Talk:Capitalism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Archive history

• Talk:Capitalism/archive 1
• Talk:Capitalism/archive 2
• Talk:Capitalism/archive 3
• Talk:Capitalism/archive 4
• Talk:Capitalism/archive 5
• Talk:Capitalism/archive 6
• Talk:Capitalism/archive 7
• Talk:Capitalism/archive 8, March 24 – April 1, 2005
• Talk:Capitalism/archive 9
• Talk:Capitalism/archive 10 2005-07 - 2005-10
• Talk:Capitalism/archive 11 2005-11 - 2005-12
• Talk:Capitalism/archive 12 2006-01 - 2006-04

Index of Economic Freedom POV Issue

It is not necessary, accurate or NPOV to try and affix the politically-loaded labels "right-wing" and "business-oriented and funded" (whatever that means) to the Fraser Institute or the Heritage Foundation before they are even mentioned. Few would deny the Heritage Foundation is right-of-center, but who is to say it's "right-wing?" The Fraser insitute supports the legalization of marijuana, among other leftish causes, and generally transcends the dichotomy of "right" and "left."

The articles on both institutions are both extremely detailed and accurate and do not require supplementation by this article. In addition, they contiain sourced information on the details of each institution's finances. Although like all think tanks, both recieve funding from corporations, neither counts that funding as a majority or even a plurality of their total funding, which makes the label "business-funded" inaccurate as well.

With these facts in mind, I am deleting the POV sentence. rehpotsirhc 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

max rspct leave a message says>Pot legalisation has lttle to do with this (not really a leftisgh cause.. whatever that is). Both are pro-business, pro-capitalist think tanks - fact. From relevent articles:

Heritage Foundation -"the Heritage Foundation was a key architect and advocate of the Reagan Doctrine" ..."In 1973, beer baron Joseph Coors contributed a quarter-million dollars to launch The Heritage Foundation. Since then, money has come from the founders of Amway Corp. and right-leaning foundations like the Bradley, Olin and Scaife foundations. Billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and other wealthy philanthropists have been generous Heritage Foundation donors."etc etc (from the Hfoundation article)

Fraser Institute seems to get half it's funding from one source.. one which is hardly apolitical, and actually spends lots of money supporting the private education system. Its founding memeber was the anti-socialist/ultre-capitalist Friedrich Hayek! Founder Michael Walker (economist) takes fishing trips with Dick Cheney (watchout mikey!) and theres more from it's article:

"Though little known at the time of its founding, the Institute has been a source of controversy since its beginning. It was founded by Walker with a grant from forestry giant MacMillan Bloedel Limited, at a time when MacMillan-Bloedel was in conflict with the left-wing NDP government of British Columbia then led by Premier Dave Barrett.

Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have noted the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. The accuracy and reliability of the information they produce is therefore often questionable. The Institute also dedicates considerable energy and funding to actively promote their findings and their agenda to broadcast and print media, a practice not followed by most research foundations or in the research work of university departments.

For one example, a 2002 study by Osgoode Hall Law Professor Neil Brooks demonstrated the Institute's widely promoted Tax Freedom Day, described as the date each year when the average Canadian's income no longer goes to paying government taxes, included flawed accounting. The Brooks study demonstrated how the Institute's methods of accounting excluded several important forms of income and inflated tax figures, moving the date nearly two months later in the year. ¹

Fraser Institute supporters respond that some of the FI research, like the Economic Freedom of the World report, have been used in papers that have been peer-reviewed. [1] They assert many other advocacy organizations like Greenpeace also publish research often not peer-reviewed and actively try promote their findings and agenda.Though little known at the time of its founding, the Institute has been a source of controversy since its beginning. It was founded by Walker with a grant from forestry giant MacMillan Bloedel Limited, at a time when MacMillan-Bloedel was in conflict with the left-wing NDP government of British Columbia then led by Premier Dave Barrett.

Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have noted the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. The accuracy and reliability of the information they produce is therefore often questionable. The Institute also dedicates considerable energy and funding to actively promote their findings and their agenda to broadcast and print media, a practice not followed by most research foundations or in the research work of university departments.

For one example, a 2002 study by Osgoode Hall Law Professor Neil Brooks demonstrated the Institute's widely promoted Tax Freedom Day, described as the date each year when the average Canadian's income no longer goes to paying government taxes, included flawed accounting. The Brooks study demonstrated how the Institute's methods of accounting excluded several important forms of income and inflated tax figures, moving the date nearly two months later in the year. ¹

Fraser Institute supporters respond that some of the FI research, like the Economic Freedom of the World report, have been used in papers that have been peer-reviewed. [2] They assert many other advocacy organizations like Greenpeace also publish research often not peer-reviewed and actively try promote their findings and agenda." -- max rspct leave a message 16:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

max rspct, thank you for pasting me almost the entire contents of Fraser Institute But for clarity's sake, let's try and separate the issues from the irrelevancies here.

• Issue 1: The text goes out of its way to try and affix various labels to the Fraser Institute and the Heritage Foundation before it mentions either report.

In a word: Why? The articles on both institutes do a good job of describing the function of each institute in the proper context. Why, exactly, do we need to say "The publishers are conservative, free-market-oriented think tanks" before we even mention them? The sentence serves no purpose but overgeneralization -- many would disagree that the Heritage foundation is "free-market-oriented," or that the Fraser institute is conservative -- and reeks of POV. I am removing it on these grounds.

• Issue 2: The text referred to both institutes as "business-funded," which is simply not accurate. See the Fraser Institute's Annual Report [3], p. 36, and the Heritage Foundation's Finance Report [4].

"Business-funded" has been removed and is (for now) no longer an issue.

• Issue 3: The findings are now "controversial" because it is claimed the Fraser institue doesn't subject its articles to peer review.

You did not provide a single source for this claim, nor am I able to find one on google, proquest or infotrac. In fact, the only source I can find seems to be Fraser Institute. Maybe that needs to be looked at.

These IEF reports are reported by the entire international English-language media when they come out. BBC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, The Globe and Mail, The Economist <<(capitalism is not just what is defined by economists and business-funded (they are) conservative thinktanks - max)>> -- it's all there. Furthermore, the IEFs are reports that establish certain specific definitions for economic freedom and then grade countries based on those definitions. It's hard to disagree with someone over the definition of a term they themselves have defined. Are people taking issue with their statistical methods, or what? Are there sources? I am reomving "controversial" designation as well due to an utter lack of sources. rehpotsirhc 18:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

max rspct, why have you reverted [5] the edits I just spent all that time explaining to you without taking the time to explain yourself? Not only is "of course it is" an inadequate explanation for a revert back to unsorced material, I think you'll agree that it's unwise to use edit summaries as a replacement for the talk page.

Also, what do you mean by placing (brand name) after the IEF? POV aside, your meaning is unclear. I am removing both the POV sentence and the (brand) paranthesis for the same reasons stated above. If you still disagree, I look forward to reading your reasoning here. rehpotsirhc 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Left a comment on max rspct's talk page asking again for his input. rehpotsirhc 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Where spelling corrections in this mista?>[6]. As for talkpage interaction > I have done! ... what do you want over these two small bits? We have gone over this all before. Also, and this is not a ruse, I have encroaching RSI at the moment.. so repeating my edit summaries on the talkpage is causing me physical as well as mental damage. -- max rspct leave a message 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Oh yeah - stop trying to censor the article.. These indices are pretty obvious POV and take up disproportionate space - max

Max, the issue you have with my edits is explained in detail on your talk page. Also, please follow talk page convention and refrain from inserting text in comments I've already posted. You might also want to assume good faith and be a little more civil.

Neither the characterization of the terms we disagree on as "small bits" nor the accusation that I am trying to "censor" the article answer any of reasons I cited for removing it. I'm not really sure what to make of the comment you inserted in my text above, except for your re-assertion that the HF and FI are "business-funded" -- I've already shown this to be an inaccurate label. Maybe you should refrain from reverting until your RSI heals and you can explain yourself a bit better? rehpotsirhc 22:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you worry your little head about me. I was explaining why i am not going to feed trolls on this page. Cut your sarcasm matey. - max rspct leave a message 22:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Capitalism: edits

I removed the first statement "As capitalism means ultimate Individual Economic Freedom" because this is not NPOV. As two counterpoints I can give you the fact that under the existing forms of capitalism, 90 to 95% of population have to work for hire and take orders from someone all their lives. Another counterpoint is that capitalism is founded on private property which is a system of RESTRICTIONS on freedom of other people to interact with various objects in three-dimensional space (this is from property rights economics). In this context, "The Ultimate Individual Economic Freedom" would be anarchy, not capitalism. Bublick439 19:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

That's why I reverted Dullfig's edit. It was extremely POV, not to mention quite inaccurate. -- infinity0 20:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So what would economic freedom be then? A law forbidding people from getting jobs? If people want to work for someone else instead of going into business for himself, and they are free to do so, that's economic freedom. And, your claim that private property is antagonistic to economic freedom is bizarre. If a person does cannot own the product of his labor in what sense can he be economically free? RJII 20:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, stop trying to pick an argument. The guy's just expressing his opinion. You know very well about the counter-arguments against the points you just made. -- infinity0 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to RJII's question, a system that would be closer to economic freedom than capitalism is a system where the majority of people can work for themselves, i.e. not take orders from somebody else and not being controlled by any one individual. Neither capitalism nor socialism fit that description. Participatory economy may fit the bill but it is rather theoretical at this point. My less radical answer would be mixed economy as opposed to pure capitalism. Why? The short answer is because the mixed economies are more "voluntary" being the result of democratic government, whereas pure capitalism can only be imposed by an undemocratic government and thus is very much coercive (examples: Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, The Gilded Age in the USA). Bublick439 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

If there is no private property then how could there be an economy? What is traded in an economy other than private property? Private property is a a fundamental requirement for economic freedom. RJII 02:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And, your claim that private property is antagonistic to economic freedom is bizarre. If a person does cannot own the product of his labor in what sense can he be economically free? (- RJII)

The question of what is and what is not "the product of one's labor" is a subject of much debate. Under current property laws, you can easily own and acquire property that you never worked for, through such mechanisms as inheritance, interest income (government bonds are considered a risk free return), and dividend income. So money does grow on trees after all ;-) Bublick439 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

inheritance is just another aspect of absolute right to private property. More to the point, the absolute right of the deceased to decide what happens to his property when he is dead. It was his property in life, he should decide what happens to it after he is dead. That is why I have a big problem with inheritance tax, because the property was never the government's to begin with, what claim does the government have to the property? it is confiscation plain and simple. Dullfig 06:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Simiarly, please note that "capitalism restricts freedom" is also your POV (and mine too). The current section there is OK I think, and does not make any unnecessary/biased judgements. -- infinity0 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, fair enough Bublick439 20:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

If there is no private property then how could there be an economy? What is traded in an economy other than private property? Private property is a a fundamental requirement for economic freedom.

Who said that there should be no private property? I am for private property, I just gave you the definition of private property from property rights economics, which defines it as a system of restrictions not a system of "freedoms". As for "economic freedom", this term is pretty much useless IMO as it means a thousand different things to different people. With respect to an absolute right to private property, this is a utopia IMO. There are numerous limitations on private property even in the "capitalist" United States: taxes are an encroachment on private property; the antitrust law is an encroachment on private property; eminent domain laws are an encroachment on private property; the formation and expansion of the United States of America was one massive expropriation of private property from Indians and Mexicans. Bublick439 07:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Working "for yourself" versus "taking orders"

MrV back. I've never understood this "working from yourself is taking orders and thus an encroachment on freedom" argument. Everyone earning an income takes orders. You never escape this, especially if you work for yourself. No one selling a service will ever be able to get away with doing it "their own way" -- you do what the client wants. Period. The marketplace dictates how you do your job. When you earn a fixed income from mainly one entity, sometimes called "wage labor" or, more insultingly, "wage slavery", someone else takes those marketplace signals and transforms them into tasks for you. You're not obligated to do any of it. It's just that if you don't, your services aren't worth very much. Do employers impose arbitrary "orders", unrelated to customer demands? Of course. But in order to do so, they have to pay a so-called "compensating differential". No law requires it; it emerges from marketplace negotiations. The claim that "working for someone" is a violation of your freedom is unjustified, and at the very least should not be casually assumed without basis, as is done above. MrVoluntarist 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you guys for an excellent balanced article

I read about "capitalism" in all three major encyclopedias, Britannica, Encarta, and Wiki, and wiki is the most detailed and balanced. I loved the description of the mixed economy and controversies with definitions. This is very close in spirit to the most widely used college economics textbook: McConnell and Brue. Keep up the good job! Bublick439 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

You're welcome. :) I might be wrong, but I think RJII actually wrote quite a lot of it. -- infinity0 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your right. He's a good editor and writer on these subjects. --Northmeister 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been engaged in many disputes with him, so I wouldn't say that. -- infinity0 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well ok then, but I still think he is from my work with him. I haven't been engaged in this article much so I am unaware of the disputes you talk about. --Northmeister 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - he's probably a good editor when he edits things he knows about, but doesn't have a strong view about. -- infinity0 20:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Contrasts with Capitalism: addition

added a mention of participatory economics at the end of the section, as it clearly is a contrast with capitalism in many respects Bublick439 20:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Good one :) I changed "communist" to "other economic systems" to be more generalised. -- infinity0 20:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks! Bublick439 21:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Why is there a neutrality tag on this section? 00:08, 7 April 2006 Starless and bible black 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, the whole section sounds pretty bland and harmless to me. Maybe we should remove the tag? Bublick439 08:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Capitalism could also mean state (see capital punishment)

Capitalism may have different meanings for different people. The defintion of wikipedia may be too narrow in scope. --88.155.0.123 01:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The political and economic senses of the term 'capital' are not the same. Please mind the WP:3RR. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at the sources in the linked Wikiquote article. Pretty much all reference sources agree on the definition of capitalism. There's just minor variations in wordings and accentuations in the various definitions. The definition of capitalism is hardly disputed at all. RJII 02:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is simply the corruption of words. Capitalism originates from the word capital which originally meant head, state or government. --88.155.0.123 03:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. It's called the evolution of language. I don't think it ever meant state or government, though. RJII 03:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, try reading the etymology section at the beginning of the article, 88.155.0.123. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 03:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism is the state of nature and a totalitarian government of all against all. --88.155.0.123 03:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. RJII 04:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Capitalism could also be a synonymous term for state and law.

Could? Is it or isn't it? If it isn't then this text does not belong. Please cite sources in which "Capitalism" is used or described as a synonym of "law" or "the state". -00:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Capital means head but it could be head of cattle, head of state, head of government etc... The death penalty is often called capital punishment. --88.155.0.123 15:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It could mean many things, but it doesn't. It means one thing. If you think it also means other things than provide sources which use it or define it that way. The death penalty is never called "capitalism". -Will Beback 21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Different individuals may interpret the word differently. Capitalism to me means cruelty, violence, punishment, fascism etc... --88.155.0.123 05:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The word does not have that meaning to anyone else that I know of. If that is what the word means to you then you are welcome to include that definition in your own dictionary or encyclopedia. In this encyclopedia we require that information be verifiable. If you can provide sources which support your assertion then we can potentially add it. But we can't do so just because of your own ideosyncratic ideas. -Will Beback 04:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Like many words, the term capital has more than one meaning. This is why dictionaries have separate numbered sections for each different (often completely unrelated) meaning. In the case of capital, one of the meanings is most, as in most important, or most severe (hence we have, capital punishment). In that context, capital is an adjective. Independent of that, capital can also be used as a noun, to denote wealth. It is that form which capitalism is based on, obviously. Having said that, I can't help but wonder how much of the negative connotation associated with capitalism in our culture is derived from a similar misassociation with the adjective capital, and, in particular, with capital punishment. --Serge 17:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Etymology is not identity, folks. The word is not the thing that it names. This is not a pipe. The word "capitalism" has about as much to do with heads, today, as the word "daughter" has to do with milkmaids, or the word "lord" has to do with guarding bread.

(The root of "daughter" is dudh, meaning "milk". The English word "lord" comes from hlaf-weard, meaning "loaf-guard". Likewise, both the economic and political-geographic senses of "capital", meaning goods or center of government, come from caput meaning "head".)

I strongly suggest that anyone who is led astray by etymology consider the following General Semantics practice: Write the word "food" on a piece of paper. Now try to eat that "food". You will soon discover that the name is not the thing. --FOo 05:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism is by defintion competition for property. So according to this definition it really means a violent state. --88.155.0.123 05:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it. Wikipedia is not the place for us to philosophize. We're only allowed to rehash the sources that are out there. If you can't find a credible source defining capitalism as you define it, then there's nothing you can do. That's Wikipedia policy. RJII 06:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, capitalism is by definition nothing more than an economic system in which productive assets are privately held. Violent competition is not a defining feature, nor even a distinctive feature (a society without private property, in name, may well have violent competition for what amounts to property). You, 88.155.0.123, may believe that violence is inevitable in capitalism (just as some believe that chaos is inevitable in anarchy), but even if true that doesn't make it part of the definition. —Tamfang 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that and i respect that. BTW, the word policy is derived from police. --88.155.0.123 06:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who is giving your your etymology lessons, but you need to fire them. Police is from the French policier, which is derived, like policy, from the Greek politia (the state) polis (city) and polites (citizen). --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The adjective in the phrase "capital punishment" clearly doesn't mean "state." There are lots of "state punishments" that don't involve loss of life. The state might fine me for a parking violation. Fortunately for negligent parkers, that isn't "capital" in the penal-law sense! --Christofurio 13:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

enforced, protected, whatever

It should be noted that private property is always enforced/protected by government, by private defense corporations or by private police.

Presumably this sentence was added to make some kind of point, but what? If you protect your property with locks, is that private policing or what? —Tamfang 16:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what the point is. It looks like it might be something from a communist anarchist POV --that it's evil to to use force to protect private property. And, that there would be no private property without that protection. RJII 16:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's borderline WP:OR/weasel wording and adds nothing to the article. I'm reverting back to the previous version. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 20:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the consensus. Ever since Locke, at least, state power has been recognized as a way to protect private property (e.g.: it's less tempting for someone to come steal your apple if the king will behead him for it). Force or its threat is not necessary but is useful for safeguarding property: a lock does not provide or imply force, but holding a gun or shaking your fist does. So does the knowledge of effective police and courts. Moreover, Austrian scholars like Hans-Hermann Hoppe have theorized on the possibility that even the police and courts could be privatized. I don't necessarily think the theory is either interesting or realistic, nor do I think the sentence under question was well written. But I don't think it was POV.--Monocrat 18:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many competing theories of property, some of which would support that statement and some of which would deny it. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 18:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Monocrat. I can't say it was well written, but as for POV, I can see none. Just adding to the definition, as far as I can tell. --Anarkial 17:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

the latest revert war

RJII, do you really want to replace "acting" with "competing"? Most of what a business does is cooperating with customers and suppliers, and we're handing the anti-capitalists a rhetorical point if we seem to say that capitalism is all about competition. —Tamfang 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, claiming each "acts in its own interest" puts it kind of one-sidedly, ignoring the *consumer wants* they try to satsify in the process. It's false, in any case. A capitalist economy can be littered with white-man's-burden type aristrocrat investors who forgo some profits for a greater good. I think it would be more accurate to mention the decentralized nature of the action than classifying it as aiming for a particular purpose. Plus, my usual objection to saying that "it's not capitalism unless over 50% of the value of capital goods is chasing a business profit". MrVoluntarist 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. It's not very clear what is meant by "acts in its own interest." RJII 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one that put "competition" in there. I put the footnote attached to it, though, to try to make it clear what's meant. There should probably be a section on competition in the article. Anti-capitalists apparently see something negative about it, but in actuality it's what keeps prices low and quality high. RJII 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism & free market ecomony

The beginning of the article insinuates that capitalism and the free market economy are more or less inseparable, which is also a very common comprehension of politics in general. I think that's quite wrong, for example Nazi Germany adopted capitalism to a large degree combined with it's somewhat planned economy. --82.183.224.40 18:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A planned economy is not capitalism. Capitalism is a market economy --meaning the prices, production, and distribution of goods and services is determined by the interchange supply and demand. If the state controls these things, that's not capitalism --by definition. Sure, you can have a mix have characteristics. That would be a mixed economy. But, capitalism is definitely a free market system by definition, meaning the market, not the state makes the decisions. RJII 20:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up the concepts of market economy and capitalism. From what I know, capitalism is a system of production (private-owned production, employing workers seeking maximum profit) which has very little to do with the distribution of the products, thus it has nothing to do with supply and demand. Take the USA as another example. They have always been using a very capitalist economic system while they don't appreciate free market economy as much (many republicans believes in protectionism). That doesnt make them less capitalist. --82.183.224.40 23:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In a free market, people invest, save and produce. Which is capitalism. Intangible 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Market economy and capitalist economy mean the same thing. If an economy is a market economy, it's a capitalist economy. And, all capitalist economies are market economies. It just means that the means of production are owned privately and supply and demand guides the economy, rather than the state setting prices, production, and distribution. RJII 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok RJII, imagine a society where all the companies we're collectively owned by their workers, but were still distributing the products through a free market economy and competing with each other. How would you describe that economy? It's not a capitalist economy, though it is a free market economy, thus free market economy and capitalist economy are two completely separate concepts. Capitalism does not have exclusive rights to the use of market economy.

Intangible: a company collectively owned by it's workers can do the same things. --82.183.224.40 02:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

An economy of partnerships. That's captialism. Some industries are already like that: law, engineering consultancies, and probably others. MrVoluntarist 02:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

82, why is the economy you describe not capitalist? What essential element of capitalism is missing? —Tamfang 03:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you're talking about something like "market socialism." That's not what is commonly meant by a "market economy." I don't know how that's relevant to Nazi Germany --businesses in that situation weren't owned collectively by the workers. RJII 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

MrVoluntarist & Tamfang: Why is it not capitalist? Because it doesn't fit into the definition of capitalism, in fact it's more socialism than capitalism. Let me quote directly from wikipedia. Capitalism: "...an economic or socioeconomic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit, mostly through the employment of labour." Socialism: "As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production."

RJII: Of course "market socialism" isn't what's commomly meant with "free market economy", simply because it's not the same thing. Market socialism is a combination of free market economy and socialism. And Nazi Germany is relevant to the discussion because it's a proof that capitalism and planned economy can be combined, which is something that you deny. Both examples points out that free market economy and capitalism isn't inseparable. --82.183.224.40 01:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

82, maybe I'm having a hard time following. You say that in this hypothetical economy, each company is owned by the workers at that company. So workers at company A would not own any of company B and have to pay for its products. That is private ownership. It is not collective ownership. Collective ownership would be where each worker owns a part of all companies, but that was not the stipulation here. Certainly, "collective" ownership as you used it above would not include current corporate share ownership, right? What you have described is capitalism, but with an atypcial distribution of the means of production. I don't know any proponent of capitalism who would oppose such an arragement, assuming it came about essentially voluntarily. MrVoluntarist 04:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is that I don't agree. I think it is collective ownership, and I think you're mixing socialism up with communism. My 100 % personal perception on the basic idea of socialism is that that the worker and the employer on a company should have the same interests. Anyway, I'll quote from the "market socialism"-article from wikipedia (first time I've read it, actually): "Market Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned either by the state or by the workers in each company (meaning in general that "profits" in each company are distributed between them: profit sharing) and the production is not centrally planned but mediated through the market. Its central idea is that the market is not a mechanism exclusive to capitalism and that it is fully compatible with collective worker ownership over the means of production — which is one of the fundamental principles of socialism." --82.183.224.40 14:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then like I said before, most law, architecture, and engineering consulting firms are run this way. The workers own their firm. Does that make them market socialist subeconomies? MrVoluntarist 15:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Quibble – I've worked for plenty of law firms, but haven't seen one that was owned by all of the workers. —Tamfang 18:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's probably because they didn't hire you on until they had been around for a while. They typically start as partnerships, with all partners owning a part of the firm. Later, they hire on new workers.

I'll make the point more explicit. I've never seen a law firm in which non-attorneys were partners. I worked for one that had five partners and dozens of employees on its first day (and three partners and a hundred employees when it dissolved seven years later). —Tamfang 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And how many of those non-attorneys wanted to be partners, including fronting the capital that the other partners did?

Who knows? The point is that professional partnerships (legal, medical, architectural etc) are not owned by all the workers; they are no more or less worker-owned than, say, the restaurant where I washed dishes at age 16. (The owner worked in the kitchen, as assistant to the chef; a waitress once snapped at him, more accurately than she knew, "You think you own the place!") —Tamfang 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If a "real" worker-owned firm hires someone to repair the light-bulb, and, for some reason, doesn't give him equity in the firm as compensation, does that cease to be a worker-owned firm? MrVoluntarist 18:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If the lightbulb service guy is an outside contractor, hired for a specific job, I think the firm-socialists (better terminology invited!) would say that's okay – he's not under any one boss. —Tamfang 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Under socialism, if a worker prefers receiving just the income and not having to buy an equal interest in the firm, is this request denied? MrVoluntarist 16:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By definition, I guess so. --82.183.224.40 15:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you guess your definition of socialism is extremely non-standard and unused. Okay then. Moving on... MrVoluntarist 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My definition? Rather Wikipedias definition, and no, I didn't write those articles. --82.183.224.40 21:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant your definiton of collective ownership that feeds into the socialism definition. People owning their particular workplace isn't socialism. Lots of places are run like that in capitalist economies. Collective ownership doesn't refer to e.g., the ownership of a corporation, even though lots of people own it "together". Collective ownership of the means of production means all people own a part of all means of production. MrVoluntarist 16:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still not my own definition, and apparently it's neither non-standard nor unused (maybe except for some die hard capitalists who refuse to see socialism as anything else than stalinism) as I linked to a wikipedia article (market socialism) which clearly supports my view of the definition of socialism (that it's enough if the workers owns their particular company). You have yet to support your claim with facts. "People owning their particular workplace isn't socialism. Lots of places are run like that in capitalist economies." No country has a 100 % capitalist economy. Just because a few architects & lawyers own their companies collectively doensn't mean their nation's whole economy turns socialist. --82.183.224.40 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't know of anyone who refers to law firms and architecture firms starting out as "examples of socialism". It has nothing to do with an economy being a "mix". No one thinks about these kinds of workplace arrangements when assessing if an economy is socialist. No one considers architecture firms *contributing* to an economies percentage of socialism. It seems to me more like you're just advocating some idea without realizing the extent to which it already exists. MrVoluntarist 18:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, I agree more here with 82 more than with MrV. What do you call those who would forbid wage labor, instead insisting that a firm have no employees other than shareholders, if not "socialists"?

Give me a list of people holding this position. I wasn't aware of anyone advocating mandating this specific form for all businesses. This sounds more interventionist -- mixed economy. Sounds like a form of distributism. I don't know the specifics though, since I'm not aware of any notable advocates of this. MrVoluntarist 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't keep track of everyone with whom I've debated in talk.politics.foo, so I guess you'll just have to take, with however many grains of salt you like, my word that they exist and call themselves socialists, even if I don't know any notable names associated with that position. —Tamfang 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if it's not notable enough to know a prominent advocate, Wikipedia shouldn't have to accomodate such a system in the intro definition. I did, though, recall a person who may meet this criterion: Piet van Eeghen. In this essay (part 1[7], part 2[8]), he opposes corporate share ownership and that all businesses should be partnerships or sole proprietorships. Legal limits do not prohibit, but significantly reduce the attractiveness of significant outside investment, so most people would have to invest in their own firm if they wanted to invest their money. (Though they'd have the option of investment banks and resource speculation.) This sounds something like what you described. Van Eeghen considers himself a classical liberal and strong opponent of socialism. MrVoluntarist 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The doctrine that all the people hold all productive assets in common is state socialism, or communism. —Tamfang 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My point above was that that's imprecise. If each person is a part-holder of all productive assets, and that status is inalienable and automatic, that's socialism. But that's not what's being described here. Here, each productive asset is owned in common by the people who work it. I know of no proponent of capitalism who opposes this kind of arranement as an emergent market phenomenon, if it emerged that way. MrVoluntarist 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

historic capitalism

I'm splitting this section for mere convenience. Tamfang 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the matter with this discussion? Capitalism is rooted in the practices of Britain prior to 1840's, America prior to 1970's, Germany still, Japan still etc. That is Capitalism is inherently a system where private owners or entrepreneurs are given stimulus by their nation to create enterprises that will both hire their fellow citizens and produce the needs of the nation sufficiently. It is rooted in old Mercantilism - which preceded the Capitalist way. Free Marketism is not Capitalism, neither is Socialism. Free Marketism, actually undoes any state sponsorship of enterprise whereas Socialism actually takes over private run firms in production and commerce - Capitalism in its original meaning would do neither - rather it would encourage growth through tax, tariff, and banking regulations. Free Marketism, would allow a nation to lose its industrial base if it is not competitive based on the mis-guided notion of 'comparative advantage' whereas socialism would take over those enterprises that are not competing and make them state run companies - whereas Capitalism would protect the private owned firms from foreign dumping and other practices, extend low interest loans to re-tool and rebuild those firms, encourage the growth of new firms through grants and subsidies etc. Free Marketism would end all social safety nets designed to keep the worker bee's who hold a nation together from falling into poverty due to the cyclical nature of economics - allowing the market to adjust itself and the citizen to fend for themselves until the market does so - socialism would keep the worker employed in failing industry or in most cases simply give a welfare check or compensation until industry picks up (better than Free market approach) - Capitalism would do neither - rather it would employ the unemployed through an FDR style WPA putting such workers temporarily on public works projects to pump prime the economy into growth releasing the worker to private firms that survive the downturn once the economy picks up through the continued spending of those now employed in government service. In other words, Free Marketism is corporation based where money is centered in and based in the hands of the few (check Feudalism) while the many are at the mercy of those few and where wages are driven down in order to increase profits for the few - Socialism is government based where money is centered in the hands of the state for the purpose of state and thus the few who direct the policy of the many (check Feudalism) to the 'workers' benefit instead of the corporations 'stock-holder' benefit; where wages are generally maintained at a high level generally but where innovation is ultimately lacking for advancement due to stagnating interest. - Capitalism is citizen or nation based where money is divided more evenly between the few and the many - whereas the few who are inventive and creative obtain great wealth through their talents and the many who are doing the work of society are maintained through competitive wages offered by the private firms who employ them regulated by a central government who is intent on promoting and protecting industry, high wages, while building infrastructure to encourage commerce and following tax and banking policies through a state directed financial system to encourage production and investment in new enterprises. In other words to make a long story short - Free Market and Free Trade are both rooted in Corporation and Financial control by the few outside of the Government - Socialism is a reaction to the previous where the state centrally plans and controls enterprises for the 'worker' - Capitalism and Protectionism are both rooted in the interest of the Many through the Corporation of the Many namely Government who regulates, protects, promotes growth nationally but does not take over or control enterprises usually as socialism advocates or does when in power - that seeks to promote high wages and full employment rather than low wages and acceptable unemployment levels (3-5% is considered acceptable by this creed of economics) as the Free Marketer's do. --Northmeister 15:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Self-described proponents of capitalism don't support any of these interventions you associate with capitalism; they strongly oppose them. Free markets, in common terminology, are associated with capitalism. Occasional authors like to make a point by using the terms in a non-standard way. So what? MrVoluntarist 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister's definition has history behind it. David D. Friedman (The Machinery of Freedom, p.231) quotes G. K. Chesterton: "I object to his Socialism because it will be . . . devilishly like Capitalism," i.e. what we some of us would call mercantilism. —Tamfang 18:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-described propenents of capitalism forget their history. America never practiced what they today preach - thanks to Hamilton, Clay, and especially Lincoln and Republican Party of old - then to FDR, whatever faults one may attribute to him, who saved capitalism when he could of easily converted the nation to socialism (state take-over of corporations etc.) and did not accept the Free Market approach of 'do-nothing things will get better.' Capitalism in America was never Free Market, ever, until the 1970's when especially Carter began deregulation, Reagan began out-sourcing that Bush-Clinton-Bush have continued. We are living under Free Marketism's heyday, because people don't understand their own history and the result is a shrinking middle class, low wages, high prices, destruction of a manufacturing base that made us the Arsenal of Democracy and capable of Independence - thanks Free Marketer's - Meanwhile real Capitalism as it was practiced in the USA, and is now in Japan and Germany is being forgotten. Remember Capitalism is 'capital' driven whereas Free Markets is a market driven system. I propose that you study Hamilton's three reports, Carey's book "Harmony of Interest" due to the fact he engineered much of Lincoln's and the GOP's game plan for the economy that was eventually described as Capitalist - for it allowed for great wealth and a large vibrant middle class - which is opposite what is happening today due to the free trade - free market orientation of economists who don't understand real economic history as opposed to outdated useless theory that Smith proposed, Say advocated, Cobden con'ed the British into accepting (leading to their decline in power relative to Germany and USA at the turn if Twentieth Century). Again, a free market is not Capitalism and never was. --Northmeister 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's one opinion. Another is that today's economic performance is disappointing mainly because (thanks largely to the income tax) government, directly and through compliance costs, now consumes a greater share of the economy than Hamilton, Clay or Lincoln ever dreamed of. Reagan did little to slow the trend, and Bush the First undid much of that. Most economists, I believe, agree that protectionism (including minimum wage, which was originally conceived to protect White unions against undercutting by Black migrant labor) benefits the few at the expense of the many; the overall benefit is negative but the cost is hard to see, being more widely distributed. Similarly, in Northmeister's golden age[9] the railroads were subsidized (producing corruption and red ink) at the expense of the rest of us, but America throve because despite all that the burden of government was lighter than in the Old World. Much of the investment that drove America's industrialization came from the Old World, by the way, presumably attracted by low taxes. —Tamfang 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is 'despite' your rhetoric the actual facts of history prove otherwise - further it is true the government sponsored the railroads through Lincoln's administration - a national banking system - and protective tariffs that fueled America forward to become the dominant economic engine of the world within forty years. Since the 1970's when America embraced the Free Market approach in opposition to American historic proof; the middle class has shrunk, wealth in concentrated in fewer hands, the nation is dependent on the world for vital products-wages have been declining in real terms per inflation-the dollar has sunk compared to the Euro and other currencies-the trade deficit is at disastrous levels, the Chinese have stolen technology and India is getting those Service jobs so highly sought after by layed off industrial workers and I can go on.--We no longer have the highest standard of living, trail in healthcare coverage for all, do not have high speed rail or other modern means of transport, etc. etc. All this I suppose DESPITE the Free Market by your reasoning. Give me a break, that dog isn't going to hunt forever. But, it is not about what we think, it is about whether the Free Market is Capitalism and I contend by historic standards IT IS NOT - it is a separate market driven system (everyone is a consumer now, not a sovereign citizen who deserves to inherit the land of his fathers and the companies built by his fathers) rather than capital driven (of the mind, labor, and resources) where the land and the resources belong to posterity not foreign regimes or nationals (take a look at how the Free-Marketer's plan to give our Airlines away now-thanks). --Northmeister 01:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to gloat about the deficiencies of the market, you could pick better examples than medicine (the most heavily regulated and subsidized industry of all) and passenger rail service (killed by Eisenhower's Interstate highways). And where do you think inflation comes from, the Franklin Mint?

If you insist on describing the enormous increase in government in the past century as a blind leap into Free Markets, I can't stop you, but could we perhaps stick a bit closer to the subject at hand? —Tamfang 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Capitalism" has an ahistorical definition --it's not describing anything that necessarily exists, but it may. If the US has never had a predominately free market, then it simply wasn't capitalism. If it has, then it has been , or is, capitalism. Otherwise, it is, or was, a "mixed economy." RJII 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "Capitalism" held by some today is inherently wrong if they wish to prove it by historic standards. Smith did not invent that term by the way. What the American economy was and is to some degree today, is by modern terms a "Capitalist-Mixed Economy" that is at the micro level decisions are decided by the law of supply and demand and driven by consumers and business is owned by individuals or groups of individuals (corporations) who have a right to the profits derived from sales - ie. production and sale are not government functions. The government has and to a less degree because of free marketism, regulated those productive and commercial enterprises in regards to worker rights, benefits, etc. and stimulated them in regards to favorable subsidies, loans, banking practices etc. The government has also built the infrastructure of America and in the past protected American enterprise from such discriminatory practices as foreign dumping to kill infant industry or state-run corporations in other nations through protective tariffs or in modern times until deregulation began - regulations and subsidies. Hence at the Macro level much was promoted, encouraged, run if a monopoly like the Post Office, and regulated at the micro level decisions are at the behest of private corporations producing and selling and the demand from consumers. In reality this is Capitalism as traditionally defined and not the free market where government does not make macro decisions. The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is over production and sale control, especially control of production - whereas socialism would tend to control directly or severely indirectly private corporations that produce goods and in communist nations even shops which sell those goods making decisions from the top on what should and should not be produced. The difference between Capitalism and Free Marketism (or properly Marketism) is government has no role in that philosophy and takes no action at the macro level in Marketism whereas in Capitalism governments have always promoted, protected productive and merchant enterprises through banking practices, tariff policy, internal tax policy, subsides or bounties, and quotas to regulate the influx of goods in order to achieve a balance or harmony in the nations economy. --Northmeister 15:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Northmeister this much: completely free markets are not necessary to a system which may meaningfully be labelled "capitalism". Conversely, there may well be room in concept-space for a noncapitalistic free market, though I can't quite imagine it. —Tamfang 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it doesn't have to be "completely" free. That's why the definition says "largely free markets." RJII 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we agree (Tamfang and myself) on a couple of points anyway. I did get somewhat off subject however, just wanted to let my two cents in here about Capitalism, as it is inherently based on Macro promotion and protection by government, and Micro laissez-faire to a large degree with minor regulations pertaining to benefits and worker rights and is sharply contrasted to Free Markets as it is defined at the Macro level and Socialism overall. I agree with largely free markets, I don't think anyone who knows economics would argue against that phrase as a description. --Northmeister 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The only thing one can say about capitalism inherently, in my humble opinion, is that productive assets are privately held. As the existence of anarcho-capitalism (as a school of opinion, I mean, not as an existing economy!) shows, not everyone agrees that protectionism or subsidy is a defining feature. (Look further up the page for my disagreements with an anonymous user over various assertions beginning "capitalism .. by definition"!) —Tamfang 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There are two necessary elements of capitalism. One is private property and the other is a free or largely free market. If the economy has private means of production but the state sets all the prices and production policies, that would be a command economy --not capitalism. RJII 03:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In such a case one could say that the state is the effective owner of the m. of p. —Tamfang 04:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can look at it that way. But, then you are indeed already entailing the idea of a private ownership with the idea of a free market. A free market is a situation where these decisions are made privately. RJII 05:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalist theory & Karl Polanyi

In capitalist theory section too much space is given to Karl Polanyi. I never heard of him before and Google search gives just 163 000 hits. "Milton Friedman" search gives 1 840 000 hits and he is not even mentioned in this section. Also, it seems that Polanyi gave no significant contribution to capitalist theory. -- Vision Thing -- 11:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the paragraph now. But what it says is not unique to Polanyi. Also, Google hits does not necessarily indicate popularity, especially for an obscure subject like history of economics. -- infinity0 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)