism is not about people, individual freedom, or private ownership. It's about accumulation of wealth, despite whether that accumulation is public or private. Treefingers1206 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A capitalist Someone who does not labour but lives off their capital, e.g. A landlord
Capitalism The justification on historic/social/legal grounds of a capitalist for not having to labour
81.101.109.99 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

no, its a system of supple and demand. the landlord has appartments, the supply, and the tenants want them and rent them from said landlord, thus demand. the landlord had to work to get the appartments, he didnt just sit around doing nothing. the beauty of capatlism is if you create or getsomthing other people want, you dont have to work as hard anymore. some just twist it and corrupt it. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

To quote Adam Smith (Bk. 1, Ch.6) "landlords love to reap where they never sowed". Sorry, couldn't resist. But you seem confused between capitalists and landlords. Different roles, different earnings. A landlord can charge rent even if he did not put an ounce of work into the place. Just the mere fact of ownership of limited land. Look up the concept of "rent". (not to say some landlords cannot behave "as capitalists" when, e.g. they expend to introduce improvements, maintenance, etc. But then they are wearing their capitalist hat, not their landlord hat. The returns they make as "rent" are above and beyond whatever expenses that go into it. It's in the definition of the concept of rent) Walrasiad (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tecnical definition: - capitalist an owner of capital. (defined as : produced means of production, i.e. tools, machinery, raw materials, the essence of it being that it is an input that is itself "built".) - landlord an owner of land. Land is not built, it is not an outcome of a production process. It is God-given. e.g. Factory is capital. The land on which the factory sits is not capital. Walrasiad (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend the line itself be struck. It is awkward, and does not explain anything which is not covered later in the article. Downix (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest revising the lead sentence, as it fails to mention the fundamental characteristic of capitalism: production contingent upon the perpetual accumulation of capital, and by extension economic and social activity structured around this process. The other qualities listed (ie, private ownership, mixed economies, state capitalism) refer to various institutional configurations possible under a capitalist system. The distinguishing feature between socialism is that a socialist economy is based on production directly for use, so that economic demand is directly satisfied (as opposed to indirectly satisfying economic demand as a byproduct in the pursuit of profit). Also, there should be a description of Capitalists somewhere in the article (ie, those who invest in production and receive their income by owning and trading private property / shares of companies).Battlecry (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Well, accumulation is not the fundamental characteristic. It just happens to be one of several implications of private ownership of capital. Just as producing for profit rather than demand is a consequence of private ownership. The crux is still private ownership of capital though - and from that, stem all the remaining features, blessings and sins of the system. But I guess it could be useful to lay out a list of implications a little more clearly. Walrasiad (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

POV Template Image

The template image seems to advance Europhilia and anti-Americanism in that the euro symbol is placed in front of the dollar despite the fact that the United states is a larger and more powerful economic force than the EU. Shouldn't the Dollar be out front?

67.142.172.20 (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Europhilia? Hmm.

The gap between the currency zones is not huge,[1] but the little symbols were not really intended to display relative size of GDP &c. If they were, we'd use a graph instead. Some people might, alternatively, think of it geographically (the $ to the west and the € to the east); other people might think chronologically (the € overlaid because it's a newer currency than the $). Some might not care at all, as long as there are cute little balls of colour.

Don't read too much into it. Sometimes a cute coloured blob is just a cute coloured blob. And sometimes a lighthouse is just a lighthouse.

However, if you still find the image unacceptable, feel free to create a better one.

bobrayner (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A new logo? A combination of the USD, the euro and the Japanese yen. Mm. Maybe with a Czech koruny in the middle? $€Kč¥ ! Walrasiad (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Proper Eurocentrism, AKA American exceptionalism denial. Seriously though the dollar sign alone, as its symbolism was used in Atlas Shrugged, is the best choice. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged is hardly a cornerstone of capitalism. Plus, in that dubious book the dollar sign isn't just the symbol of capitalism; it's also the monogram of the US and is tied to some odd ideas about gold. Some of Rand's ideas do not fit modern reality very well; there are plenty of capitalists in other countries who have no need of the $ monogram, and capitalism gets along just fine without a gold fetish.

Personally, I'd be open to arguments that the $ in the image should be more prominent, but maybe not Ayn Rand :-) bobrayner (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the point is that Money as such is a neutral device for value abstraction and exchange that doesn't imply a social order, economic system, etc. On the other hand the Dollar Sign is associated with that particular social order/economic system and so a consensus seems to be building that the dollar sign should be prominent and/or there alone. I don't think capitalism has any cornerstone except capital itself which has the distinction, lost on some perhaps, from general money noted. Certainly many champions of that order have considered Rands work to constitute a philosophical pillar of it if you will. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Euro symbol might be over the dollar sign, but the dollar sign is first. You could argue that either of those promotes one over the other. As such, I don't think it's worth arguing about; it's just a symbol, and not intended to have some deeper symbolism than representing economics using two of the most prominent currencies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

USA not a freemarket capitalist country?

Mix of State and Corporate Capitalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems you may be expressing a personal opinion. Wikipedia articles are made up of material from third party sources, not our own opinions. If you have a source where this perspective is mentioned, let us know and we can discus adding something to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wild Capitalism

No article about "Wild Capitalism"! Well done Böri (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rent

"Income in a Capitalist system is split into profit and wages." According to one venerable view, there are three distinct sources of income, because return on land or natural resources generally isn't really "capital," it is "rent." You can argue with this, of course, but to incorporate into the article this early the presumption that the physiocrats, the Georgists, etc. are all wrong and rent simply equals profit, land simply equals capital, is very much a matter of taking a controversial POV. Accordingly, I will change this. --Christofurio (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the threefold split gives undue weight to what is hardly a mainstream view.

To the extent that physiocracy, georgism, and other long-discredited systems made an explicit threefold division, we could mention that in the appropriate part of the body of the article - in context - and certainly cover it in more depth in the respective articles on those systems; but to put it in the lede of Capitalism is giving undue weight to a fringe belief, I feel.

"Venerable" carries no weight whatsoever, unless you're writing a history of economic thought. The geocentric model and phlogiston are venerable. bobrayner (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To say that a POV is "venerable," though, is clearly to rule out the possibility that I'm engaging in OR in seeking to include it. Venerable implies "a lot older than me." And, no, I don't think that this view is analogous to phlogiston, just as economics isn't a science in quite the same sense as is chemistry. --Christofurio (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Content removed

Note: I removed the following unsourced statements:

1. Private investment in Fascist states, such as Nazi Germany, greatly increased .
2. In response to criticism of the system, some proponents of capitalism have argued that its advantages are supported by empirical research. For example, advocates of different Indices of Economic Freedom point to a statistical correlation between nations with more economic freedom (as defined by the indices) and higher scores on variables such as income and life expectancy, including the poor, in these nations.

I removed #1 because it had been unsourced for more than a year. I removed #2 because it is both unsourced and false. Two of the leading countries with the highest economic freedom and open markets, Singapore and New Zealand, overcame their social problems with massive government spending, in other words, socialism, which in turn, alleviated poverty and contributed to increased life expectancy and quality of life. 71.22.40.31 (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)