Talk:Capitalism/Archive 12

www.Capitalismcenter.org

Why is this link a spamlink? seems relevant to me, I can't understand why it was removed. -- Dullfig 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems more relevant for an article on objectivism. -- infinity0 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of Capitalism to clarify common usage controversies

I am going to go to the dictionary and grab a number of definitions of capitalism. THe wikiquotes reference is not a list of definitions.Mrdthree 16:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Encarta Online Capitalism, economic system in which private individuals and business firms carry on the production and exchange of goods and services through a complex network of prices and markets....The term capitalism was first introduced in the mid-19th century by Karl Marx, the founder of communism. Free enterprise and market system are terms also frequently employed to describe modern non-Communist economies. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576596/Capitalism.html

OED 'capitalism' The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists. http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50032895

OED 'market capitalism' market capitalism Econ., an economic system which supports private enterprise within a free market, the means of production being privately http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00302187/00302187se56

Dictionary.com capitalism- An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists. www.dictionary.com; http://66.161.12.81/search?q=capitalism Mrdthree 16:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A trouble is that capitalism legitimately has several meanings. It can mean a free-market economic system; it can mean any economic system predicated on private investment; it can mean a politico-economic ideology favoring systems like those; it can mean political anticommunism; and so on.

Particularly, there's a legitimate difference of opinion between people who emphasize a free market (and thus, free trade, minimal government intervention), and those who emphasize private investment (and thus, capital accumulation, protection of capital interests). Many people favor capitalism in the sense of protecting business capital, but don't support international free markets, for instance, because they favor protectionism. Someone who favors free markets might call that mercantilism, but the protectionist might see himself as "pro-business" and thus favoring capitalism.

Likewise, Marxists tend to see capitalism as focused on capital accumulation and the interests of the investor class. Marxist analysis actually minimizes the relevance of individual players in free markets, labeling the free-market exemplar -- the small shopkeeper -- as petit-bourgeois and ultimately irrelevant. To the socialist, "free market" is just a code-word for rolling back traditional protections, and thereby exposing the proletariat to greater exploitation by capital accumulation.

(Consider also the Trotskyist use of the term "state capitalism" to describe the Soviet Union. There's nothing free-market about this use of the term: it simply means that capital accumulation is in the hands of state functionaries rather than businesspeople. This is also a meaningful use of the word "capitalism", even though it differs from both the straight Marxist use and the various pro-capitalist uses.)

There's a huge difference amongst political ideologies that favor capitalism, too. As mentioned above, some people who say they favor "capitalism" mean that they support government protection of business capital. (Here I'm thinking of most "pro-business" conservatives, "supply-side" economists, &c.) They want assurance that capital investments will be safe. They want, for instance, subsidies, bailouts, and tariffs against foreign competition. They explain these as aids to the capitalist economy rather than as acts of government control over it. In contrast, free-market supporters (e.g. most libertarians; Austrian School economists) tend to regard these as controls or abuses rather than aids. They consider government support of business capital (corporatism) to be just as corrupting as government opposition to it (socialism). So even people who say they support capitalism can mean very different things by that.

And then there's the propaganda use of the term "capitalism" during the Cold War, on both sides. The terms "capitalism" and "communism" became representative of support for the power structures of the U.S. and S.U. (and China) respectively. Even today, the Chinese government, ostensibly communist, decries "capitalists" while at the same time inviting private investment.

So it's understandable that people will disagree on how this article should define "capitalism". It's not simply a matter of controversy -- it's that people really do use the word to mean very different things! --FOo 03:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Free Market & Wage Labour

M&Ms here;

Sigh...I dont believe that the use of the phrase free market is suitable. Firstly Capitalist economies are not "free". They are subject to certain constraints, as are people in every day life. These constraints are what Hayek (Law, Legialsation and Liberty) sums up as the Discipline of Freedom. For example it is not allowed to sell property that you have stolen from someone else or to sell sex for money (it's possible yet illegal). Where capitalist counties differ from socialist/communist countries is the use of the MARKET PROCESS. It is a concept really but given substance by property law and contract law where producers are free to produce what they want, how much they wnat and at what price to sell it and buyers are free either to buy or not buy. The opposite is the case for communist countries who "command" what is to be produced and limit the buyers choice. As I have already stated at the begining he market process is not free as it is subject to regulations. For example factories that pollute the environment would have restrictions on how much they pollute or might be forced to buy filter to clean thier emmisions. While capitalist economies are to a great extant freer (if there is such a word!!!!) they are not entirely free. Therefore I think it would be more appropriate to use the phrase market process as opposed to free market.

Secondly wage labour is labour in exchange for a wage. Q.E.D. It does not remain fixed. It fluxuates with inflation, booms and recessions, negiotaitions and strikes. Also some labour is paid based on unit produced per hour so if the workers goes above quota then he/she can recieve extra pay. However wage labour is not what strictly defines capitalist economies. Asides from a system of private property rights and contract it is in particular the market process. Wage labour existe in Cuba but because of the limits placed on what was produced the labourer did have much choice on where to spand his money.

M&Ms 02/01/06

A "free market" doesn't mean free to sell stolen property, etc. It means freedom FROM theft and freedom from government interventionism. A law against selling stolen property is not the lack of market freedom --it's the protection of a free market. In a free market, the state intervenes to prevent coercion. Just saying it is a market economy is not enough. And, in fact, your issue about selling stolen property is exactly the reason why it needs to be mentioned that it's a free market. A market economy could include selling stolen property --a free market could not, since all good and services must be transferred on a voluntary basis for it to be a "free market" rather than just a "market." RJII 19:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms, I agree with you on the as-of-yet ill-defined "wage labor" not defining capitalism, but "free market" is a valid, NPOV term to use. It's not asserting any opinion as valid. That term is used because it is what people have traditionally called a certain kind of arrangment. And that in turn arose because they were markets free of certain things, though -- of course -- many people still don't regard "free markets" as "liberating". A good analogy is free convection -- the term arose because the convection is free of macroscopically moving fluid, even though in free convection, heat transfer is much more restrained than with forced convection. And see the discussion about "free fall". "Free market" isn't making any philosophical claim about the nature of that kind of market -- it's just what it has always been called.

And on a side note, I don't even think nearly as many people object to it as you think they do. I was on a socialist anarchist forum one time, and I described my (anarcho-capitalist) views, and I was told "you're not an anarchist, you're just a free market capitalist". I then said "Wait -- you're saying that what I support counts as a free market" and they said "yeah, it's a free market, but not a free society". So apparently, even some opponents of the "free market" regard the markets therein as "free". MrVoluntarist 21:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. A lot of people oppose free markets, and instead prefer what they believe to be "fair" markets (which requires coercion). Check out Fair versus Free by Milton Friedman RJII 21:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms here: You are correct - the stolen property analogy was a bad one. However what about prostitution???? All i am saying is that to define capitalist countries by the free market is subjective. Holland for example allows prostitution in the red light district of Amsterdam. In Ireland however it is outright illegal. Therefore we can infer that while we can call both "free" market economies one is slighty more free than the other in that holland, in certain places, allows for prostitution ( & cannibis consumption) and Ireland does not. The main contention i have is that capitalist countries use the MARKET PROCESS (See Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations with regard "the invisible hand") and socialist economies do not. Wether you call this market process a free one or a slightly constrained is a subjective term as the word free is a subjective term. What can be said is that it is more free than socialist markets.

Is then the search for "fairness" all a mistake? Not at all. There is a real role for fairness, but that role is in constructing general rules and adjudicating disputes about the rules, not in determining the outcome of our separate activities. Fair versus Free] by Milton Friedman

It is the construction of general rules which give coherence to the market process and make it more or less free. But not either extreme in its entirity. I think using the term Market Process is not subjective and is by its very nature a more free from of economy than a command economy. All im arguing is the subjectivity of the term free. Also it appears that Friedman does not prefer "fair" markets but opposes them. He does not mention what "others" prefer. 03/01/06

The problem with defining capitalism solely on the basis of the market process is that you end up with a definition that is far too broad. All but a handful of past and present countries used some sort of market to distribute goods. By your definition, M&Ms, something like 99% of all countries in history - to be more exact, every country except the 25-ish Communist states in the last century - were capitalist. That's way too much. Capitalism must be defined in terms of a free (or at least mostly free) market, and wage labor. Of course, wage labor isn't unique to capitalism, but it is important in distinguishing capitalism from feudalism (just like a free market is important in distinguishing capitalism from socialism). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 19:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Offhand I doubt that any one person has come up with a perfect definition of capitalism, let alone a universal one. The best we can do is identify distinct definitions or classes of definitions and ascribe them to verifiable sources and, by providing several different approaches to or definitions of capitalism — and, by not claiming that any one is better or more "real" than the others &mdash: comply with our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's insane. You know how many definitions we would have to list? The list would be endless --definitions from every malcontent academic and his brother. An encyclopedia has to take a stand. The stand we have decided to take is exemplified by the common mainstream definition provided at the head of the article. That definitions is in general agreement with all popular definitions. It will never be perfect so there will be eternal "edit-warring" over the finer points of the definition. But, that is no worry. To the contrary, it's good --anything static assumes infallibility. (By the way, anyone who is looking to write something that lasts really shouldn't be on Wikipedia). RJII 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, do not get hysterical. It is not our job to "take a stand" by enshrining one POV. "NPOV" is not insanity, it is policy. But, RJII, if your point is simply the obvious one that we cannot have an infinite number of definitions, I agree. I propose a finite set: definitions that represent businessmen, economists, other social-scientists (predominantly sociologists) and historians (specifically, historians of capitalist societies of course). That is four. If within one of these groups there is a major source of contention, it is our responsibility in writing a good encyclopedia to provide an account of it (e.g. "Among economists there are two major models...," or "Sociologists are divided over whether ..." I think we can easily manage this - and it would have the advantage of complying with our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That doens't make sense, because all of the popular definitions are in general agreement --capitalism is a system where the means of production or privately owned and operate (for profit), with goods and services distributed by trade in a free or mainly free market. Any other obscure definition you find is going to pale in comparison to the popularity of that common understanding. Any such obscure fringe definitions should definitely not be in the intro. RJII 02:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms here (again); I'm probably opening up another can of worms here but if you click on the free market link in the capitalism article and read through the new article you will come across a a paragraph that starts off with;

Since no national economy in existence fully manifests the ideal of a free market as theorized by economists and ethicists, the term free market economy is used for a nation state's economy that approximates the ideal by virtue of having a government that engages in little or no interventionist economic regulation.

While i never attempted to debate the fact that the term free market was not something that people used to generally define a capitalist economy I would ask you how can such a term be appropriate? The answer is the market process. Unhibited market economy equates free market. I just thought a more full (and factual - i am doing my best to provide a NPOV) would include the term (market process) in defining capitalism. The treatment of the market process leads to the particular kind of economy, whether it be command or free market. And to Nikodemos i would say that yes the term is broad but a few lines such as the paragraph i have quoted above from the free market link would lead-off from introducing the term market process to the article.

I wrote that sentence you cited, actually. A truly free market could only take place in completely laissez-faire situation --an anarchist society, but we don't normally speak in the absolutist sense of a free market when we used the term. Anyway, does not the term "free market" itself signify a "process"? A market is not a stagnant thing. Maybe you could say "through the operation of a free market" or something like that. RJII 15:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII keeps switshing his arguments. First, he claimed that I was suggesting adding an almost infinite number of definitions; I countered that I thought it could be around four (and it goes without saying possibly fewer). Now he says that since there is a popular definition, we should not include scholarly definitions. This is absurd. Such an anti-intellectual has no place in an encyclopedia. For an encyclopedia article to ignore the work of scholars is just outlandish. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Scholarly definitions" are irrelevant in regard to how we define capitalism in the intro, unless those "scholarly definitions" accord with the mainstream popular definitions. The definition of capitalism is so widely agreed upon, that any fringe definition should not be in the intro. Every disgruntled university professor has his own definition. Just because he puts in in a "scholarly" paper we're supposed to put it in the limelight? I don't think so. RJII 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the amount of debate here, I find it hard to believe your contention that there is a single popular definition. Even granted that one exists, there's nothing saying that this page can't include more than the popular definition. Your insistence that this encyclopedia must 'take a stand' is confusing. Are you saying that we don't have room for more than one opinion? Or that any opinion other than the one you subscribe to the popular opinion is wrong or irrelevant? Tenebrous 06:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at various reference sources for yourself. The wording may differ a bit but they say pretty much the same thing. There is undoubtedly a mainstream definition. I'm not saying do not include another definition if you can find a notable one that differs significantly, but rather, I'm saying don't represent it as a mainstream definition. And, probably, don't put it in the intro to give the impression that it is one. RJII

Could someone please define "wage labo[u]r"?

I've seen multiple conflicting definitions, and none of them seems to fit, either because of ambiguity, redundancy, or plain old POV. Please provide a source. MrVoluntarist 01:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms here; Googled this definition of wage labour

A wage is the amount of money paid for some specified quantity of labour. When expressed with respect to time (usually per hour), it is typically called the wage rate, and is specified in pre-tax amounts. It is often the main monetary item upon which the worker and the employer focus when negotiating an employment contract. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_labour

Perhaps it is ambigious but I think the proposition is an objective (or positive proposition as the economists would say) so I dont see a problem in defining wage labour as labour that works for a wage. It is probably to distinguish it from income in kind, barter or of some communal production and distribution system(which technically is income in kind). It suits capitalism because with a such an economy (given enforcement of property and contract rights) people are allowed buy and sell what they want so there is a greater need for a universal medium of value to act as a store of value so the individual can avail of his/her right to buy or not to buy. I dont see a need the definition could go beyond that unless a particular ideology takes a particular slant but that another story. (Hope i was of help)

M&Ms -- yes, I already looked on Wikipedia. The problem, as you see, is that wage labour redirects to wage. So I don't know what the compound term means. I hope you see the cirularity. Wage labor is labor working for a wage, and a wage is an amount paid for labor. If you say "wage labor" is part of capitalism, instead of introducing such an ambiguous term, why not say "workers are paid for labor under capitalism"? MrVoluntarist 14:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think "wage labor" is a Marxist term, so it's not used very much. But, yeah, "workers are paid for labor" would be more inclusive. Communists don't think people should be paid for their labor no matter if it's a wage, salary, or commission. RJII 15:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

They are paid a wage, specifically - money per unit time of labour. Infinity0 ^talk 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait -- so your point is that capitalism is defined by payment per unit time of labor? I'm afraid that is in no standard definition, not even left-wing, not even Marxist definitions. (To see the point more clearly, do you agree that if migrant farm workers were paid per fruit picked instead of by how long they worked, that would still be capitalism?) That's original research right there. So do you now agree that "wage labor" is not part of the definition of capitalism, as you use the term? MrVoluntarist 18:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A wage is the amount of money paid for some specified quantity of labour. is what it says on wage. I just said time, I was too specific. Infinity0 ^talk 19:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then let's talk about what you do mean. When you say capitalism has wage labor, what are you saying? You're saying that in capitalism, wages are paid for labor. And what is a wage? Money paid for a quantity of labor. So what is unique or a defining aspect of capitalism is that... drumroll please ... labor is paid with money. Is that what you're claiming is a defining aspect of capitalism? Is that what you and perhaps Marxists mean when they refer to wage labor? Labor being paid with money? Is this what Marx got in a huff about? MrVoluntarist 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Labour is paid (ie. compensated) for with a pre-specified amount of money, as opposed to what the labour really earns (the profit it gathers for the employer). Read what SlRubenstein wrote below. Infinity0 ^talk 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What? You just agreed that paying labor money is wage labor. Now you're saying that it's only wage labor if the employer collects a profit on it. Can you see why I'm having trouble understanding now? That is definitely not a remotely NPOV term because, among other things, it assumes a certain formula about when the employer is "profiting" versus "paying the labor what it's really worth. That assumes a theory of value. In other words, miles from NPOV. Out of the intro, period. MrVoluntarist 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the payment isn't always "pre-specified". There are bonuses and raises. Plus, you neglect to mention that employers don't get a refund if they can't sell the product due to, e.g., market shifts. MrVoluntarist 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you're saying that it's only wage labor if the employer collects a profit on it. - no, I'm not. Wage labour is labour paid for with a wage. What else do you think it could be?? Those bonuses you speak of aren't part of the contract and entirely at the discretion of the employer. Infinity0 ^talk 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinity0 -- you're switching between definitions repeatedly without, apparently, realizing it. Let's say an employer paid a wage for labor and sold the product strictly at cost and thus could not keep a profit. Is that still wage labor? Remember, they were paid a wage. MrVoluntarist 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms; You said; "why not say workers are paid for labour under capitalism?". And what are they paid? Not goods or services but Money! Only labour that is paid money (and not income in kind) is wage-labour.

Labor is not paid in kind in communism either. It's not paid at all. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In communism, you are paid for your need, not your labor. RJII 15:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Marx and Engels use the term "wage-labor" to refer to the commoditization of labor (this may sound like jargon, but it is important to them because their analysis of capitalism starts with their analysis of commodities). They mean that labor itself is now alienable, up for sale. In other words, they are distingushing between an artisan, who labors to produce something (say, a sweater, or a chair) and then sells that commodity at the market; the price of the sweater or chair is determined by the law of supply and demand. But it is the chair or sweater that is being sold and bought. With wage-labor, it is the labor that is being sold and bought (surely, everyone here has heard the term, "the labor market") and the price of labor that is subject to the law of supply and demand. For Marx and Engels this leads to both a metaphysical problem (that one's labor is alienated - this is pratically a spiritual problem for them, working out of a Hegelian framework); it is also an economic problem because - they claim (you can disagree if you want, many have disagreed, I am only summarizing their claim) that the price of labor, determined by the law of suppply and demand, is generally lower than the value that the labor in question adds to the commodity that will be sold in another market (the market for chairs or sweaters, say). The amount of labor a person sells is measued by time, but of course it is not time the worker is selling (since the worker does not own time) but labor (since a worker - in a free society - owns his or her own power to work). They specifically use the term "labor-power" rather than "labor" for a variety of technical reasons which many not me necessary to go into. But basically, they point out that when someone punches in to work in a factory for say eight hours, anything they labor on or produce belongs to the owner of the factory (or owners). So they use "labor-power" to refer to the potential to produce goods not yet produced. I think they use "labor" by itself to refer to specific forms of labor, in other words, actual rather than potential labor. When someone sells their labor-power they are selling their potential (which of course eventually becomes actual). I assume that Marx and Engels did or would distinguish between wage-labor and salaried labor, but maybe not. I think many sociologists see wage-laborers and salaried workers as belonging to different classes, but Marx and Engels may not have made such a distinction. I write this not to pick an argument. I assume most people working on this article reject these views. But remember, our jo is not to judge whether a view is right or wrong, it is to present a view accurately with verifiable sources (and, for the sake of NPOV, provide opposing or alternate views as well) Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, if you read this, can you help with Template_talk:Did_you_know#Markup_Bug.2C_please_fix? Thanks Infinity0 ^talk 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I got out of that: 1) You and Infinity0 have given me about four different definition of wage labor, so no one will know what it's referring to. 2) The assumptions underlying "wage labor" as differentiated from other labor are confined to Marxist circles. Given those, and that there's no page for "wage labor", you cannot possibly justify putting it in the intro. Put in the "Marxist perspective of capitalism" or something, but definitely not in the intro. MrVoluntarist 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but when it comes to editing my motto is "Be bold!" Slrubenstein | Talk 21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

When it becomes clear that something doesn't belong, and you keep re-inserting it again and again, that's not "being bold", that vandalism. Just some advance notice. MrVoluntarist 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Your description of what constitutes vandalism is factually inaccurate. I would also suggest that you re-read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; I have some problems with some of your edits on that front. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, this is what it says: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." Now, if you're going to allow the "intent" loophole, nothings vandalism because we can't read minds. But it's clear to Slrubenstein that what he's doing is POV, and he doesn't care and will insert it anyway, that's "deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". And what edits are you talking about? I haven't edited this article in something like a month... I'm not even in the first page of the revision history. Honest question -- do you have any idea what you're talking about? MrVoluntarist 14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, while you are getting prissy and threatening, RJII actually made a constructive edit that at least I think is fair. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's just been reverted by a guy who follows me around Wikipedia reverting my edits simply because they're mine. RJII 21:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, I just reverted back. I don't want to get in a revert war myself. perhaps Max rspct can explain his/her reversion? It seemed to me thaat RJII's edit was simply more economical (no pun intended) and didn't change content. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms here; RJII i do not deny that "Labor is not paid in kind in communism either". I was only replying to MrVoluntarist who asked could we not just say that labour is paid a wage under capitalism. Now I'll admitt that i was straying away from my original point about wage-labour being defined as money for labour (more specifically money per unit time*time = wage. When this form of payment is given in exchange for an individuals efforts it is wage-labour. Also I stand by my original argument that wage labour is not an essentail defining characteristic of Capitalism.

Everyone, please keep in mind that we are not discussing the merits of the underlying issues, but what is or is not suitable for the article, and why. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the reasons I gave at all? I am completely aware of this. Nowhere did I say anything along the lines of "Marx is wrong, so that doesn't belong." My reason for removing wage labor-terminology is because 1) it's completely ambiguous what it means (Infinity and Slrubenstein give conflicting, time-variant definitions), 2) there's no article to tell people what it means (it redirects to wage), and 3) some definitions given assume a minority POV. Where in that do I debate the merits of capitalism or Marxism? All of that speaks to what belongs or doesn't belong. I have always been okay with talking about "wage labor" where it's confined to "Marxist perspectives" or whatnot. Please re-read my complaints. Thank you. MrVoluntarist 14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is no way the term "wage labor" should be used in the definition. That term is Marxist jargon. Use neutral english. RJII 15:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to claim that a perfectly straightforward term like "wage labor" is Marxist jargon. No basis whatsoever was provided for that statement. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "no basis was provided"? I think you mean "you didn't find a basis" which means "you didn't look for a basis". Please read the last few sections of this page please, where this was discussed extensively. Here's a test -- you tell me what is meant by "wage labor" and if it contradicts Infinity, Slrubenstein, or the definition of "wage", it's out. MrVoluntarist 17:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, wage labor refers to any situation in which an individual worker engages in work for an employer in exchange for a given wage (or salary). It does not refer to self-employment, profit sharing, capital income, or other such forms of financial remuneration. This is how I understand the term and it is how the term is commonly used. You may be familiar with some arcane Marxist use of it, but I see no reason why we should not use it in its plain English meaning. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting that's Marxist jargon? It's just two english words put together to form a phrase, like "race car", "cargo plane", "computer virus". Just think of wage labour as labour paid for by a wage, simple as that. Infinity0 ^talk 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's say an employer paid a wage for labor and sold the product strictly at cost and thus could not keep a profit. Is that still wage labor? No, because that's not a wage. The cost depends on what the product is sold for and is not pre-specified. Infinity0 ^talk 16:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The wage is pre-specified. The employer buys the labor. He refuses to accept an amount of money for it that would result in profit. But you would not call that wage, even though it's pre-specified. It's clear you're not using it as two words smashed together. It carries baggage about exploitative relationships and how much "keeping" constitutes "profit". MrVoluntarist 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The amount of value he is willing to give in exchange for the labour is NOT pre-specified - not based on the quantity of labour, but based on the value of the product. So it's not a wage. Infinity0 ^talk 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you've lost me. What is "pre-specified"? What's is "based on the value of the product"? Here's what the employer does -- he offers $X for labor. He buys the labor. He sells the fruits of that labor (the widget or whatever) for $X + material cost. The labor cost determined the price. He made no profit. Yet he paid a "specified amount" for the labor. That's not wage labor? MrVoluntarist 17:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In your first scenario, the employer cannot offer $X for the labour, since he does not know how much he can sell it for, to not make a profit. The scenario you just made up, where "he offers $X for labour", is a wage. Infinity0 ^talk 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In your first scenario, the employer cannot offer $X for the labour Sure he can. MrVoluntarist 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How can he be sure he "could not keep a profit" then, which was the second premise in your scenario? Infinity0 ^talk 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Because maybe (like I said before) he sells it at cost? If you mean to say output prices influence (labor) input prices, welcome to The Marginal Revolution! That has nothing to do with this though. The employer estimates how much he can sell it for. He bids for labor accordingly. He sells such that he doesn't profit. How does this affect the status of the labor? When you say "pre", what is it before? Before he goes into business? Before the beginning of time? MrVoluntarist 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's a wage. But then you can't say "could not keep a profit", since he may or may not make a profit, since it's a free market and prices change and are unpredictable. "Pre" is before the worker starts working. Infinity0 ^talk 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he "could not keep a profit". I said he "would not keep a profit". You can always sell below the market price, remember? And since he's not keeping a profit for himself, that should keep it under the market price, right? MrVoluntarist 18:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC

Oh, ok. Well in that case yes, it's still wage labour. What's your point? But, if he does make a profit, and he doesn't keep it for himself, where does it go? To the worker? Infinity0 ^talk 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So, whether or not it's capitalism depends on how much workers get paid. That's not even in the same country as NPOV. MrVoluntarist 05:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's "how" workers get paid, not "how much". Like I've been saying for the past ever. Infinity0 ^talk 13:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, I don't know of anyone at all who defines capitalism in terms of "when you specify a payment for labor". If I "pre-specify" a roofer a payment for fixing my roof, is that wage too? Ambiguity again. MrVoluntarist 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Fixing your roof" is done once, not repeatedly. These flawed "counter-examples" are getting tiresome. Infinity0 ^talk 19:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What's getting tiresome is having to navigate around your ever-changing conception of "wage labor" which amounts to "labor relationships I don't like". You never had the part about once vs. repeatedly in your original definition. This is about the fifth time you've shifted. So apparently, capitalism is defined by "workers regularly providing labor to the same person and having their payment specified before the end product is sold" ... sorry, no. Good luck finding a definition of capitalism that says anything about that. MrVoluntarist 19:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. I thought you knew that wage meant repeatedly, since that's what it usually means. Infinity0 ^talk 20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is precisely the kind of debate on the underlying issues that we should try to avoid here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

WHAT are you talking about? This isn't a debate about the "underlying issues". No one's debating if Marx is right. I pointed out that the term "wage labor" includes certain assumptions about how much payment consitutes a "wage" and thus, certain theories of value. Infinity's responses confirm this! It is not a neutral term. MrVoluntarist 16:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with Infinity0's recent comments about wage-labor. What is crucial is that the employee and employer believe they are entering freely into an agreement in which the employee agrees to put his abilities at the disposal of the employer, usually for a defined period of time, in return for money. Whether this happens once (let's say, all other workers are slaves or indentured servants) or all the time, it is still wage-labor. For Marx and Engels, it is when this arrangement is the norm that one can speak of a "labor market" and wages (like prices in any free market) are determined by supply and demand — and this is a defining feature of capitalism. I am not sure what else Infinity0 is referring to - perhaps the "putting-out" system that Adam Smith as well as Marx and Engels refered to? In any event, Marx and Engels have an argument for why when there is a labor market workers will be exploited, but it is the existence of the labor market, not the exploitation, tht is at issue here. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't call a one-time payment a wage. That's all. Infinity0 ^talk 20:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I do not understand what you mean by "one time." If you pay me once in order to pain your house, and I spend a week painting your house, are you saying that the one payment you gave me is not a "wage?" I think this is the problem with this example, and if I am right this may clear up the misunderstanding between you and Mr.Voluntarist. In colloquial English, it can be called a wage. However, in the example I am providing, the painter is an artisan or craftsman (or perhaps he would be called an "independent contractor") who owns his own tools and in this example would not be a member of what Marx and Engels call the working class or proletariat. If you pay my boss to paint your house, and he pays me to do the actual painting, then that is definitely a wage and an example of wage-labor and I am a proletariat. Even if right after doing the job I quit and never work again, that is, even if I was payed only once. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, once y'all settle this internal dispute over what wage labor really means, you can come back to me and explain why it's obvious to almost anyone who would read Wikipedia. MrVoluntarist 21:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Enough Rand-related illustrations

Who is John Galt? Uh, sorry. This is not the Ayn Rand article. Yet we've got one illustration that is a portrait of her, and another that's a photo of the cover of one of her books. That's overkill. One or the other of those illustrations should go. --Christofurio 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please remove them. They've annoyed me for a while too. 172 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Take the book out then if you have to take one out, because there's no person more notable for promoting self-interest in capitalism than Rand is there? I can't think of anyone else's picture that would be more appropriate for that section if there is going to be a picture --not that there has to be a picture there. RJII 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We should be careful not to give the views of fringe thinkers more prominence than they deserve. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view specifically states: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Although it's easy to get the opposite impression when online, the fact is that Ayn Rand is simply not that influential in either philosophy or economics. Serious academic discussions of modern capitalism would include figures like Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, and James M. Buchanan. Rand would not be included. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's got to be the understatement of the year (though it just started). Do you realized how many books of Ayn Rand's are sold each year? Her influence is extensive. Who hasn't heard of Ayn Rand? Everybody knows that Rand is pro self-interest and pro-capitalism. How about a quick Google test: Milton Friedman: 1,810,000, Ronald Coase: 138,000, James M. Buchanan: 92,100, Ayn Rand: 2,060,000. It looks to me like she's more influential than all those combined. I know what you're going to say, most colleges don't teach Rand, but education and influence of society consists of more than what happens in college. A group of academics writing papers to impress each other is hardly more influential than one is is selling books by the millions around the world. Even Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve was heavily influenced by Rand (wrote an essay in one of her books, even), and through him her philosophy certainly has a huge influence on the economy of the U.S. and by extension, the world. And, the list could go on ..there are many others, especially business leaders who have been influenced by Rand. RJII 14:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Google searches are often a good way to address notability, but in some cases, such as this one, the system breaks down. There are a lot of issues where the online consensus seems wildly at variance with the real world, and this is one of them. I reiterate: libertarianism and Objectivism have a prominence online far out of proportion to their popularity in the real world. The libertarian candidate for President routinely gets less than 1 percent of the popular vote; we have no libertarian Congressmen or Senators (I suppose you could consider Ron Paul, although he is nominally a Republican). I've never even seen someone run for office as an Objectivist. Nor does the average man or woman on the street know who Rand was. You may reply that the average man or woman on the street could not name Friedman or the other economists either, and I would agree. That's why I think we should focus on serious academic sources; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all. And the fact is that most of academia considers Rand a fringe crackpot. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Take it to the "real world" then. Compare how many books all those people have been sold. Rand leaves them in the dust. Someone is more likely to have an Ayn Rand book in their home than any of those other names you mentioned. By the way, most libertarians are not in the U.S. Libertarian Party. Economic libertarianism is pretty mainstream. RJII 16:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect most of those Rand books in the "sales" figures wind up right back on the shelves. Scientology boasts huge figures for books sold; if you went just by that, and by their Internet presence, you might think that this tiny cult was a major world religion, on par with Christianity or Islam. Nothing could be farther from the truth, of course. I see no reason to believe that the Rand sales figures are any different, considering the utter lack of real-world influence. Sure, plenty of politicians talk up laissez-faire policies - and when they do, they usually bring up Friedman or some other academic economist, not Rand. I've never once heard a national US politician bring up Rand or Objectivism. The fact is that she had no impact on US politics and no impact on US academia. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, businessmen run the economy in capitalism, not the government and not academics. (I did mention that Alan Greenspan was an early Objectivist and wrote an essay in Rand's book Capitalism the Unknown Ideal (I know what you're going to say..the Federal Reserve is technically not part of the goverment, right?)) RJII 16:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I bang my head against the desk whenever I read a post of yours, Crotalus. First, does Al Gore count as a national US politician? [1] (search for Rand). Second, do you have any basis for your allegation? The Scientologist tactic is well-documented. No one has ever seriously alleged Objectivist fake sales. MrVoluntarist 17:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A letter from Ronald Reagan: "Dear Mr. Vandersteel: Thanks very much for pamphlet. Am an admirer of Ayn Rand but hadn't seen this study. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan." [2] Ayn Rand ...massive deregulation of the economy. See a connection? RJII 17:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ron Paul, Republican Congressman: "To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive – and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government." RJII 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Rand is as valuable and important a source on "capitalism" as Marx. To achieve NPOV it only makes sense to provide the two most extreme views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is superficially appealing and does make some sense. But I feel that it is an inaccurate comparison. Dozens of governments in the 20th century have claimed to be Marxist. How many have claimed to be Objectivist? Again, I think that being active in Internet discussion often tends to give an exaggerated view of Rand's influence. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How many governments have claimed to be Hayekian, Smithians, Chydeniusians, Austrian's (austrian school, Chicagoan's (Chicago school, etc.? None, but does that mean they haven't significantly influenced ideas on capitalism? Anyway, capitalism isn't a government system, it's an economic system. Those actually operating private economies (businessmen) are who you need to query. Government, by definition, doesn't operate the economy in capitalism. RJII 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Under modern capitalism, government most certainly is a major player. Furthermore, it is government that determines the ground rules under which capitalist activity takes place, and the extent to which a mixed economy will lean towards or away from full capitalism. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The complete opposite of that is true. In capitalism, the government is NOT a major player. It engages in minimal interventionism. That's what is meant by "free market." If there's a lot of intervenionism then it's not capitalism ..its'a mixed economy. For example, the U.S. State Department says the U.S. is a mixed economy. [3] So do many textbooks. RJII 04:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to capitalism as it actually exists, not as you might wish it should be. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If you assert that it exists, in the article, that's POV. Not everyone believes it exists. What you call a capitalist economy is what someone else calls a mixed economy. You can't just pick out a country's economy and then define capitalism by describing that system. The definition comes first. THEN you see if a particular economy fits the definition. RJII 04:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Must we include a statement in the intro to the Earth article indicating some people think it's flat? Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - fringe POVs don't need to be given the same prominence as those with widespread acceptance. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Earth" has a specific definition. To find out if anything fits that definition you look around for something that has those characteristics. You can't just pick out an object at random, and call it "Earth." "Earth" has already been defined. Likewise, with capitalism. You can't just pick any economy out an label it capitalism --you have to see if it fits the definition. What country are you looking at to base your personal definition on? Don't you see how absurd that is? RJII 04:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded quotes

We currently have a paragraph-length quote from Robert Hessen, a Stanford grad student, opining that only laissez-faire is true capitalism and that the mixed economy is not a form of capitalism but its opposite. What is Hessen's claim to prominence? I think we should reconsider both the inclusion of this quote and the length of the accompanying section, as per the NPOV policy listed above. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

He looks pretty credentialed to me, if that's the criteria you're looking for: [4] "He received his B.A. from Queens College, his M.A. from Harvard University and his Ph.D. from Columbia University. He taught in the Graduate School of Business at Columbia until 1974. Since then, when he joined the Hoover Institution, he has taught in Stanford's Graduate School of Business." I don't know what you're saying there though. Of course a mixed economy isn't capitalism --that's why it's called a mixed economy. Capitalism is laissez-faire by definition. RJII 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hessen's In Defense of the Corporation is an important book, like it or loathe it, and is oft cited in the debates over the rights-bearing "personhood" of corporations, etc. You're being too restrictive in your notions of notability, Crotalus. --Christofurio 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, that sounds fair to me. The original text simply cited him as a Stanford economics graduate student, but it appears he does have genuine notability in his field. Objection withdrawn for this instance. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Opening statements

To claim that only laissez-faire is true capitalism constitutes an insertion of Objectivist POV into the article. In common parlance, the United States and other advanced First World economies are considered to be capitalist, but they most certainly are not laissez-faire. To claim that only this hypothetical system is real capitalism (and, conversely, that all of the problems with existing capitalism can be shrugged off on this basis) is a hallmark of Objectivist and Libertarian fringe thinking. I do not know what is written on Wikisource, but it cannot override the common use of the English language that our readers will understand. Ironically, communists often make similar claims, arguing that the Soviet Union and other such disasters were not "really" communist. It's an example of how the opposite extremes, while bitterly opposing each other, often use the same methodologies and fallacious thinking. (World War II is a clear example of this.)

It is also unnecessary to use the term "socialism" in conjunction with a reference to the mixed economy; "government involvement" is a more neutral term. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a hobby horse for your anti-government views. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Some people call the U.S. capitalism. Some call it a mixed economy. All I'm saying is to be NPOV we can't assert either. By the way, saying that US is a mixed economy is not restricted to libertarians. The US State Department says it's a mixed economy. [5] So do many mainstream economics textbooks. For example [6] [7] Lots of people don't consider the U.S. to be capitalism --because they use the mainstream definition of capitalism --a free market (laissez-faire) system. RJII 05:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Contrasts with capitalism" section

I think that the entire "contrasts with capitalism" section should be removed as POV and original research. The only actual citations given are from Karl Marx, where capitalism is explicitly contrasted with Communism. The rest of it is just opinion, and highly debatable opinion - it is clear POV to say that "capitalism can be contrasted with various kinds of mixed economies", when most people would consider mixed economies to be a form of capitalism. This is just another attempt to smuggle in the "unknown ideal" crap through the back door. I'm renaming the section to "Capitalism and Communism" and removing everything but the sourced information, as per Wikipedia:Cite sources and the above listed policies. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

First use picture Marx VS Thackeray

In the Article it says Karl Marx first used the word "Kapitalist" in 1848 and Thackeray used "Capitalism" in 1854. Even though the articles specific name is "Capitalism" it would make more sense to put a picture of Karl Marx on the page instead of Thackeray, especially since (when searched) "Capitalist" is redirected to "Capitalism." Any objection to the change? --Taboo Tongue 20:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I object. That section is about etymology. The first use of the word "capitalism" that we know of is from Thackeray. Anyway, Marx wasn't the first to use the term "capitalist." RJII 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

laissez-faire

I have a mainstream source for laissez-faire economy being a synonym for capitalism: "Among the synonyms for capitalism are LAISSEZ-FAIRE economy, private enterprise system, and free-price system. In this context economy is interchangeable with system," -Barron's Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms. So, stop removing the note that capitalism is also called "laissez-faire economy." RJII 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

One is not enough; the point is that's POV. Saying "pure capitalism" is laissez-faire is something everyone can agree on. Also, "public services" is not intervention. Infinity0 ^talk 23:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing POV at all about saying that capitalism is laissez-faire. Did not Adam Smith advocate a laissez-faire system? Adam Smith's philosophy is supposed to be the classic description of capitalism. Capitalism is, by definition, laissez-faire. What do you think "free market" means? It means laissez-faire --a market free from government interventionism. RJII 23:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And, yes public services are intervention. It's government-directed, rather than privately directed investment. RJII 23:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Adam Smith did not advocate a laissez-faire system. He recognized the existence of market failures. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Laissez-faire, in common usage, does not mean absolutely no government intervention (unless you're an anarchist). Adam Smith advocated laissez-faire --that the government should only intervene if absolutely necessary. Nice cheap shot the other day, by the way, with the 3 revert thing. I'll remember that. RJII 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Laissez-faire most certainly does mean no government intervention. That's what separates it from less stringent varieties of capitalism - such as the mixed economy that is prevalent in most advanced industrial nations today. As for your other comment, you may remember or forget what you choose. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't mean absolutely no government interevention. Merriam-Webster dictionary: "a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights" Total lack of government interference would be anarchism. And, a mixed economy is no more form of capitalism than it is a form of socialism. It's a mix, so you're defining it wrong when you say a mixed economy is "largely capitalist." RJII 15:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Laissez-faire" is taken to mean totally unrestricted, which would narrow your definition to "capitalism has never existed". In what way does "public servies" interfere with the economy? Infinity0 ^talk 23:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "restricted"? What's an example of such a restriction? RJII 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You said in your edit summary that "what government monopolies? no government has a monopoly on any industry" I suggest you take a look at United States Postal Service --it's illegal to compete. The U.S. has less government monopolies than a lot of other countries, though. RJII 23:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It is fact though that there has never been a complete separation of government and economy. If you want advocation of that .. I suggest you go and edit the anarcho-capitalism article -- max rspct leave a message 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my mistake. I didn't think of that type. I suppose you should go add it in then. Infinity0 ^talk 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you say what you mean by "social services"? RJII 03:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant things like a health service, transport system, water supply, etc. Infinity0 ^talk 17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of a awkward term then, because businesses also provides social services. Government-owned means of production (or enterprises) covers that. RJII 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Any source for most economies are "largely capitalist"? RJII 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't know what else to call it. Public services maybe? Infinity0 ^talk 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Most modern, first world economies? Sure, go look at all the corporations out in the world today. Infinity0 ^talk 17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

And, look at all the government intervention and state-owned industry in the world today. RJII 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot less than the corporations... I don't see the problem of saying "largely capitalist". Infinity0 ^talk 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's unsourced. It's just a guess to say most modern economies are "largely capitalist." I'm sure it would be no problem to find people saying that most are largely statist. RJII 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"largely capitalist" is a ambiguous term. I suggest "modern first world countries accommodate more aspects of capitalism than other countries", subject to tweaking. Something like that.  Run!  21:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. RJII 15:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, you strangely removed the link to private sector. When it says investments are determined privately, it means that investment of capital is determined by the private sector rather than by the state. RJII 20:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to what, private individuals?? "Private sector" isn't really that useful extra information. Infinity0 ^talk 20:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to the state. Individuals are part of the private sector. Everything that is not the government is the private sector. If the state directs the investments, it's a planned economy. RJII 20:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Equating "privately" with "private sector" makes it sound like the whole private sector is acting through that one individual. The whole private sector doesn't determine anything. To put that link there as privately would be really out of place... Infinity0 ^talk 20:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Private sector" is exactly what is meant by "privately." It coul interchangeably say "investments are determined by the private sector." Investment is not determined by government but by the private sector --the private sector is the totality of everything that's not government, all of the businesses and individuals deciding for themselves what they're going to invest in. RJII 21:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And you removed the term "operation" of a free market. Maybe there is a language problem. Operation just means "function" or "mechanism" in this context. RJII 20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's much less bloated now, isn't it? The word is unneeded. Infinity0 ^talk 20:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Planned and command economies

Not the same. see War economy and military Keynesianism -- max rspct leave a message 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It didn't say they were the same. It said a command economy is one where State plans the economy. You throw around the term "POV" to frequently. What POV is supposedly being pushed? All I'm doing is defining a command economy as a contrast to a capitalist one. RJII 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism might well (have) exist(ed) in fascist states, but that does not imply that Capitalism is not an opposite to a command economy. Perhaps the paragraph in question should be edited to include why they contrast (or do so more clearly). Run! 21:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. My experiences with Max_rspct is that he thinks that the Nazi economy was a capitalist one while at the same time he recognizes that it was a planned one. So, he's having a dilemma --as you could imagine. RJII 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not the right word to put in. The term opposite or exact opposite is for colouring books. Perhaps it is the bourgeois state perfected -- max rspct leave a message 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The state is not neccessarily a non-human, self-guiding entity -- max rspct leave a message 22:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The state is force --that's what makes it a state. A capitalist economy is "self-guiding" --there is no central authority directing or coordinating it. It is the combination of millions of decentralized independent decisions that cause the economy to "self-organize." Do some research on self-organization. RJII 22:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha... The state is force. Are u obsessed with force and power? As for your capitalism - another threadbare definition. Try and do some research on capitalism. Self-guiding?? What about government, ministers, quangos, and economic interventionism for a start. -max rspct leave a message 22:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What else makes something a state than that it has a monopoly on the use of force? A capitalist economy, by definition, has minimal economic interventionism. If there's no state coordinating the economy then how does it get coordinated? It coordinates itself. It's called self-organization. Organization in the system emerges without external guidance. Proudhon, though not a capitalist, described the concept of self-organization another way: "Liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order." Adam Smith described it in yet another way: "the invisible hand." Hayek described it by the term "catallaxy." In the U.S., for example, the government doesn't coordinate how food is going to become available, but somehow there's plenty of food available at the stores. A non-statist economy organizes itself as the result of millions upon millions of decentralized value judgements and interactions. RJII 22:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Again what about the Irish potato famine, Slavery existing in capitalism (inside the free market!!) and things such as interest rate control, tax sigh the list is endless and always changing. Read the section i just added to in this article -max rspct leave a message 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There are no slaves in a free market. In a free market, everything is voluntary. The Irish potato famine wasn't caused by freedom. RJII 00:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No it was caused by capitalism and the actions of those who benefited most from it. What about state subsidies, lobbying etc etc etc . YOur arguments just don't stand up RJII. Your conception of capitalism is lacking -max rspct leave a message 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

How could it have been caused by capitalism when it wasn't even a capitalist system? There was massive government interventionism in the economies. Prove that capitalism caused the Irish Potato Famine. The burden is on you. And, is it your position that "capitalism" caused the Phytophthora infestans infestation that ruined the potato crops? I can't want to for your explanation on how capitalism caused a mold. RJII 15:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is just a difference of definition, that's all. Max rspct's version makes it clear which capitalism is opposed to planned economies. Infinity0 ^talk 12:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, while I agree that the Irish famine was not necessarily a direct result of capitalism, there are definitions of capitalism which do not mention a free market, which is an ideal in any case, and not something which ever actually exists.

As for slavery and other forms of unfree labour, they are perfectly compatible with capitalism in historical situations where capital cannot obtain enough free labour. See, for example, the way in which the British colonies in North America relied initially on indentured labour, and this was superseded by the more extreme form, chattel slavery. Or the initial reliance of the Australian colonies on convict labour. Indenture, especially the form known as debt bondage, is still common in South Asia. If you are going to say that those societies, in those periods, were/are not capitalist, there are plenty of people who would argue with that as well. Grant65 | Talk 02:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The notion that capitalist societies only work when there is "suficient free labor" is the usual leftist baloney. That is why you have people going around saying that the reason the US is rich is because it exploits "client" states. The period when the US had the closest thing to laissez-faire capitalism was during the 19th century. I can already hear you say "well, yes, that is when you had slavery!". But here is where the argument falls flat on its face. Slavery was confined to the southern states. The north had no slaves. By your theory, the south should have been rich, and the north not. Unfortunately the exact OPPOSITE existed. The states with the most freedom had the highest overall standard of living. the south was very poor. By the way, during the 19th century, when the country came closest to laissez-faire, the US managed to go from a backwater agrarian colony, to an industrial powerhouse, so rich (by comparison) that people where comming from all over the world to live here. -- Dullfig 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I'm not saying that capitalist societies only work when there is "suficient free labor"; I'm saying they work with slave/unfree labour as well. By what theory should the southern US have become richer than the north as a result of slavery? Not mine. The argument is that southern planation owners resorted to slavery because they were unable to attract sufficient indentured or free labourers, not that slavery is innately more profitable. Grant65 | Talk 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus horridus and Ayn Rand

Crotalus, you removed mention of Ayn Rand with the explanation that she's "fringe." Nothing could be further from the truth. She's very mainstream and one of the most popular philosophers. RJII 21:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Rand is most certainly not mainstream. If you mentioned Rand's name in most philosophy classrooms, you'd be laughed out, just as if you mentioned creationism in a college biology class. The fact that she sold a lot of novels does not make her an authority on philosophy or on economics; her views on those matters are almost universally rejected by experts in those fields. Nor is Objectivism politically popular in the real world; not even Republican free-market boosters will discuss doing away with the modern welfare state entirely, as Rand wanted. The best you could dig up was one off-the-cuff comment by Ronald Reagan (who had a penchant for saying unusual things from time to time [8]) and a criticism by Al Gore in which he accused his opponents of holding these extremely unpopular views. Oh, and Ron Paul, which I already gave you, but he's definitely an outlier. Rand seems much more popular than she actually is because libertarian philosophy in general is far more prevalent on the Internet than in real life. In reality, Rand is a fringe figure with a small but devoted cult following, considered by the mainstream (those who have even heard of her) to be a crackpot. This is no different than L. Ron Hubbard or Lyndon LaRouche. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha, yes, college classrooms, those bastions of right-wing thinking... -- Dullfig 22:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Her views on capitalism are very far from the normal views; that's what is meant by fringe. Infinity0 ^talk 22:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

She's pro-capitalism and opposed to government interference in trade. And, she, thought that pursuit of self-interest was a good for the economy --this was also Adam Smith's position. That's mainstream. What exactly about her views on capitalism is not "normal" and "fringe"? RJII 23:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The extremity of her anti-regulation, and the view that government should have no role in anything economical. And how she thinks all that is objectively justifiable. Infinity0 ^talk 00:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you've been, but opposition to economic interventionism is mainstream today. RJII 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

oh boy; Just because today most economists will call a mixed economy "capitalism", does not mean that capitalism means government intervention. No country was ever truly 100% Marxist either, yet no one ever called Marx fringe. Marx represents the goalpost on the left, Rand is the goalpost on the right. Let's call apples, apples. True unadultered capitalism is laissez-faire. Anything else is mixed. The reason most governments run mixed economies, has more to do with the tendency of governments to want to concentrate power (statism), not because mixed is a good idea. -- Dullfig 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus referenced Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche when justifying the removal of Rand, but it doesn't give any justification that I can find about why Rand should be removed. MrVoluntarist 00:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The relevant findings of fact are as follows:

• Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".
• Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.

Although this second finding was applied to LaRouche, I do not see why it should not apply to other fringe figures like Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard who also have a devoted cult following.

Furthermore, WP:NPOV specifically advises not to give too much weight to fringe sources. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone here is aware of those policies. I just got an article deleted on those grounds. All you had to say is "Wikipedia is a not a vehicle for advocacy". You didn't have to reference that decision. You do, however, need to show how the Rand references constitute such -- the first time around. This is like the juvenile tactic of responding to an argument with "strawman" and then, only begrudgingly, explaining why the argument is a strawman. MrVoluntarist 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to talk about a "cult following" and "fringe," there's a whole section on Marxism in this article. RJII 02:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No matter how much you disagree with, dislike Marx I don't think you can classify Marxism as "fringe" or "cult following". I would be happy to explain further if you wish, but I don't think that it will be necessary. - FrancisTyers 18:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you earlier brought up the subject of google hits, "Marx" gets 21.5 million, "Marxism" gets 5.3 million. Plus, the average person has almost certainly heard of him, and could probably even give you a mangled idea of what his economic thoughts were, since the US has put so much energy into demonizing him. Contrast with Ayn Rand. She herself may be notable, but her economic philosophy is not: most average people don't know about it, fewer care, and she is not taken seriously in academic circles. Tenebrous 07:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

HUH?! Rand's ideas fringe? you have an entire political party (libertarian) that holds that the government should stay completely out of economic decisions. Where do you find these ideas "fringe"? The political spectrum invariably ranges between complete laissez-faire capitalism, to outright communism. Those are the extreme of the scale. Each government decides where they are going to move the slider on that scale (actually there is another scale going from full government intervention to none). Maybe there are no countries with complete laissez-faire capitalism, but then there aren't any with full Marxist comunism either. If Marx is going to be mentioned, then Rand should be mentioned too. -- Dullfig 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Marx has at least 100 times more followers than Rand. There are hundreds of parties based on Marx's ideas all over the world. How many parties are based on Rand's ideas? The American LP is not Objectivist - Rand opposed it, in fact. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rand sells a few hundred thousand books every year. How many people do you see buying the Communist Manifesto? I think Rand has a larger effect on the mainstream than Marx, including on people that have never read her. I've been branded an Objectivist several times here on Wikipedia just because of the character of some of my edits, but I just bought my first book a few days ago to see what all the commotion was about. RJII 05:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

by the way, the fact that most people can't make a convincing case for capitalism, but can make a mangled case for Marxist ideas, just means that our schools are doing a terrible job teaching our kids what capitalism is. You would think that living in a capitalist society, we would be teaching our kids what capitalism is... -- Dullfig 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, a clear case of insufficient indoctrination. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

When I arrived upon this article like a year ago, capitalism was not even defined. The intro was a discombobulated mess. This article had no clue what capitalism was, at all. One could not determine what capitalism was by reading the article. It was pathetic. There was so much resistance to my efforts due to lack of knowledge and confusion, that I had to bring these people to their knees to get a definition in and create sections for each characteristic. So, you're right. Schools are doing a terrible job at teaching what capitalism is. RJII 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's set aside the critique of the education system. Karl Marx belong in this article not because we want to champion his ideas, but because he is one of the most influential people in history, for the reason that he opposed capitalism. If you write an article on capitalism and make no mention of any faults or criticisms, that is not a balanced presentation. If you write a section on the faults of capitalism and/or its critics, then it would be hard to justify not including Karl Marx: in both a positive and negative sense, his ideas have had a huge impact on the history of the world. He is not included because he's an extremist. He is not included because The Communist Manifesto sold XXX copies.

As far as the inclusion of Ayn Rand's ideas goes, the article on her makes a good case for not including her, in my opinion. She appears to have been primarily a philosopher, and unlike Marx, not a particularly influential one. She may deserve a footnote, but if the only thing that the article has to say about her is that she agreed with Adam Smith except for one small detail, that is not a strong argument for her inclusion. Tenebrous 04:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that Rand was not influential when Alan Greenspan, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, arguably the most materially influential financial person in the world (up until being replaced a few days ago) was a member of The Ayn Rand Collective? RJII 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"No leading research university in this tradition considers Rand or Objectivism to be an important philosophical specialty or research area, as is documented by Brian Leiter's report." from the Ayn Rand article. Greenspan is the most influential economist in recent history, but he is certainly not the most influential economist of the century. Just because one person considers her to be important does not mean she is notable. It's a logical fallacy, along the lines of 'appeal to authority'. Greenspan himself is far more notable. Let's get his views on the subject. Or Hayek's. Tenebrous 22:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Maxrspct deleting sourced material

I noted that laissez-faire economy was a synonym for capitalism and provided the source of the Barron's Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms but maxrspct is deleting it. He even claims it's POV which is odd, because capitalism is defined in terms of a free market --a free market is laissez-faire. RJII 18:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Barron's Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms: "an economic system in which (1) private ownership of property exists; (2) aggregates of property or capital provide income for the individuals or firms that accumulated it and own it; (3) individuals and firms are relatively free to compete with others for their own economic gain; (4) the profit motive is basic to economic life. Among the synonyms for capitalism are LAISSEZ-FAIRE economy, private enterpreise system, and free-price system. In this context economy is interchangeable with system." RJII 18:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this; that is not a good enough source to go in the intro, and to put it up there is to introduce POV. Unless you want to include "wage-slavery system" in the intro too? Infinity0 ^talk 18:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What POV??? That capitalism is a laissez-faire system? It already says that in the definition --"free market". A free market is a system where government doesn't engage in interventionist coercion, but simply ensures an orderly market. THat's what laissez-faire is. RJII 19:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Laissez-faire literally means NO intervention. Infinity0 ^talk 19:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't --it means minimal intervention. Merriam-Webster defines laissez-faire as "1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights." American Heritage Dictionary: "1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws." So, where is the POV? There is no POV issue; it's just a lack of knowledge on the part of some of you guys of basic definitions. RJII 19:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The POV is that it asserts the definition of capitalism which has minimal intervention. Capitalism has always existed with intervention. It's a fringe view that it hasn't. Infinity0 ^talk 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism doesn't mean a system with no intervention. It means a system with 'minimal intervention. What do you think "free market" means? Capitalism is widely understood to be based in a free market. What is a free market system? A laissez-faire system. Merriam Webster defines capitalism as :"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." That's laissez-faire! RJII 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism isn't necessarily minimal intervention, though. It includes a "free" market, but that could very well be significantly regulated, though not controlled. Your definition means capitalism has never existed, which invalidates the origins of the word. Infinity0 ^talk 19:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether capitalism has ever existed. You don't understand how economic definitions work. Definitions are abstract. For example, a monopoly is defined as a situtation where there is only one provider of a particular kind of good --no competition exists. But, who would dispute that a situation where a firm had 98% of market share was a monopoly? A free market by definition has absolutely no interventionist regulation, yet capitalism is defined in terms of a free market. You're just supposed to know that economic definitions are abstract ideals. First you have a definition, then you look at any particular existing system and see if it corresponds closely enough to the definition to be reasonable called by that name. If the system in the US is reasonably close to a free market (laissez-faire), then it's capitalism --if it's not reasonably close then it's a mixed economy, and so on. RJII 19:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's assuming capitalism IS a free market economy, which is false. Capitalism includes other things too. Saying capitalism equates to laissez-faire is as much POV as saying capitalism equates to wage slavery. Infinity0 ^talk 20:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism IS a free market economy. Capitalism is whatever the definition says it is. Saying capitalism is also called laissez-faire econnomy is no more POV than saying that Merriam-Webster defines it as a free market system. It's not POV at all. I think your reasoning may be a little screwed up here. It seems like you're looking at a particular economy then labeling it capitalism, rather than looking up the definition of capitalism then looking at an economy and see if it accords with the definition. Am I right? That's backwards. Would the US economy be capitalism no matter what was happening? Of course not. It's either capitalism or it's not, and the way to make that determination is to know the definition FIRST. RJII 20:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, the word capitalism was first used to describe the system where the people with large amounts of capital controlled and owned the MoP. Free-market is a spin off from that. Many people think that wage labour is more part of capitalism than free-market. Add neither or both. Infinity0 ^talk 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That definition is obsolete. Mere private ownership of the means of production is no longer a sufficient condition of capitalism, according to modern definitions. Meanings of words change over time --you need to change with them so you can communicate. RJII 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, many people still think of wage-labour as being more part of capitalism than free market. Infinity0 ^talk 21:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Then they're wrong, as can be seen by a survey of definitions. What a word means is contingent upon common usage. If you say a word means something else, you're simply wrong. RJII 21:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's only POV. They are a significant part of people (most leftists), and in common usage, everybody who isn't extremely right-wing recognises the wage labour employer-employee relationship in capitalism. Infinity0 ^talk 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything is POV. But, it's mainstream POV, which by default is the correct definition of capitalism. Words are defined according to common usage. Obviously, you're wanting to inject some type of fringe Marxist POV instead of making the article accord to the mainstream definition. And, you have the gall to call my push for the mainstream definition POV. How dare you. RJII 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow man, chill out. Why don't you go out into the street and ask anybody whether their boss paying them a wage is part of capitalism or not? It's not a fringe view. Infinity0 ^talk 21:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's fringe to not accept that capitalism is defined as being based on a free market (laissez-faire). It's obvious by surveying the mainstream recorded definitions. RJII 21:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying, if laissez faire deserves to be in the intro, then for the same reason, so is wage labour. It's obvious by asking anyone off the street. Infinity0 ^talk 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not all you've been saying. You said that saying that capitalism is a laissez-faire system is POV. But, it's not. That accords with the mainstream definition. Capitalism is defined as a free market system --you can't have a free market without laissez-faire. RJII 21:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's where we disagree on definition. I don't think of capitalism as necessarily having a laissez faire market economy, because otherwise it has never existed. Infinity0 ^talk 21:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Has a free market economy ever existed? RJII 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the way other economic systems are defined, such as socialism, or communism. Have those systems existed as defined? Those are defined abstractly as well. Whether such a system has existed is totally irrelevant in regard to what the definition is. Definitions of economic systems are IDEAS --abstractions. They are not necessarily descriptions of something that exists in the real world. Maybe capitalism exists, or it doesn't. Maybe it existed before but not anymore. Maybe it's yet to exist. But that is all irrelevant to the definition. RJII 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But capitalism is different. The meaning evolved out of a circumstance, not a theory. I know that you say the meaning has evolved, but not in most people's minds. No ordinary person believes that capitalism is fully free-market. It tends towards it, which is why "free market" is a good description. Laissez-faire is only a more extreme version of capitalism, just like communism is a more extreme version of socialism. Infinity0 ^talk 22:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Capitalism as it is defined today originated in theory. Adam Smith was describing how he thought things should be, not how they are --he was arguing against mercantilism. And, what he was describing is a generally laissez-faire system AND what he was describing is widely understood to be capitalism. "Free market" and "laissez-faire" come down to essentially the same thing --a marketplace with minimal government intervention. In fact, "free market" is more extreme than "laissez-faire." A free market is absolutely free from government intervention, whereas laissez-faire is minimal government intervention: "1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights" -Merriam-Webster. So, you're reasoning just doesn't make sense. RJII 03:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case

See this arbitration case. [9] "No decision was reached in this case - the original dispute appeared to have long been resolved (an article "definitions of capitalism" was created and linked from the opening paragraph of capitalism) and healthy amounts of interaction were occuring between the disputants (see e.g. recent edit history on capitalism and recent discussions at its talk page.)"

Thus, the arbcom dropped the case since alternative definitions were linked explicitly. Thus, this should be restored.Ultramarine 19:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good way to start an encyclopedia by saying the topic is defined in various ways. It's too wishy-washy. A good encyclopedia takes a stand. So, I restored it, but in a more presentable encyclopedic way. I sourced Wikiquote and put it in the references. RJII 19:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Regading your arguments for not presenting the alternative definitions, they were presented to and rejected by the arbcom. Your are still ignoring the conditions for dropping the case, the introduction still only gives one definition and there is no hint that this is very disputed.Ultramarine 19:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. I demand you cite the arbcom rejecting that. And, you're wrong to say the definition is "very disputed." That's not the case. Quite the contrary --the general definition is widely accepted as anyone can see in Wikiquote. That's why I am a strong supporter of a link to the definitions there --to put a rest to false claims such as yours. RJII 19:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The case was dropped since the opening paragraph linked to an article presenting the many alternative defintions. This is no longer true.Ultramarine 19:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that put the BOX there recently after it had been deleted. I want a link to the definitions. You're arguing against the wrong person. RJII 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The article misleading gives the impression that there is only one undisputed defintion. Please restore the situation that the arbcom found correct.Ultramarine 19:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The definition is not disputed. Pretty much everyone agrees with that definition. All one has to do is look at the definitions in Wikiquote. They don't use exactly the same wording but they give the same general definition. Anything that differs significantly is fringe. There is a source link to the definitions on Wikiquote, as well as a big BOX there that links to it. You have no basis for complaint. RJII 19:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously false, one has only to look at the different definitions used. If you argue that the wikiquote box is the same as the version endorsed by the arbcom, then you should no have objection to the restoration of that version. Added tempalte.Ultramarine 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If I had it my way, there would be a big box across the top of the article that said "See definitions of anarchism in Wikiquote." What I have a problem with is the style of the writing. I don't think it's good form to start out an encylopedia saying "capitalism has been defined in various ways" especially when the various ways pretty much agree. Look at every encylopedia out there --capitalism is defined --a stand is taken. RJII 19:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The arbcom found nothing objectionable to stating that there are many alternative defintions.Ultramarine 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any big problem with it either --I'm not going to fight it. I just prefer not to say that --it's wishy-washy --doesn't make for a good encyclopedia article. Of course it's been defined in various ways --so has everything else. RJII 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. Then you will not again revert if I change the text? Ultramarine 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but I'll take out the unsightly "See definitions of capitalism in Wikiquote" or something like that. Just the footnote to Wikiquote is fine. RJII 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Not acceptable. This gives the impression that there is only one definition that is not disputed. Please do no repeat your earlier arguments.Ultramarine 20:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If it says "capitalism has been defined in various ways [1], but in common usage it refers to..." ? You would have a problem with that? I don't understand. RJII 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The text does not state this, it currently without doubt states "In common usage[1], the word capitalism means".

I know that. RJII 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The template will remain until the situation that the arbcom found acceptable is restored.Ultramarine 20:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying put the thing about being defined in various way it you want. I just think it's a silly, because the differences in definitions is small. As far as the template being there, I couldn't care less. RJII 20:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Brazil, Argentina Capitalists?!

Excuse me if this comes across as POV, but I need to counter some of the slanted comments that have been made.

Brazil and Argentina Capitalist economies? Ha, ha. don't make me laugh. It always amuses me when (certain) people try to use third world countries to show that capitalism doesn't work. Anyone interested in the subject of why third world countries are poor should read a book by Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, called "the Mistery of Capital". Let me sumarize (and I have lived in Argentina, and I know what he is talking about):

Home ownership

these countries do not have a robust legal system protecting private property. It is very common for low income people to not have title to the house they have built. They start out as squaters on public lands; pretty soon they gather bricks and mortar and slowly build a house (usually takes them 10-20 years). But then, they are unable to get title to the house, or the procedures are so convoluted, that it is nearly impossible. So after all that work in building the house, they are unable to convert it to capital by mortgaging it. The house is only useful in keeping the rain out.

Corruption

This happens a lot; a family decides to sell tacos in front of their house, to make ends meet. The tacos are pretty tasty, and business is good. If you lived in the US, you would think the next step would be to open an actual restaurant, increasing your income. But in places like mexico, there are SO many rules and regulations, and there is always an inspector hungry for payola, that it is too much of a hasle to go big, so people stay small, efectively limiting their earning potential.

Hernando de Soto did a test where he tried to open a clothing store in Peru by the book. In other words, he tried to follow all the rules. After a year he had not yet secured all the permits necessary. Of course in real life no one waits a year to open a store. You need to feed your family. As the years go by, you have broken more and more laws for longer and longer times, so that you can never grow too big, or you will get caught.

Government intervention

Every new government thinks they know the cure for the economic ailments of the country, so they keep changing economic policy, sometimes 180 degrees from the prior government. As a result, business are very reluctant in making long term investments. You might go out of business with the next minister of economy.

Central banks

Argentina has a central bank that is wholy owned by the government, not like the Federal Reserve Bank. Every time the government needs to pay the national debt, they start cranking out Pesos, resulting in runaway inflation.

In sumary, the reason third world countries are so poor has a lot more to do with inept governments and lack of freedom than with Capitalism. Dullfig 07:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So, it's the governments' fault for letting companies hire sweatshop labourers, not the actual companies themselves. Right. Infinity0 ^talk 11:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the third world capitalist countries are poor because the first world capitalist countries invaded them and colonised them and made their whole population slaves back in the 19th century. Infinity0 ^talk 11:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, even if true, this does not exlain why the capitalist countries got richer in the first place so they could enslave them. Anyhow, here is some interesting views on these nations:

Argentina [10]

Brazil:[11]

Compare to:

Chile:[12]Ultramarine 14:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

They enslaved their own people first? Also, I don't see the relevance of those pages. Infinity0 ^talk 17:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

>>So, it's the governments' fault for letting companies hire sweatshop labourers... Question : what where the workers doing before they got hired by the "sweat shops" (a politically charged term) ??? Did they get rounded up at gun point? did they give up a lucrative managerial position to go work in the "sweat shop"? NO! they where largely unemployed, and most are grateful to find a job. There is nothing wrong with sweat shops, as long as the country is moving forward, and new opportunities present themselves. Someone has to sew all those shirts, right? Dullfig

What were the company owners doing before they got ownership of the company? Oh yeah, being born. You're totally missing the point. The corporations are exploiting the workers needlessly. What else can the workers do apart from getting the only source of money available? Die? The country is moving forward, compared to what? All motion is relative, and compared to the corporations, the country is moving backwards. Infinity0 ^talk 17:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If there were no corporations, then they have to continue to live on agriculture and occasionally die from famine like before. How can the workers be exploited when the alternative is worse? Ultramarine 17:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not in a position to give a thorough answer to this; but if the workers owned (by contract, given, etc) part of the company which they worked at, there would be no exploitation. Infinity0 ^talk 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen : anytime there are no alternatives open to a job-seeker, you need to suspect government intervention. In a free society, with a free economy, nothing prevents one of those "opressed" workers from opening another sweat shop next door. After that, several things may happen:

• Corporate thugs come and beat you up : Either the government is complicit, or the thugs will go to jail. In this case, the defining variable is the Government.
• The guy will not be able to compete because of heave taxes and regulations : the governemnt again..
• The bigger company may undercut your prices : Two scenarios here,

1. The company undercuts your prices, but still makes a profit : good for them and the consumer!
2. The company undercuts your prices at a loss : contrary to popular myth, companies, no mater what the size, cannot run a loss forever. As soon as they put the guy out of business, they will need to raise the prices, plus some more to make up for the loss. Immediately there will be great incentive for another competitor to spring up. Unless the big business gets subsidy from (drum roll please) the government !!

Like I said, poor countries have a lot more to do with inept, statist governments than with who owns the means of production. -- Dullfig 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, poverty prevents those oppressed workers from opening another sweat shop next door. Also, that still doesn't stop oppression, since if they become succesful and hire wage labour, they'd become exploiters themselves. It is also blindingly obvious that you cannot compete with equal opportunity against a massive corporation. Since you're not actually responding to my points (sweatshop labourers could be paid much much more), instead spewing out market fundamentalist bullshit, I'll spam out some exploitation theory.

• The employer does nothing but steals all the products of labour. He now "legally" owns the labour products.
• The hired worker keeps nothing but does all the work. He sells his labour to his employer for a price, the wage.
• The employer uses his labour to generate more profit, which should rightfully go to the worker, since he is the one who has done any actual work.
• The employer is making a profit from this, since if he was making a loss he would not employ the worker.
• It is in human nature "to transform nature". By taking away someone's work, you are dehumanising him.
• By allowing labour to be traded like a commodity, you dehumanise the point of life - to create things.
• Exploitation does not require dissent. Exploitation is taking away from others what they deserve. Consent is irrelevant.
• Ownership of the MOP does not justify ownership of its derivatives (the products of labour). Only labour can justify ownership; otherwise everyone has a claim to everything, since we have all used someone else's stuff at one time or another.

Infinity0 ^talk 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The tired old argument that the economy is a zero-sum game and that for every winner there must be a loser. Actually, both the capitalist and the worker can be a winner by expanding the economy. Ultramarine 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Also the old argument that the capitalist does not work. Even if he does nothing except chosing where to place capital, this is very complicated and essential. That is the difference between a waste of resources and gaining new and more. Ultramarine 20:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How is that arguing that the economy is a zero-sum game?? The economy is very much not zero-sum, since labour creates value. Infinity0 ^talk 20:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing this implicitly. You are arguing that work will always create something of value. If so, you are right that the worker has the right to everything produced by him. By doing so you ignore that in the real-world work may be wasted or valuable. The role of the capitalist is make the work of others as valuable as possible, for which he takes a just fee.Ultramarine 20:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Investors don't do that. Managers do that, and they don't always own (part of) the company. Infinity0 ^talk 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Investors certainly decide where to place capital. Which can be very complicated and risky. For example, most new companies fail.Ultramarine 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

But they create nothing, nor do they improve the productivity of others. Infinity0 ^talk 20:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, they place capital which is very complicated. For example, the capitalist has to decide whether coppar company A or B should get capital, each having differnt mines. One of them may never produce more than it consumes. Even if both may create resources, one will do so more efficiently. Choosing the best alternative is very complicated. Ultramarine 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How does that justify him taking the products of labour? What to do with his capital is his own choice; taking other's labour isn't. Infinity0 ^talk 21:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at it this way. The "capitalist" labors to create a job. The employee compensates him for that labor by voluntarily paying him a portion of the product of his own labor when he contracts to take the job. If a laborer wants to keep the entire produce of his labor, he'll have to create his own job (which is a laborious procedure in itself). Agreeing to let the employer profit, is actually the employer purchasing the job. The employer sells the job to the highest bidder in a free market. RJII 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how long and how hard does an investor work to "create a job"? Infinity0 ^talk 20:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Try it and find out. RJII 20:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just paid my cousin to sell lemonade on the street corner. I got half the profits for doing nothing, yay! Infinity0 ^talk 20:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would guess he didn't have the capital himself, correct? Where did you get the capital? You worked for it, right? Therefore the creation of the job is the result of your labor. If you really created the job, you will have bought the supplies, conducted marketing research, etc. But, again, simply investing takes labor --not only because you have to labor to get the money to invest, but because the investor takes a risk. He asks to be compensated for laying his savings on the line. If the lemonade stand is unsuccessful, you could lose your capital. So you could make a deal with your cousin --he pays you part of the sales to compensate for the risk you're taking. Do you feel that you should be obliged to let others use the product of your labor for free, even though you might lose it in the venture? That's capitalism in a nutshell. RJII 20:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Creating" the job doesn't give me the right to own everything the job produces.

The investors make the choice of investing, not the worker; if they felt they'd lose, they wouldn't invest, so it's not much of a risk. There is no difference between loaning out capital and loaning out money; banks charge an interest for loans, not ownership of their clients.

In a normal employer-employee relationship, the employer takes the products. The employee does not sell his employer anything, since a-he doesn't own it in the first place, and b-he is given a pre-specified wage not based on product made. Infinity0 ^talk 21:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"If they felt they'd lose, they wouldn't invest, so it's not much of a risk." Do you realize how many investment ventures lose? Most new businesses fail. And, if the employee is not willing to "sell his employer anything" --such as a portion of his produce in exchange for the job, there is always someone else that is. The more of his produce he is willing to sell is a function of how many others are competing with him for the job. And, willingness to compete is a function of how valuable the job is percieved to be to the potential employee. RJII 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If the workers owned their tools then the whole of the potential earnings from their labour would be compensation for the risk they took upon borrowing capital. I see no reason why the capitalist has to assume this responsibility as a middle-man. Infinity0 ^talk 22:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The capitalist has to assume the responsibility simply because he's the one with the capital. He's the one that has saved up his money and wants to let others use it that need it and be compensated for the risk of doing so. You say "If the workers owned their tools then the whole of the potential earnings from their labour would be compensation for the risk they took upon borrowing capital." That's true. Did you know that in the United States, most businesses are sole-proprietorships? That means most business are owned by the "workers" --they are one person with no other employees. They own their own "tools." Capitalism doesn't mean the worker doesn't own capital. RJII 01:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Most new businesses fail because the ideas are shit. If workers borrowed capital instead of working for a capitalist, they'd be more cautious. Also, do you have any statistics on how many new businesses fail? Most businesses are small businesses, but small businesses make up a minority of the economy, since the big corporations are exponentially bigger; and so the majority of the workforce are exploited.

Instead of competing to work for someone else, workers could compete to make their own product better. Cutting out the middle man point again. Infinity0 ^talk 23:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's what capitalism is all about --free enterprise. You're free to start your own business. You can borrow some capital and you can be both the worker and the owner of the means of production and keep all the profit to yourself. There's no rule in capitalism that everybody has to be drone and go work for someone else. RJII 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does it happen, then? Maybe it's the easiest way to generate wealth for yourself - leeching off the work of others? Selling of labour must be one thing that is restricted, just like selling of people (ie. slavery) is restricted in a just society. Infinity0 ^talk 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It happens because not everyone has capital saved up. To start a business, you usually need to get some capital. If you don't have it, that's what the capitalist is for --you borrow some from him. Then when you get your business successful, you pay back the capitalist with his profit (his incentive for lending it to you). Then, you're a worker who owns the means of production and you keep all the profit (minus what the government takes). And, as you generate income and start saving, you have capital to loan to the next worker that wants to own his own means of production. Note that not everyone is willing to go through the challenge of starting his own business --most take the easy way out and work for someone else --that's natural. Whose fault is it if you work for someone else? RJII 20:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

An employer-employee relationship is NOT a loan. A contract forbids the worker from working for another company, and puts rules onto him; and the employer can terminate this contract at any time. Replace "borrow" with "work for" and you'll be accurate. "Work for" someone? Sounds like slavery. When you work with someone, you should own part of the tools, and the products. Also, you might find this analogy interesting:

Slavery happens because not everyone has capital saved up. To buy your freedom, you usually need to get some capital. If you don't have it, that's what the slave-owner is for - you become his slave and get money from him. Then, when you have earned enough, you pay back the slave-owner with his profit (his incentive for buying you). Then, you're a free man who owns some money, and you keep all profit (minus tax). And, as you generate income and start saving, you have capital to buy the next slave that wants to become a slave owner.

Infinity0 ^talk 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about the investor --the capitalist --the middle man. I wasn't talking about the employer loaning his employee money. Hey, if you think getting a loan is slavery, that's fine. I couldn't care less. But, the fact is if you don't have capital to own your own means of production, then you need to get it. The way you get it is by borrowing some from someone with it (or accepting investment). (Or alternatively, you could hope that if you moan enough about not having capital that some will fall out of the sky). RJII 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I corrected your wording of "loan" (I explained this specifically), and I took you to mean employees working for an employer, since that is the normal way of things. The analogy fits, doesn't it? Wage-labour is akin to slavery. Infinity0 ^talk 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You're free to think that getting a job is slavery. I, personally, don't feel like a slave when I go to work. I come and go as I please. Maybe if you looked outside the fast-food industry? RJII 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure many slaves liked being slaves, if their masters were kind - comfort, security, etc. How do you think sweatshop workers feel? But dissent is not a requirement of exploitation. Infinity0 ^talk 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I saw a television show about sweatshops in Asia. They were interviewing the people and they were laughing at the left-wing Americans who protest against sweatshops. One of them said something to the effect "if this is exploitation, give us more." Not everyone who works looks at it as slavery. You're free to feel like a slave if you wish, but others are happy to earn a living. RJII 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Intersting factoid (source: capitalist pig Bryan Caplan): in the days of slavery in the US, slaveholders sometimes "rented out" their slaves to do work, in competition with free laborers. If the free laborers were earning subsistence or less, slaves would have a zero or negative market value because upkeep would eat up all future rents. That slaves carried a positive market price shows that such "wage slaves" earned more than subsistence. MrVoluntarist 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Really? What show was this? Everything I have heard of acknowledges and shows the misery of those people. You're free to face reality if you wish, but others are happy doing everything their masters tell them to in order to survive. MrVoluntarist, the amount earned isn't the point. Freedom is priceless. Infinity0 ^talk 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I was demonstrating the high standard of living of the free laborers, not the slaves -- they weren't working to "survive"; they earned well above subsistence. And no matter what you do, you're being "ordered around" in some sense. Plumbers, no matter how "independent" can't just decide how they like to do plumbing, customers be damned. If they want to get paid they have to satisfy customer demand. Do you consider this an injustice? MrVoluntarist 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The ordering around isn't the main point of exploitation; ownership is. The boss basically owns and controls the whole of the worker's economic welfare. Infinity0 ^talk 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as the person buying plumbing services owns and controls the whole of the plumber's economic welfare. MrVoluntarist 01:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The plumber serves many customers - one rejecting him doesn't matter. The employee serves one, or a few, employers. Getting rejected by (one of) them is significant. Infinity0 ^talk 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

100% wrong. The employee has many potential employers - one rejecting him doesn't matter. Similarly, the plumber may struggle to find customers. Try again. MrVoluntarist 01:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Once the employee picks an employer, he is restricted, BY CONTRACT, to only work for that employer in that field (you can't work for both boeing and bae systems). Whereas the plumber can service as many customers as he likes. The employee's labour products are taken from him, BY CONTRACT, and sold and/or patented under the company's name, whereas the plumber's (service) is sold under his own name. Infinity0 ^talk 21:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes they are restricted by contract, sometimes not. When they are, it's because they get more money for doing so. Many people supply services to both Boeing and BAE. In most cases, the reason people don't work at both places, it's because it's little hard to work two forty-hour weeks in one week, not because of a restriction. Upshot being, this isn't an inherent characteristic. And who cares if the products are sold in your name or not? I think the most important thing to take away from your most recent post, though, is that you don't have a coherent position. You never mentioned these objections before. You're making up your position as you go along. Your opposition to employment is ill-defined. MrVoluntarist 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, most contracts have a "competition clause" - you're not allowed to work for the "competition". This distinguishes employment from a service. I never mentioned these objects before, because as I said, I wasn't writing a full essay. I am giving these objectives NOW as counter-arguments to your counter-arguments. Duh. Infinity0 ^talk 21:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're bringing up new arguments becuase your original, separate reasons were shown to be baseless. That tells me you haven't really thought about this and don't really have a coherent case, as for "most" contracts, most of what? My dad supplies goods to retailers. He performs "services" for Walmart, H-E-B, Albertson's, etc., all of which are competitors. You of course can find labor from competitors -- your labor will just be worth less then. Think up a new argument. MrVoluntarist 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you brought up the new argument, trying to compare a plumber to an employee. You didn't try to answer anything about exploitation. Is your dad under contract with Wal-Mart? What do you mean by "supply goods" to? Like I said last time, CONTRACT-LABOUR and SERVICE are different things. Infinity0 ^talk 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

An employer once handed me a contract to sign agreeing not to work for any competitors in the same field for one year after leaving the firm. I just refused to sign it --no problem. I was too valuable to let go on that basis. There is no requirement that you have to agree to what an employer wants. That's how a free market works --it's all about negotiation --give and take. You make a trade --this for that. They need you and you need them --both sides take what they can get from the other. You seem to be coming from the assumption that the employee is powerless against the employer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, if you're talentless you're not going to have much bargaining power, and you have to take what you can get and be thankful someone saw some potential in you at least. RJII 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if you're not quick enough you won't be able to escape the slave-catchers. It's all your fault! Infinity0 ^talk 22:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I guess the sweatshop labourers in third world countries COULD just leave their current job and go to the non-existent, out-competed, local-originated one next door. Infinity0 ^talk 22:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Placing capital is only essential and complicated because the system requires it to be so. It's called capitalism, after all. Infinity0 ^talk 20:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, the world is complicated. The central planners in the Communist states failed miserable in placing capital.Ultramarine 20:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is something to chew on for you "exploited workers" crowd: An architect buys a pencil from a multi-million dollar pencil corporation for $1.00; he then draws up a set of plans for a client, and charges $3000.00 for it. Without the pencil, he could not have earned that money. Is it fair that the pencil company only got $1.00 for their pencil? Shouldn't the pencil company have gotten, say, $1500.00 for that pencil? :) You think because the employer gets more value, that they are exploiting. But that is ALWAYS what happens in trade. The one purchasing ALWAYS gets more value than what he pays, or he would not pay! Socialists are envious of the "big-bad-exploiting-corporation" without realizing Corporations are not getting their money's worth either!

When Peterbuilt sells a semi-truck, do they get paid for all the trips the trucker makes? When Shure microphones sells a mic, do they get paid everytime Britney Spears records an album? The people manufacturing computers, do they get paid everytime a secretary writes a letter? Does the manufacturer of stoves get paid for everyone of the billions of hamburgers McDonalds sold? Think about it... -- Dullfig 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and to Infiniti's claim that it is "blindingly obvious" that you cannot compete with a giant corporation, I beg to differ. I own an aerospace machine shop. Boeing cannot compete with me in the machined part arena. I just have NO overhead, something Boeing can never do. I can't compete in making airplanes, however, because you DO need overhead for something as complex as an airplane. So no, it is not true that it is "blindingly obvious". size means nothing. Profit and eficiency DO! -- Dullfig 21:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, read that set of points again. This is just weak. Ownership of the MOP does not justify ownership of its derivatives (the products of labour). Only labour can justify ownership; otherwise everyone has a claim to everything, since we have all used someone else's stuff at one time or another. Also, The employer is making a profit from this, since if he was making a loss he would not employ the worker.

You're not really competing with Boeing, are you, genius? Boeing makes whole planes. Do you? Infinity0 ^talk 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just realised your example about the architect was supposed to be a counter-example against the exploitation point. No, you're wrong. The architect is the worker. The design is what is being sold, not the pencil shavings or the lead marks from the pencil, which have been paid for. Your example is an argument FOR exploitation theory. Infinity0 ^talk 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of image

File:Index2006 EconFreedomMAP.jpg

The Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom world map.

Why is this mage deleted? Research on index of economic freeedom has been published in many peer-reviewed articles. Ultramarine 12:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are passing off POV (economic freedom is a number??) as though it is a serious research by NPOV people. Infinity0 ^talk 17:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

See this for peer-reviewed articles [13]. For an overview of the literature, see this [14]. Ultramarine 17:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "freetheworld.com" is really NPOV (!). Still, the chart has these unexplained numbers on. What do they represent? How are they measured? Sticking that diagram there with no explanation of what it is based on is misleading. Infinity0 ^talk

The numerous peer-reviewed articles are done by independent researchers. If you disagree, publish your own research outside Wikipedia. How the index is calculated is explained on Index of Economic Freedom. I will wikilink next time. Ultramarine 17:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What relevance does this have to capitalism? If you include the diagram, you need to include a paragraph explaining it. I think that's overkill, but try it and we'll see. Infinity0 ^talk 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation argues that the index measures the degree of capitalism. As much research has been done, it it is notable view that should be included.Ultramarine 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Then it should probably be put into "Which countries are capitalist" section. Infinity0 ^talk 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the research does not and cannot establish whether the Index truly measures "capitalism", because different people have different views of what it means to have more or less capitalism. We should be careful to say exactly what it is that the Index measures (the precise criteria used), and then mention that the Heritage Foundation believes that those things constitute "capitalism". -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Index of Economic Freedom FAQ on their website [15], they define "economic freedom" as "the absence of government coercion or constraint on the production, distribution, or consumption of goods and services beyond the extent necessary for citizens to protect and maintain liberty itself." Laissez-faire. RJII 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you consider it at least a little odd that the world's most extensive welfare states score among the top 10 countries on this supposedly "laissez-faire" index? The reason is that the index, in reality, measures how countries score on a list of 50 independent variables. They include:

• Corruption in the judiciary, customs service, and government bureaucracy;
• Non-tariff barriers to trade, such as import bans and quotas as well as strict labeling and licensing requirements;
• The fiscal burden of government, which encompasses income tax rates, corporate tax rates, and trends in government expenditures as a percent of output;
• The rule of law, efficiency within the judiciary, and the ability to enforce contracts;
• Regulatory burdens on business, including health, safety, and environmental regulation;
• Restrictions on banks regarding financial services, such as selling securities and insurance;
• Labor market regulations, such as established work weeks and mandatory separation pay; and
• Informal market activities, including corruption, smuggling, piracy of intellectual property rights, and the underground provision of labor and other services.

Some of these have nothing to do with laissez-faire. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Finland, Sweden and Iceland, those bastions of small government! :) - FrancisTyers 15:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's a relative thing. Which of those things have nothing to do with laissez-faire? RJII 15:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Those wanting more detailed descriptions of specific countries and how and why they score on subcomponents can go here. Just click on the nation. [16]. Ultramarine 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished that Denmark scored higher than the United States. I seem to recall that they have subsidised education up to and including PhD level and very high taxes. - FrancisTyers 17:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the differences, Denmark has for example lower corporate taxes and less regulation.Ultramarine 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The caption is strange, I think. What does this mean: "Maybe surprisingly, nations like Sweden and Canada have a high economic freedom due to factors like strong rule of law and respected property rights."? Maybe it can be said better, because I don't get it. RJII 21:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sweden does not get their high economic freedom due to low taxes. Ultramarine 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the point it's getting at is that Canada and Sweden have a lot of government programs, government intervention in the economy, state-owned means of production, etc., but they "more than make up for it" with respect to economic freedom by having well-defined and well-enforced property rights. Though I'm not sure such a statement belongs. Then again, neither does length of the critique of capitalism, which has nothing comparable in the socialism or communism articles. MrVoluntarist 21:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that is what he's trying to say. RJII 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, because low taxes is part of economic freedom. The less drag, or friction, there is on trade, the the freer the market, by definition. In fact, it says in their description on their methodology: "citizens are taxed to provide revenue for the protection of person and property as well as for a common defense. Most political theorists also accept that certain goods—what economists call “public goods”—can be supplied most conveniently by government. When government coercion rises beyond that minimal level, however, it risks trampling on freedom." If Sweden has high taxes but has a freer market than another country, then there must be another factor that's offsetting that interference in economic liberty (for example, no minimum wage laws). RJII 21:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Granted, lower taxes are part of economic freedom. Just not the only part, nor the most important part. We're talking about overall economic freedom, and high freedom can be acheived in numerous ways, as this discussion is bringing out. People who live in long-established systems often have difficulty imagining that things can be done in other ways, just as effectively, if not more so. I'm not pointing fingers, just saying 'take the blinders off'.

You're right, Sweden has no explicit minimum wage law, wages are set each year by collective bargaining between employers and trade unions. There is also the possibility of setting industry wide minimum wages through collective agreements. Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy and Sweden all set minimum rates of pay across all sectors of the economy through legally binding industry level collective agreements. [17] and In Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy and Sweden - the remaining six 'old' EU Member States - as well as in Norway and Cyprus, collective agreements are the main mechanism used for regulating low pay. [18]. So, saying that no minimum wage laws exist is kind of missing the point, different countries have different ways of ensuring that pay is not too low. - FrancisTyers 17:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is Sweden's score explained in more detail [19].Ultramarine 17:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not missing the point. Negotiating wages through unions is different from wages by government decree. That's the way to do it in a free market system --negotiation, rather than coercion. Supply and demand. RJII 17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's because Socialism and Communism both have their "Criticisms of" articles. Infinity0 ^talk 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What's that? You want to move all the stuff below the start of the criticism to its own article? Good idea! MrVoluntarist 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not significant enough to warrant a whole separate article (Criticism_of_communism is as long as Capitalism). For that you should be happy. Infinity0 ^talk 21:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, communist squatters have taken over the article. For example the section economic and social development reads like communist pamphlet, after having deleted the critical well-referenced material.Ultramarine 21:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Growth is essential for reducing poverty

Uh, no shit? I don't see the point of adding an obvious statement like that; also, the passage doesn't even imply the opposite. Infinity0 ^talk 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an equally "obvious" statement that is included and arguably false "that GDP/capita does little to indicate the amount of poverty in a nation if the Gini coefficient, which measures distribution of income, is not taken into account." The poorest can be comparatively rich even with high inequality if the GDP/capita is high.

"The poorest can be comparatively rich"??? I believe "poorest" is a comparative adjective. Infinity0 ^talk 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The poorest in a nation can be comparatively rich compared to poor people prior in history or in other nations.Ultramarine 22:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Antedating

OED has usage of "capitalist" in this sense going back to 1792 - so the 1848 usage isn't the "first" - in English at least. Its first site for capitalism is indeed Thackeray in 1854. Morwen - Talk 17:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

infinity, most capitalist

Infinity, you're the one that keeps stating in the article that most economies are "largely capitalist." Do you have a source for that claim? I have plenty of sources that say most are mixed economies. RJII 04:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go find one. How does "largely capitalist" conflict with "mixed economy"? They mean the same thing... Infinity0 ^talk 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Because a mixed economy doesn't have to be largely capitalist --it can also be largely socialist --or in the middle. And, look how many economies there are in the world. It's saying "most" economies are largely capitalist. That's a pretty bold claim to make without a source. RJII 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the source you gave does not say that most economies are largely capitalist. We still need a source for your claim. RJII 14:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• [20] - In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions,
• [21] - As an affluent, high-tech industrial society, in the trillion dollar class, Canada closely resembles the US in its market-oriented economic system, pattern of production, and affluent living standards.
• [22] - Over the past two decades the government has greatly reduced public ownership and contained the growth of social welfare programs.
• [23] - Corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are setting the foundations that could allow Germany to meet the long-term challenges of European economic integration and globalization, particularly if labor market rigidities are further addressed.
• [24] - France is in the midst of transition, from a well-to-do modern economy that has featured extensive government ownership and intervention to one that relies more on market mechanisms.
• [25] - Australia has an enviable Western-style capitalist economy

Infinity0 ^talk 15:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize how many economies there are in the world? There are around 200 countries. You've listed 5 countries, and even out of those 5 the factbook only says Australia is capitalist, the US is "market-oriented", and Canada "closely resembles the U.S." It doesn't even say that about the UK economy or the French economy. It says the UK has reduced socialism, but it doesn't say that it is largely capitalist. It says the French are "in the midst of transition" --the transition is not made. RJII 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It admits "Western-style capitalist economy" and "European economic integration and globalization" and the intro says most "modern economies", not all 200 countries in the world. It says UK, France, Germany has greatly reduced/is greatly reducing public sector, which implies more capitalism, or an attitude towards more capitalism. I could find specific sources detailing that the private sectors in those countries are bigger than public sectors, but I thought everyone knew that was undeniable. Infinity0 ^talk 15:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

All economies are "modern economies" --that means economies that exist today, rather than historically. So, that includes every economy in the world. If the UK, France, and Gemany are reducing the public sector, that still doesn't mean that they economies are largely capitalist --it depends on how socialized they were in the first place. You're going to have to do better than this if you're going to make the claim that most modern economies are largely capitalist. RJII 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern, developed countries. Better now? I reduced the scope. Now, are you seriously asking me to provide sources that the private sectors are bigger than public sectors in most developed countries? I really don't want to waste time on this. Infinity0 ^talk 15:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"developed" is vague. Can you source a list of "developed" countries so we can go through each one? Certainly there are more than 3 developed countries in the world --you've only given a source for 3 economies being "market-oriented" or "capitalist." Having a bigger private sector than a public sector is not a sufficient condition of being capitalism --the private sector has to be free of significant governmental intervention. RJII 15:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Click the word for a definition of "developed". So that I know what to look for, can you provide a definition on what is "largely capitalist"? Infinity0 ^talk 15:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're the one that is using the words "largely capitalist" so you should know what it means. In the context of a mixed economy, it means more capitalist than socialist/planned. RJII 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're the one disputing the definition. How do you compare interference with no interference? How much interference do you define to be "uncapitalist", ie. what balances out interference to make the economy more capitalist? Infinity0 ^talk 16:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not for me or you to decide. That's why I'm requesting sources, since you're making the claim that most developed economies are "largely capitalist." There's quite a list of developed economies, but you've only given evidence of an explicit source for 1 --Australia, and an indirect source for 2 others ("market-oriented"). RJII 16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"America has socialist elements through the government's massive land holdings and government-owned businesses like the post office. Also, the government sponsors a huge social welfare system, and some experts describe America's economic system as welfare capitalism." [26]

In that same source, "In the world today, economies are characterized by corporate capitalism. Manufacturing is now dominated by corporations, which are large business concerns owned by thousands of stockholders and managed by boards of directors." Infinity0 ^talk 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have given sources saying that US and Australia are almost completely capitalist. Largely capitalist means most of the MOP is in private hands, and there is little intervention. That's true for most developed countries. Infinity0 ^talk 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Where's a source for that claim? US and Australia are not "most" developed countries. RJII 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL @ "US has little intervention".MrVoluntarist 17:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Largely capitalist" mixed economy does not mean little intervention. It means a lot of intervention, but not so much that it's a planned economy. RJII 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neo-liberal organisations

Maxrspct, you wrote "The indices are released by neo-liberal organisations, funded by corporations and business people or capitalists."

If you can find a source for this, I think it may well be worth adding into the article. The section is POV, since it asserts that they are correct. Infinity0 ^talk 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Max rspct putting in information without source after source was requested and providing false source

Max rspct, do you have a source claiming that most developed economies are largely capitalist? This source you are linking that Infinity provided does not say that. What you have to say? RJII 18:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling, its says this: "For rough comparisons, it is now useful to divide the world in two and compare developments in the advanced capitalist group" I think it's clear capitalism is global. - max rspct leave a message 19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What is "it" and where does it say that? What is the "advanced capitalist group"? RJII 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, "In 1962, we usually divided the world into three regions. The advanced capitalist group was then known as the developed world" and then.... "..it is now useful to divide the world in two and compare developments in the advanced capitalist group with the aggregate for lower-income countries". Notice that the author is STILL refering to developed world as being composed of capitalist countries. Now eat your hat! -- max rspct leave a message 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a source. What is your source? Where is it? RJII 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm.. look at the ref notes trollboy -- max rspct leave a message 19:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The claim that they're largely capitalist links to the Factbook. I don't see that in there. RJII 19:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see you changed the source. Where in that source does it say most developed economies are largely capitalist? You're quote doesn't say that. RJII 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The West and the Rest in the International Economic Order by Angus Maddison, [27]

governments can call themselves whatever they want. Just because a country says it's capitalist, doesn't make it so. There has to be some objective evidence of capitalistm. Dullfig 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine irrelevant additions

Pro-capitalits points out that it is now more than 150 years since Marx's predictions and that it was the Communist states that collapsed. They also argue that the owners of capital indeed also work. Deciding how to allocate the limited resources available is a very complex and essential work.

The section is about Marx's critique of capitalism. Marx's predictions is NOT a "critique of capitalism".

However, many communists reject the Communist states for their lack of democracy, despite their central planning and common ownership of the means of production. Similarly, many pro-capitalists reject states having some characteristics of capitalism but lacking democracy.

The section is about Marx's critique of capitalism. Lack of democracy in "Communist" states is NOT a "critique of capitalism".

Infinity0 ^talk 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV states that Wikpedia should include all views. Communist arguments and counter-arguments are both allowed. Only allowing Marxist criticism would be extremely pov.Ultramarine 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the section is on Marxist critique, so any information should be about Marxist critique. That means counterarguments should be against Marxist critique, not irrelevant ones against communism. Infinity0 ^talk 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Both paragraphs are counterarguments. The first pointing out the very long time that has passed since Marx's prediction. The second that many pro-capitalists, like pro-communists, only support democratic states.Ultramarine 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, that wasn't my point at all. They might be counterarguments against communism, but the section is on Marxist critique of capitalism, not communism. They are two related but different things. Infinity0 ^talk 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The text states that capitalism will collapse. A valid counter-argument is that very long time has passed without this happening. And why should it not be allowed to point out that many pro-capitalists only support democratic states? Ultramarine 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, ok. But the second argument is still irrelevant, since it has nothing to do with the critique. Infinity0 ^talk 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Marxist critique of capitalism section completely unhelpful

The "Marxist critique of capitalism" contains barely any information about Marx's problems with capitalism. Frequently, it contains more extensive information on rebuttals to the claims than the claims themselves, which are vague and mostly unexplained. Examples:

• The second paragraph says, "The private ownership of the means of production is seen as a restriction on freedom" and also, "Marxists believe that capitalism allows capitalists (the owners of capital) to exploit workers." In both cases the article fails to explain why, but there is significant time spent disputing this claim.
• The third paragraph says, "Marxists also argue that capitalism has inherent contradictions that will inevitably lead to its collapse." It does not mention a single one of these contradictions.
• The fourth paragraph, which is essentially an extension of the third, contains lots of uninteresting data. I'm not sure what claims it's trying to explain or refute.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Marxism to fix it myself, but I do know unhelpful writing when I see it. The section titled "Marxist critique of capitalism" contains almost no information about critiques of capitalism that Marx actually has.

--Getaaron 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this article is about capitalism and we cannot describe all Marxist theory here. There is already extremely much Marxism spread in many different sections of this article. There are other articles for those interested in more. I would rather suggest moving the Marxist material to the Marxism article where it can be presented in better context.Ultramarine 22:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Better context is here. He has a point though. The critiques are given but not explained, so they seem completely random. Infinity0 ^talk 22:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is extremely long already. A complete description and counter-argument would for instance requiring explaining the inner workings and failures of the labor theory of value. There are other articles for that.Ultramarine 23:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that it's important, and not something that should be ignored? Also, we can write about complicated things briefly. How about: "Marx says that the money value of an object is equal to the amount of labor put into it. (See labor theory of value.)" --Getaaron 00:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I wasn't suggesting a complete description. Just one sentence or two to provide justifications for the critiques. Infinity0 ^talk 23:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to discuss Marxist theory here, just Marx's criticism of capitalism (which made him decide to create Marxist theory). Perhaps something like: "Karl Marx, who first proposed Communism, has three main complaints of Capitalism. First of all, the use of money forces men to live in a society with unequal distribution of property, which may not be seen as ideal. Second, in order for the owners of the means of production to make a profit, they must pay their laborers less than the actual money value of their labor. According to Marx, profiting in this way tends to simultaneously further enrich citizens who already have capital and fail to substantially enrich the workers. This can perpetuate concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Third, it is possible that in a Capitalist society, some citizens will be unable to find a job. This means that they are unable to labor, and consequently cannot earn money. In extremely unfortunate cases, they may even starve." I'm not a Marx scholar, so I don't know if these are all of his primary concerns with Capitalism. Also, it would be great to quote, and not paraphrase, Marx. Then, after that, there could be brief refutations of his claims, but the refutations should not be alotted more words than the claim itself. If it's a topic of much debate, we could create a main article (i.e., "Marxist Critiques of Communism.") Basically, I'm suggesting scrapping and rewriting the section. How does everyone feel about this? Does anyone have any good Marx quotations to throw in here? --Getaaron 00:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

--Second, in order for the owners of the means of production to make a profit, they must pay their laborers less than the actual money value of their labor

This passage is SO POV it boggles the mind. It certainly was what Marx thought, but it is completely incorrect. To own the means of production also means that you own the know how on how to produce that item! it is the knowledge of how to make something, that adds value to it. Take a guy making pottery. You need to know where to get good mud, how much water to add, how to work it, how to shape it, how to fire it, how to decorate it. etc. All this know-how is what makes it valuable. Now suppose the guy figures out how to break down the whole process into simple steps that anyone with a 7th grade education can do. He has added value to the pottery in many ways: before he could only make one pot at a time, now he can produce many, so he has spread his know-how over many pots, lowering the cost to the public. The buyer can get a quality pot at a lower price than a hand made one. The workers can earn a living without having to embark on a years long apprenticeship to learn how to make pots from start to finish.

Since the worker has to do no thinking, he is only exchanging his time and effort in exchange for a salary. The owner, who thought up the whole manufacturing process, is the one that gets paid for the know-how. In a factory, what adds value to the product is the manufacturing process, not the worker's time. Dullfig 00:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thinking is labour. The subjective theory of value is even more bullshit than LTOV, mind you. "The price people are willing to pay for a resource is based on their individual perceptions of its value?" Nice one with the circular definition to whoever jackass thought that one up. Raises the question "what is value perception based one?" But avoids the point.

The section talks about the critique and will therefore by necessity use the critique's own terminology. As long as it's explained that it's its own terminology, it isn't POV. Infinity0 ^talk 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

WOW, so you agree with me that thinking is labour. So you don't have a problem with the owner of the factory making more money, because he thought out the manufacturing process, and the laborers only follow instructions. we're getting somewhere... Dullfig 04:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dullfig: Whether or not the labor theory of value is a good one is irrelevant to the Marxist Critique section. The questions that need to be addressed in this section are: What were Marx's problems with capitalism? How do capitalists generally respond to such claims? Your argument that the labor theory of value isn't ideal is a valid argument, but it's an argument that's outside the scope of the section we're trying to work on.

Dullfig, in modern day companies the investors own the company, and they do jack shit. Also, in the 1800s in most cases the factory owner hired people to design the factory for him, eg. architects and engineers. Infinity0 ^talk 16:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nine out of ten startups fail within the first five years, according to Government statistics. And guess what, when a company fails, all the investment money goes down the drain. So don't say that investors don't do jack shit. Allocating funds is tricky business. You have to look at business proposals, consider the market, etc. etc. if you want to keep your wealth as an investor. Besides, thanks to pension plans being invested in the stock market, more and more of the MOP is owned by the common folk here in the US. So maybe there is a way to get society to own the MOP without abolishing private property... :)

I'll have to give the pros and cons section a hard look, because I tend to agree that it is very messy, and leaves the reader confused. -- Dullfig 17:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've already had this debate, for details read one of the archives, or it might even be on this page. Summary: How did they get the stuff to give in the first place? Giving isn't the same as doing. Why does giving stuff automatically mean you get more stuff? The justification "to compensate for risk" isn't a moral justification, it's an economical one.

Yes, the "excessive inequality" section is very bad atm, see what you can do with it :) Btw, do you have a link to the source that gives the business failure rate? I'd like a read. Infinity0 ^talk 18:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

well, the figure is commonly tossed around at seminars and such. It is derived from data compiled at the US census bureau. All the raw data is downloadable, and you can play with it to your hearts content. The data for 2002, for example, shows that just about 74,000 new business started, and about 70,000 died. You have to do some more digging in the data to determine if the ones that died did so in their first 5 years. Dullfig 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, idiots! Your conversation is completely irrelevant. The section is about MARX'S critiques of capitalism. Please keep the topic to that. We don't care about YOUR opinion in this discussion, JUST MARX'S. If you want to talk about compensation for risk, take the conversation ELSEWHERE.

Don't you have anything better to do than leaving anonymous insults on wiki? If you want to add something of value, then go ahead, but if all you can do is insult, go do something else. Dullfig

About Conservative Think Tanks

In my oppinion, the addition of the word "conservative" in front of "think tank", as was recently done, is unnecessary and redundant. People will know that when you say "thik tank", you mean conservative, because "liberal think tank" is an oxymoron, and cannot be said with a straight face or without laughing ;-)

-- Dullfig 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're right, what is there to think about? RJII 16:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is adding that these are Neo-Conservative??? Read the definition "Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and their lack of support for the "small government" principles and restrictions on social spending,"

They do certainly support "small government".Ultramarine 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This > [28]..and the heritage foundation website list Midge Decter as being a (neocon) Heritage Trustee Since 1981 -- max rspct leave a message 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

One person does not make an organization neoconservative. They advocate smaller governments, neoconservatives do not.Ultramarine 21:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats far too much of a generalisation! This >[29] calls Fraser Institute neocon. And this [30] by a Fraser lackey is pretty blatant in it's defense of neocons. -- max rspct leave a message 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is their mission statement [31]. Explicitly for smaller governments, something not advocated by neocons. What an individual persons thinks is not interesting. Please give a link showing that the policy advocated by the institute is neoconservative.Ultramarine 21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine you're in Sweden?[32] :O I always thought you were american. Wow, you must hate the heavily socialist economy there. Infinity0 ^talk 21:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Most people think modern countries are capitalist

Why? Because corporations exist, and they control the huge majority of the economy. "Free market" is half of capitalism, stop pushing that side of it. Also, source:

"Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery"

• "The Cold War's over, Austin."
• "Ah!" <says something in Russian to the Russian general>
• "No, Austin, we won!"
• "Er.. yay! Go capitalism!"

The fact that the producers of the movie were not sued by neoliberals suggests that most people do in fact believe modern countries to be capitalist.

And yes, that IS the best source I can find. It's a mainstream film, reflecting mainstream opinion. Seriously, it's not as if there are people doing opinion polls on who thinks today's countries are capitalist. It is in my personal experience that most people I have come across acknowledge today's modern countries to be capitalist, especially considering all the corporations out there controlling your lives. Infinity0 ^talk 20:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Your personal experience: zero weight on Wikipedia. Your belief that corporations control everything: zero weight on Wikipedia. Jokes in moves: zero weight on Wikipedia. Non-action of so-called "neoliberals" in response to comedy movies: zero weight on Wikipedia. MrVoluntarist 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, this is an encyclopedia. What "most people" think capitalism is, is irrelevant. Most people have no clue one way or the other. We're not supposed to be presenting what the guy on the street thinks. What matters is what most educated people think --scholars, philosophers, etc. And, you're even quoting Austin Powers for a source? Go the edit the Sesame Street Encyclopedia or something. RJII 20:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Where are your sources RJII? Why do you use un-usable sources such as Hayek?? Why all the POV? -- max rspct leave a message 20:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources for what? RJII 20:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of scholars who acknowledge that modern day countries are capitalist. This "unknown ideal", "new definition" crap is getting tiring. "WAR IS PEACE" - sound familiar?

• [33] - "China belonged to the communist bloc while Western developed countries were capitalist." And today's countries are more "pure capitalist" than they were in the Cold War.
• [34] - "The capitalist Western countries are celebrating the fall of communism as if it was an empirical evidence of their own victory, not only on a political front but also on ideological plane."
• [35] - "The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else"
• [36]- "This new middle class, however, is in no way linked, as it is in the Western capitalist countries, to a system of private enterprise, and its status is not protected by law."
• [37] - "Muslims seeking religious and political freedom flee to the Western capitalist nations from all over the Islamic world." - Holy shit, even the utmost right-wing website capmag.com admits it.
• [38] - "the Western capitalist nations claimed to be the products of a natural evolution of human nature rather than a result of ideology and social engineering." - and again, this is talking about the Cold War, even less capitalism than today.
• [39] - "A new Iron Curtain has descended upon the middle of Europe, dividing Western capitalist countries from their poor ex-communist cousins in the East," writes Lionel Barber in International Economy magazine.

Infinity0 ^talk 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand how to research the claim that most regard the western economies as capitalism. You don't start citing sources that say a particular country is capitalist. How are you going to prove most sources say it unless you compile every source in the world? You need to find secondary sources that say something like "most scholars regard X as capitalism." I'm comfortable with saying that most economics textbooks I've seen call the economies "mixed economies," but I can't make the claim of "most" in the article unless I provide a source for every economics textbook in the world. So, look for a source that claims what most scholars think. If I can't find a source that say's otherwise to contradict it then the assertion has to stay. RJII 20:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me a source for "there is significant government intervention"? Infinity0 ^talk 20:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If government intervention is insignificant, then it's laissez-faire. A mixed economy certainly isn't laissez-faire. This is just common sense. But, if you need sources, "Certain sectors of the economy are left to private ownership and free market mechanisms, while other sectors have significant government ownership and government planning." [40] "The United States is said to have a mixed economy because privately owned businesses and government both play important roles." [41] RJII 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Enough sources have been given RJII. -- max rspct leave a message 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sort of thing that RJII requires is very hard to find. People don't usually do researches on who thinks which countries are capitalist. But please, don't remove "most" unless you actually seriously disagree with it. Infinity0 ^talk 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I do seriously disagree with it. I think most academics regard the economies as mixed --a mix of capitalism and socialism and/or government planning. RJII 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[42]:

Discuss socialism as an alternative to capitalism: People are still looking at alternatives to capitalism. I think we all agree we live in a capitalist society, even people who greatly support our present social arrangements. They say this is a capitalist society and how marvelous it is. Others of us look at it and say, “Well, look at the poverty, look at the inequality, look at the problems of joblessness, look at the problems of the crisis of social expenditure,” and also we look at the aggrandizement of the corporations and the chief executive officers. And really an alternative is needed to this form of society, something that’s more socially just and equitable, kinder to the planet, gives people more opportunities to develop themselves, express themselves. I think here at the conference you can see there are still hundreds, a few thousand, people still thinking about this issue.

Howzat? Infinity0 ^talk 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is "we all"? All the socialists? RJII 21:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Heaven and Earth is a TV show, and so I assume the guy was doing an interview, and therefore he would be referring to everyone. Infinity0 ^talk 21:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Then it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what "everyone" thinks, if that includes your average Joe on the street. The Average Joe (which includes many Wikipedians) has no clue how to define any economic system. This is an encyclopedia --we need to report what educated people think. RJII 21:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose by "educated" you mean the economists who have been fed the "modern" definition of capitalism? Infinity0 ^talk 21:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not how definitions work. Reference sources come up with definitions by surveying how educated people use the term. Economists haven't been "fed" the definition --they came up with the definition. Dictionaries and encyclopedias report how they're using the term. RJII 01:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The John Gray book (False dawn), Sayer book (capitalism and modernity) and 'The West and the Rest in the International Economic Order by Angus Maddison' ref are good enough. -- max rspct leave a message 21:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

While most Western developed countries are ideologically capitalist^[43], in practice, some of their economies are sometimes referred to as "mixed economies"^[44]

What about this? Infinity0 ^talk 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean "most Western developed countries are ideologically capitalist"? Individuals have ideologies. I'm not aware of any official national ideology. RJII 18:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources regarding the Western economies as "mixed economies"

"Ireland has a mixed economy. The constitution provides that the state shall favour private initiative in industry and commerce, but the state may provide essential services and promote development projects in the absence of private initiatives. Thus, state-sponsored (“semi-state”) bodies operate the country's rail and road transport, some of its television and radio stations, its electricity generation and distribution system, and its peat industry. State companies also are active in the fields of air transport and health insurance. The advent of a single European market in the 1990s encouraged many of these enterprises to privatize and become more competitive." -Encyclopedia Britannica RJII 19:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Despite the dominance of the private sector, the tradition of a mixed economy in France is well established. Successive governments have intervened to protect or promote different types of economic activity, as has been clearly reflected in the country's national plans and nationalized industries." -Encyclopedia Britannica RJII 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"The United States is said to have a mixed economy because privately owned businesses and government both play important roles. Indeed, some of the most enduring debates of American economic history focus on the relative roles of the public and private sectors." -United States Department of State [45] RJII 19:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Google search: "United States has a capitalist economy" 48 hits. "Unites States has a mixed economy" 106 hits. RJII 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Canada has a mixed economy and is beginning to become more market oriented like the United States." [46] "Nowadays, most economies are known as ‘mixed’ economies because, in reality, both market and state play a substantial role in them...The U.S. economic system is based more on capitalism, whereas the Chinese system is based more on socialism. Most other countries, including Canada, rely on both market and state and so are considered to have mixed economies" -Canadian government website [47] RJII 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Italy is a mixed economy where, until very recently, a large portion of the economy was controlled by the state. [48] RJII 20:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

M&Ms back again: glad to see your finally getting the picture with rgard the lack of a free market and that they are mixed economies! And of course the common characteristic is the use of the market process as opposed to dictating every facet of the economy! You yourself RJII said to me that the average person considers western countries to be capatalist and now you opinion is in line with mine. A definition is a definition.

I've always thought that the average person thinks that the western countries are capitalist, but then the average person couldn't define capitalism if you asked them. It's not important what the average person thinks, really. What's important is what educated people think. We can't just query "average people" off the street and use them as a source here. My point has always been that a lot of credible sources consider them mixed economies rather than capitalist, so we can't assert them to be capitalist. What I've been fighting here all along is the "average person" that come on to edit Wikipedia with no more than a nebulous perception of what capitalism is. RJII 20:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

By educated, what RJII really means is any right-wing person who has a degree in economics and has been fed the market fundamentalist definition. Infinity0 ^talk 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: Infinity is lying. RJII 21:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that you keep insisting to use the "educated" definition of capitalism, yet refuse to use the "educated" definition of wage labour. Infinity0 ^talk 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wage labor is dead. disproven. No longer considered a valid theory outside marxism, which has a vested interest in keeping it alive. Deal with it. -- Dullfig 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a theory, it's a concept. How can you "disprove" an abstract concept... :| Infinity0 ^talk 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wage Labor

I am starting to get a little hot under the collar. To many people keep harping about how the employer takes the employees work, profits from it, and the employee doesn't keep the fruits of his labor (pure marxist blather). Do any of you guys have the slightest notion about all the logistics, thought and decision making that takes to start a business? have you ever tried it? Say you are an employee of a marble company. You come in every day, and run a marble machine, and get paid by the hour. You start complaining that you make all the marbles, and the owner gets all the profit. But is this fair? Let's examine what you DON'T need to do:

• You don't need to decide what color, size or quantity of marbles you need to make, as this was determined for you by marketing.
• You didn't need to decide which marble machine to buy.
• You didn't need to decide where to put the factory:

1. 1. Near a shipping port?
   2. Near a railroad head?
   3. Near a source of glass?
   4. Is it better to be close to the glass source, but far from a trucking route, or maybe it's better to be close to the trucks, and have the glass shipped in?

• You didn't need to decide the organizational diagram of the company: How many managers, asistant managers, secretaries, comptrollers, foremen, etc. are needed to efficiently run the operation?
• You didn't put one penny out of your pocket to buy the machinery, building, fixtures, desks, lamps, pencils, computers, bathroom fixtures, rags, soap, mops, company uniform, NOR did you have to make any decision in any of these purchases (is it better to contract with a rag company, or should you buy old rags by the pound).
• You did not have to figure out distribution chanels, develope realationships with wholesalers, retailers; nor did you have to pay for advertising campaigns.
• You did not have to write a business proposal, detailing ALL these things in tedious detail, so you could convince a venture capitalist, or investment banker, to invest in you marble idea.

The list goes on and on. There are all kind of decisions to be made in order to run a succesful business, and making the wrong one could potentially put you out of business. Running a business is a tricky mental excercise. Employees don't need to figure none of this out. Everything is decided for them. And the only consequence they bear in case the business fails, is they're out of a job. So let me get this straight: You don't want to take any responsibilty, bear none of the risks, just come in every day, push a button, put the marbles in a box, BUT YOU WANT TO KEEP ALL THE PROFFITS ?!?!?!

And if you CAN do all of the above, why don't you just open your own company? no one said you HAD to be an employee...

Had to get it off my chest. -- Dullfig 17:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people don't realize that getting a job is the easy way out. Going to work and being told what to do is easy --it's even idiotic. It's much harder to create your own job --to create a business. The employee sacrifices some of his produce as profit to the employer in payment for being relieved of the responsibility of creating his own job. In a low-regulation capitalist system, if anyone wants the profit, then he's free to start his own business (free enterprise). But, who wants to? It's much easier to let someone else create a job for you, go to work everyday and be told what to do like a drone, and then moan about your employer exploiting you to relieve yourself pyschologically of the guilt you have for not pushing yourself to achieve your potential in life. Who is really the bad guy? The employer? Or, you? Who is really keeping you down? RJII 17:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Landlords, Governments, Banks, Speculators (this is a non-exhaustive list). - FrancisTyers 18:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

HUH? how do they keep you down, if I may ask? Dullfig 20:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking randomly today, and for NO REASON decided to make a list of what SLAVES DO NOT HAVE TO DO. Here it is:

• You don't need to decide what color, size or quantity of marbles you need to make, as this was determined for you by marketing.
• You didn't need to decide which marble machine to buy.
• You didn't need to decide where to put the factory:

1. 1. Near a shipping port?
   2. Near a railroad head?
   3. Near a source of glass?
   4. Is it better to be close to the glass source, but far from a trucking route, or maybe it's better to be close to the trucks, and have the glass shipped in?

• You didn't need to decide the organizational diagram of the company: How many managers, asistant managers, secretaries, comptrollers, foremen, etc. are needed to efficiently run the operation?
• You didn't put one penny out of your pocket to buy the machinery, building, fixtures, desks, lamps, pencils, computers, bathroom fixtures, rags, soap, mops, company uniform, NOR did you have to make any decision in any of these purchases (is it better to contract with a rag company, or should you buy old rags by the pound).
• You did not have to figure out distribution chanels, develope realationships with wholesalers, retailers; nor did you have to pay for advertising campaigns.
• You did not have to write a business proposal, detailing ALL these things in tedious detail, so you could convince a venture capitalist, or investment banker, to invest in you marble idea.

HOLY SHIT, I WANNA BE A SLAVE!!! Infinity0 ^talk 20:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. I realise I could have altered the words so they are more slave-like, but still, you get my point. Irresponsibility is not an excuse for exploitation. Infinity0 ^talk 20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "marketing" people and the people who "decide where the factory goes"? Yeah, they get paid a wage for that, usually. In today's companies, people with money just decide where to buy stocks. They're called investors, and they do jack shit. Infinity0 ^talk 20:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. You oppose being an employee, but then you condemn the investor. How can you expect to be anything other than an employee of someone else unless there's an investor available to help you get started in your own business? RJII 20:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't oppose the employee, I oppose employment and the employer. What I am saying is that the investor should only expect a fixed amount back, like a loan. Not a controlling stake in the employee and of his labour products. Infinity0 ^talk 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well what if grandma doesn't want to lend you the capital she's saved up unless you pay her back plus interest? Are you going to force it out of her? Why should she lend you money interest-free when her other grandson is offering to pay back 5% interest and a portion of the profits? What makes you so special that you deserve interest free loans? You don't think grandma should be compensated for her risk? What an ungrateful grandson. RJII 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A interest is still fixed. Sorry I didn't think about mentioning that. Why should a guy employ someone, when another person is willing to become his slave? Because slavery is abolished. (Though, given most people's attitudes on slavery today, most people wouldn't do it even if given the choice.) Infinity0 ^talk 21:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean a slave? A slave isn't free to leave his job. RJII 21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

He can "buy his freedom" when he has enough money, just like an employee can leave his job when he is economically secure enough. Infinity0 ^talk 21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What a terrible imaginary grandmother. Usury is not one of the things you'd usually expect from grandparents. Surely everyone deserves interest free loans. - FrancisTyers 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Suppose you had nothing, but was looking for a way to make a living. Say I lend you a lawnmower, and with it, you proceed to build a clientelle of people you cut lawn for. My lending you the lawnmower has allowed you to make a living in a way you where not able to before. You have increased your earning power thanks to the fact I lent you the lawnmower. But you are saying that I should gain NOTHING from the fact that you can make more money than before. At most, I should only be able to charge some kind of interest on the loan of the lawnmower. Why? See, if you're going to do that, then I'll just keep the lawnmower and cut grass myself. But if I can earn a percentage of your earnings, then maybe I would buy 10 lawnmowers, and lend them out. In the process, I would enable 10 more people to increase their earning potential. How does that not benefit society?

And don't tell me that it would be better if each guy had his own lawnmower. Yes it would be, but maybe not everyone had the foresight to save their money and buy one. The point is that each of us has to decide by themselves what is best for them: do I want to be an employee for ever (low risk, no investment, no resoponsibilities), or do I want to save my money and start my own business (high risk, high investment, high responsibilities).

Not everyone is cut out to be a decision-maker, or we would all be already. -- Dullfig 22:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But you are saying that I should gain NOTHING from the fact that you can make more money than before. - yes, I am. Why should ownership automatically entail ownership of its derivatives? The employee has increase the employer's earning power too, you know. The fact is the employee does all the work; and labour is the only that can possibly justify the concept of "property". You should receive something from lending out your tools, but only for the act of lending, and not for the work done.

Ok, before I answer this one, let's get one thing straight. The value of the marble (using the example above) is NOT just the work YOU put into it. Say you where making red marbles. They would be worthless, no matter how much work they took, if no one wanted red marbles. All of the other things in my list add value to the marble too. So the value of the marble is not due 100% to your labor. The value is in the eye of the buyer that buys the marble, not in the eye of the worker who makes the marble. So all of those decisions at the top are what make the marble valuable, not the physical work of making it. You contributed a fraction (actually a small fraction) of the value of the marble, for which you where paid a salary. That is why the further up the corporate ladder, the higher the salary. Most of the value of an object has to do with decisions being made at the top, not with the physical labor being done at the bottom.

The point is, the reason you have a job, is because someone further up decided what kind of marble to make. And again, there is nothing to stop you from opening a competing marble factory if you think you are up to it. Dullfig 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone is cut out to be a decision-maker, or we would all be already. - I'm sure pro-slavery people used the same argument. And I'm sure anti-democracy, and anti-suffragette people used the same argument too. But people respond if you give them responsibility. A system that requires most people to be sheep will either make people evolve to be sheep, or break. Infinity0 ^talk 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a little fed up with your slavery analogies. People are born with different abilities. Some are musicians. Some are athletes. Some are engineers. You know this is true. So why do you insist that EVERYONE is capable of being an entrepreneur, or a manager for that matter? Dullfig 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should entrepreneurs be allowed to exploit everyone else, then? I make the slavery analogies because they have a heck of a lot in common. People may be looking back on us in 500 years and saying "I can't believe those people in the 20th century participated in such a barbaric and inhuman system." Infinity0 ^talk 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's all very nice but the real power center in a capitalist society are owners of stocks and financial instruments who have typically inherited millions and who are required to make minimal comparative effort to maintain their exorbitantly and grotesquely unmerited kazillions. Take note- the exceptions ($elf-made millionaire$) do not prove the rule. Moreover, it has been empirically demonstrated by Pat Devine and others that entrepreneurial efficiency is a myth; much genuine entrepreneurial activity is wasteful and destructive. Besides, corporate capitalism represents a predictable evolution away from an entrepreneurial system. Whatever positive entrepreneurial functions there are (innovation) can be better mobilized by including the whole public in economic decision-making. BernardL 00:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not obvious that in a free society, any trade between two people is always mutually benefitial, or neither enters into the agreement?! The employee MUST feel he is getting more money than what he worked, or he would go work somewhere else! Again, back to basics:

• if I make arrowheads, and you make pottery, and we agree to exchange one of my arrowheads for one of your pots, we must BOTH feel we are getting more for less, or we would not agree to trade. It doesn't matter that it took me one hour to make the arrowhead, what matters is it would have taken you THREE. In any free society, you are free to go trade with whomever gives you the best value.

Slave labor means you do not own the fruits of your labor. In a free society, you do. The problem is you bought into the whole marxist theory of value. You think the only thing that makes an object valuable is the amount of work put into it. But it is not. The inventing part, the thought that goes into how and what to make, is far, far, far more valuable than the actual work. What makes a Dam valuable, for example, is not how much concrete was transported by the workers, but WHERE DO YOU PUT THE DAM. Gosh, I could just pull my hair out. PLEASE explain to me why the thinking and planning that goes into a product HAVE NO VALUE in your eyes. Dullfig 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Let me ask you this: Suppose you write a book. Suppose that you work best by dictating to a tape recorder. You finish your book, and now you have all these tapes that need to be transcribed. So you hire a typist by the hour to take all the tapes and type up a manuscript. When you sell your book to a publisher, who should get the money, you or the typist? after all the typist did all the work, right? In other words, what makes a book valuable, the thoughts conveyed by the book, or the time it took to type it? -- Dullfig 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your example isn't relevant to what I am saying. Investors don't do anything. All they do is buy stocks. Investors in no way contribute to the process of creating the product. They only contribute the raw materials, which rightfully should be returned to them. Infinity0 ^talk 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question... -- Dullfig

You were ascribing a position to me which I have never showed any sign of supporting. I just showed how it was irrelevant to what points I was saying. Please keep the topic relevant. Of course the writer should have a part of the profits, since he worked to create part of the book. Infinity0 ^talk 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

but you see, what makes the book valuable is ONLY the fact that it conveys the ideas of the author. No one would buy a book that consisted of 150 pages of random typed letters. The typist does not add value to the book, other than he wrote it down. He got paid for the time it took him to type it. He's not being "exploited", most of the value of the book was created by the writer, not the typist. So the fact that the typist makes less money than the author is fair. Dullfig 01:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes he does. The medium changes the value. A book's price is different from a concrete slab, for example, even if they both contained the same words. All labour contributes something to the value of an object (though I'm not saying labour directly determines value.) Infinity0 ^talk 19:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your dancing around the issue. The question is NOT which medium is more valuable; the question is who added more value to the book. That is what I want you to answer. And I feel you don't want to answer because you know that the author puts more value into the book than the typist. Besides, the typist is not the one who decided to use paper instead of concrete slabs. Dullfig 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• but you see, what makes the book valuable is ONLY the fact that it conveys the ideas of the author.
• the question is who added more value to the book... And I feel you don't want to answer because you know that the author puts more value into the book than the typist.

Dullfig, it seems like you changed your questions halfway through. First it was "the author is the only one who puts in value" then it's "the author puts in the most value". Obviously, I disagree with the first (and stated that I did) and agree with the second (which you didn't give me a chance to agree since you never asked that question). But the typist still puts something into the book. Hence why different media have different prices. Infinity0 ^talk 13:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Coercion

The thing is that people who advocate the "voluntary transactions are always beneficial thesis" have a strange idea of what's voluntary. For example. if I take a job because it's the only one I can get which will allow me to feed myself, my decision to take on the job is "voluntary" in the technical sense used by these advocates (after all, I might have decided to starve to death instead). Herein lies the problem. Under this trivial sense of "voluntary", any society whatsoever can be said to place no restrictions on voluntary actions. For example, if a Stalinist society puts me in jail for selling my car, I can still choose to sell my car. Or indeed, if a mugger says to me "give me your wallet or I'll shoot you", I can still choose to be shot, so my action is voluntary if I give the mugger my wallet, hence mutually beneficial. (Of course, in the mugger example, it really is mutually beneficial if I give the mugger my wallet, but my point is that I'd be disinclined to describe my action as "voluntary"). Cadr 02:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "voluntary" is almost always used in an ethical sense. It means not coerced. If someone points a gun at you and demands your money, sure it's voluntary in a literal sense if you choose to give him your money rather than being shot, but not in an ethical sense which is how the term is commonly used. That's why the modern libertarians are very explicit in defining coercion (physical force and the threat of physical force). The idea of mutually beneficial trade is that if the trade is not coerced (voluntary), then the trade is being made because each side values what they're getting more than what they're giving in exchange, otherwise they wouldn't make the trade. If a merchant is pointing a gun to your head to make you buy his goods, then you're not making a value judgement on the product you're getting, so the idea of mutually beneficial trade breaks down. The concept of mutually beneficial trade only makes sense in a free market. If you're using "voluntary" in a literal sense, rather than in an ethical sense (lack of coercion), then sure, mutually beneficial trade makes no sense at all. It's unfortunate that the word suffers from that ambiguity. Some use the term "ethically voluntary" to avoid the communication problem. That terminology may even be good to introduce into Wikipedia --I just don't know if the term is common enough. RJII 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The employee MUST feel he is getting more money than what he worked, or he would go work somewhere else! - where in the definition of "exploit" does "agree" come into it? The exploited is not getting what he fully deserves, irrespective of consent.

How do you know what he deserves? RJII 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If a merchant is pointing a gun to your head to make you buy his goods, then you're not making a value judgement on the product you're getting, so the idea of mutually beneficial trade breaks down. - OK, consider this: You're in a desert with no water and then come to a merchant who is willing to sell you some in return that you become his slave. So, did the merchant coerce or exploit you? Infinity0 ^talk 19:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean by becoming a slave. Do you you mean the thirsty person selling himself to the merchant --as in he no longer has the right to use of his own body? that he is not free to leave? RJII 19:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. After he makes the deal, he gets his water and becomes a slave. Infinity0 ^talk 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So, he actually sells his own body to the merchant in exchange for water; otherwise the mercant won't give him water. Of course that's exploitation. Who would deny that? But, what's the solution to prevent that? Competition, right? You can buy water in the store for a buck because so many merchants are competing for the customer. You wouldn't call selling water for 1 dollar exploitation would you? RJII 20:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So, coercion doesn't have to be physical. By putting the other person in a situation where he has to agree or die, the other person is not making a value judgement on the product either. The same in a employer-employee relationship. The employee is not making a value judgement on the value of his own labour; he needs the job or else he will die. Infinity0 ^talk 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't be coercion. The merchant isn't doing anything TO the guy. He's taking advantage of his desperate situation --the guy was already dying of thirst before the merchant arrived with a bottle of water for sale. It's exploitation, not coercion --that's the difference between the two. The guy would indeed by making a value judgement on the water free from coercion --but not free from the forces of biology --his thirst. RJII 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How is he possibly making a value judgement on the water if he needs it to survive? When you are near to death all you care about is surviving; all logic and judgement goes out of the window. How is it not coercion? Does the desperate guy have any choice? Agreeing to do something under threat of being killed by a gun is the same thing as agreeing to do something under the threat of dying through poverty. Infinity0 ^talk 22:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously he values survival more than he values living life as a free person. Of course he's making a value judgement on the water. I thought I already explained how it's not coercion. The merchant is not coercing him --he's exploiting him. There is a difference. Do you understand the difference between killing and letting die? Holding a gun to someone's head to make him buy your water is coercion --you're DOING something to him. In contrast, withholding water from a thirsty person is not killing them --it's letting them die --it's REFRAINING from action. Sure, the result is the same, but the mechanism is different --one is coercion and the other is not. Coercion comes from a moral agent --it doesn't come from nature. If you're thirsty who is coercing you to drink? The question is incoherent. If you offer to give a thirsty person water only on the condition that he give you his life, you're exploiting him, but not coercing him. RJII 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How can he make a value judgement on the water when he needs it to live? Then by your logic, he is making a value judgement on the goods when he has a gun pointed to his head too. If you're thirsty what is coercing you to think? If you have a gun pointed to your head what is coercing you to give in? Both have the same answer - desire to life. If you are thirsty, you must drink. If you have a gun pointed to your head, you must give in to demands. In short, passive and active coercion are both the same thing, and equally despicable. I don't understand why you give them such moral distinction. Infinity0 ^talk 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, coercion and exploitation are not the same thing. I'm not saying they're not both bad things. I'm saying they're not the same thing. You can exploit someone without coercing them. That's exactly what you're doing if you refuse to give a thirsty person water, that will die unless he gets water, unless he promise to sign his life over to you. You're not coercing him; you're merely taking advantage of his desperate situation. I'm not saying that's not a reprehensible thing to do. I'm saying it's not coercion, but exploitation. RJII 00:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know what he deserves? - the employee does not get anything out of the products. Instead, they are taken away from him and sold and distributed under the employer's name, in exchange for a pre-determined wage. This wage has no direct relation to the profit the employer makes with the product; so it has no direct relation to the work of the employee, which is the thing being sold, and so he is not getting what he deserves. And the employer always makes (or thinks he is making) a profit from his labour, since otherwise he wouldn't be hiring him. Infinity0 ^talk 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying it's not coercion, but exploitation. - what's the difference, really? If the only difference is that one is slightly more direct than the other, I don't see the point of making the distinction. The end effects are both the same. If withdrawing water from a person is exploitation, then surely you can argue that withdrawing blood supply to the brain (gun to the head) from a person is exploitation? It's only two sides of the same coin. Infinity0 ^talk 19:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The point in making the distinction is that there is a distinction. Pointing a gun at someone to get them to buy your water is coercion. Refraining from giving water to someone dying of thirst unless they agree to sign their life over to you is exploitation. Though the results are the same if the guy chooses against the water, the means are different. The first example is coercion. The second exploitation without coercion. The first is killing, and the second is letting die. This distinction is important in the field of ethics. For example, some argue that to kill someone is unethical but to let someone die that is dying is not. Or, some believe exploitation is unethical but it should be legal because a law prohibiting it would have worse consequences than allowing exploitation. Or, a whole other variety of issues that are beyond the scope of this conversation. If you don't know the value of recognizing the difference between two concepts I don't know what to tell you, other than you're thinking is going to be screwed up when you take it to the next level when its premised on the conflation of two distinct concepts. Try saying exploitation and coercion mean the same thing on your exam in Ethics 101, when you get there, and see what happens. RJII 03:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think exploitation is more ethical than coercion, especially in this case, where the victim does NOT have a choice in both instances? Your original comment was "The term "voluntary" is almost always used in an ethical sense. It means not coerced." So, the person dying of thirst - if he agreed to be a slave, is his action voluntary? Infinity0 ^talk 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

When did I say that exploitation is more ethical than coercion? Exploitation is unethical by definition. If a person agrees to be a slave because he's dying of thirst, rather than being coerced, then yes, of course it's voluntary --by definition. In other words, he's not being coerced. He's being exploited. Exploitation can be consensual. RJII 21:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

But then, the person with a gun pointed to his head, he agrees to his tormentor's demands too. Infinity0 ^talk 13:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes he agrees. But agrees under coercion. So, by definition, it's not a voluntary agreement. Exploitation can be voluntary and involuntary. That is, you can exploit someone through the use of coercion. And, you can exploit someone without using coercion. Refusing to save someone's life unless he promises to be your slave for life, is, I'd say, exploitative, but it's not coercive; if he agrees, it's voluntary exploitation. Now, maybe such exploitation should be outlawed, or maybe not. I'm not here to argue one way or the other. I'm just explaining to you the difference between exploitation and coercion. RJII 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Then the thirsty person is being coerced too. "To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel." He is being forced to act in a certain way by use of a threat. They are both coercion (and exploitation), but one is passive and one is active. That's the distinction, not yours (coercion/exploitation). Infinity0 ^talk 22:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No the thirsty person is not being coerced. The person is moved to choose to sell himself as a slave not because of "pressure, threats, or intimidation" from the person with the water, but by his own desire to survive. You're even the one that stated in the article that exploitation is not contingent upon consent. This is an example of consensual exploitation. What did you have in mind as an example of consensual exploitation? RJII 22:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Both examples, gun-to-head and withholding water, are coercive threats which exploit the person's desire to survive. In both cases the person agrees under coercion. Only difference is the method of threat - gun-to-head is active threat, withholding water is passive threat. But they're both coercion. Infinity0 ^talk 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, withhold water from a thirsty person is not coercing him to purchase that water. In other words, you're not initiating physical force against him and you're not initiating a threat of physical force against him. You're threatining to WITHHOLD AID. That's not coercion. In coercion, you're doing something to someone. Withhold water from someone is not doing anything to them, it's REFRAINING from doing something. Look, I'm tired of giving you free lessons in the philosophy of ethics. And, you won't even listen. Here's a link for you to read so you can learn some basic concepts and definitions: [49] RJII 02:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, I'm trying to make you see that your concept of "coercion" is different from the definition. Go check a dictionary. Dictionary.com says

co·erce

1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.

[50] mentions only threats, nothing about doing or refraining: "On one face, it picks out a technique agents (coercers) can use to get other agents to do or not do something. " - a technique - that is, any technique. I agree that this is exploitation; but this is also coercion. There is nothing in there saying coercion or threats have to be physical. Why should it? Refraining is also an action, a "doing", isn't it? The seller is physically restricting access of water. He is actively making the threat. In the end, both situations go down to "if you don't agree to this exchange, you'll die." Infinity0 ^talk 22:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

One more time. If you refrain from giving water to someone unless they agree to be your slave, you're not coercing them to be your slave. They are choosing to be your slave in the absence of coercion from you, because the alternative, at the time, is worse (dying). Coercion to be your slave would be the case of you saying "I'm going to kill you unless you become my slave." But, saying I will LET YOU DIE if you don't promise to be me slave is not coercion. You're not coercing someone unless you're lodging the threat of taking some harmful action against them. Threating to NOT take action, is not coercive. Maybe take a look at the article coercion. RJII 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer what I wrote. Also, that's not the whole story. Not only are you refraining from giving water, you are demanding that person be your slave. Also, he needs that resource for survival. There is no difference to the victim whether your coercer is "killing you" or "letting you die". The force of threat is just as powerful.

Funnily enough, coercion says "If I am the owner of the only water supply you can use, then my threat to refuse to supply you is a death threat. Yet it only involves my refusal to enter into a contract, without any use of force whatever. This kind of coercion, which can be very powerful indeed, is called "economic coercion"." Great minds think alike, eh? Infinity0 ^talk 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's wrong. It's not coercion. The editor, like you, fails to understand the distinction between killing and letting die. You're not coercing someone if you let them die. Otherwise, you would be coercing everyone starving person in the world if you don't start giving them all your money. Surely, you don't think that do you? Are you coercing starving people in Somalia beacuse you're not sending your money over there? RJII 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because you're not actively asking them to be your slave - you're not presenting them with an objective to get out of it. In the case of the above, the objective is the "becoming his slave". Stop thinking everyone else is wrong; you formed this definition based on the right-wing texts you've read - I doubt that you looked at a dictionary first to find the actual meaning - you just picked it out of the context, and guessed wrongly. We've all done it, it's not a horribly bad thing. Infinity0 ^talk 00:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a necessary condition of coercion that the coercer benefits from the coercion. "Everyone else" is not wrong. You and the other uninformed Wikipedia editor that made the entry is wrong. Everyone else understands that coercion requires a threat of force against someone. Threatening to REFRAIN from giving someone aid is not coercion (and whether you benefit from withholding aid or not). RJII 01:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Threatening to withhold a life supply is a threat of force. Why is it not? Infinity0 ^talk 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just not. Why would it be a threat of force? If you have a bottle of water in your refrigerator and someone is dying of thirst outside, how are you threatening him with force? You're not doing anything. Let's say he comes and knocks on your door and ask for water. You say "no." You're still not threatening to initiate force against him. You're simply declining his request to give him some of your water. You're just saying the word "no." RJII 04:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a really weak argument. All you're doing is moving your finger closer to your hand. It's just coincidence that your finger is on the trigger, you're not really responsible for his death! Infinity0 ^talk

The water example is not coercion. That's not a pronouncement on whether it's unethical or not. And, that's why exploitation can be consensual (as you admitted in the article), which again, is not an assertion that that exploitation is not unethical. (Your example of a gun IS coercion. You're threatening to shoot someone). Simply not helping someone, is not coercing them. RJII 19:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're just stating your position. Coercion is a threat (by definition) to persuade the coercee to do something. Threatening to withold a life supply is a threat (hence why you called it "threatening to withold"). If it isn't a threat, (you say it's just saying "no"), then gun-to-head isn't a threat either, as it's just "moving your finger". Infinity0 ^talk 19:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Threatening to NOT open your refrigerator and give someone a drink of water is NOT coercion. Pointing a gun at someone IS coercion. You're threatening to KILL them. In the water example, you're simply LETTING THEM DIE. Letting someone die, is NOT coercion. It's INACTION. RJII 19:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, coercion is any threat, passive or active. Read a dictionary. If you want to make a distinction, call it active coercion and passive coercion. Infinity0 ^talk 19:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A threat to do nothing?! A threat to REFRAIN from doing?! Let's look up the word "threat": "an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage." NOT giving someone water is NOT expression intention to INFLICT evil, injury, or damage. It's not a "threat" at all. It's a misuse of the language to use the term as you're using it. Coercion includes a THREAT ...to DO SOMETHING *TO* SOMEONE --it's not the INACTION of *NOT* doing something to someone. By your insane illogic and irrational use of the English language, you're coercing everyone in the world that is thirsty because you're not standing on your front porch offering water. Because you're not doing that, then you're "coercing" all the thirsty people outside your home into going to the store to purchasing water. How insane is that? RJII 19:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not coercing every thirsty person in the world, because I haven't delivered a threat to them, nor an option to avoid the threat. By denying water, you are inflicting death. You may be doing this passively, but you are still doing it. Infinity0 ^talk 20:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not inflicting death. You are LETTING DIE. There is a difference between killing and letting die. This is a ridiculous. Go to college. Take Philosophy of Ethics 101. RJII 20:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Killing and letting die are both inflicting death. They are two sides of the same coin. There is a distinction, but only since one is active and the other is passive. They are both threats, the victim feels threatened and forced, and so they are both coercion. Infinity0 ^talk 20:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, killing and letting die are NOT both "inflicting" death. Killing is inflicting death. Letting die is doing nothing. RJII 20:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Doing nothing is doing something, if you have other options. Why should "nothing" have a special status on its own?

"Doing nothing is doing something." Now I've heard it all. Now we know how your mind works. Case closed. RJII 20:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't shy away from the debate. A human is a conscious being making decisions all the time. When he does nothing, he MAKES A DECISION TO DO NOTHING. That is why doing nothing is the SAME as doing something. I believe any ethics course teaches that. Infinity0 ^talk 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

From Economic Compulsion and Christian Ethics

The moral baseline

Wertheimer (1987) distills common threads in the courts' adjudication of a wide variety of cases on the binding nature of obligations incurred under duress. Moving from law to philosophy, he synthesizes the rationale behind these legal rulings into a coherent theory of coercion. At the heart of his framework is the distinction between threats and offers; the former are coercive, the latter are not.5 Observe the contrast in the two cases he examines:

• The Stock Market Case. A realizes that B is about to lose a large sum in the stock market. A tells B that he will help B avoid the loss if and only if B gives him 15 percent of the amount he would have lost.
• The Ambulance Case. A comes upon an auto wreck and an injured B on a desolate stretch of the road. A tells B that he will call an ambulance if and only if B gives him $100. (Wertheimer 1987: 214)6

A's proposal is coercive in the Ambulance Case, but not in the Stock Market Case. After all, there is an obligation in the former (to summon an ambulance), but not in the latter because A is not bound by any duty to help B avert an impending loss in the stock market. Thus, A's offer to call an ambulance in exchange for $100 is in effect a threat in the form of “I will leave you here to die without medical assistance unless you compensate me for calling an ambulance.” This is a coercive proposal. The Stock Market Case, on the other hand, is a genuine offer, a noncoercive proposal, because there are no ties or bonds that require A to alert and help B avoid financial ruin. A has a right to ask for remuneration in the Stock Market Case, but not in the Ambulance Case. Thus, one must weigh the web of obligations and rights binding the transactors, if any, before one can ascertain whether a condition of coercion exists or not.7

"there is an obligation in the former (to summon an ambulance)," he says. He's wrong. There is no moral obligation to summon an ambulance. So, maybe you're making the same error. You're ASSUMING that one has a moral obligation to give a thirsty person water. Is that so? RJII 20:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, there is no obligation to not shoot. A human is a conscious being making decisions all the time. When he does nothing, he MAKES A DECISION TO DO NOTHING. In both cases, he makes the decision knowing the person will die as a result of his decision. Hence, the ethics behind both cases are the same, and it's a threat. Infinity0 ^talk 20:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A threat is "an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage." If you choose to do NOTHING, then you're not INFLICTING anything on anyone. You're simply sitting back and watching the guy die. Now, if you STOLE his water then refused to give it to him when he was thirsty, you would definitely be inflicting harm on him. RJII 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

He's not doing nothing, he's withholding water. Just because it has no affect on the macro physical world doesn't mean it's literally nothing - he's decided to do nothing and let someone else die. To do nothing about a situation, you have to know nothing about it. To withhold the water he has to physically guard it. If he does literally nothing, then the starving person can just get the water and drink it. Infinity0 ^talk 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. You're mixing up initiatory force with defensive force. If you keep someone from taking your water, HE'S the one coercing YOU. You're responding to his coercion by using force defensively. See? Now, again, if you STOLE his water THEN refused to give it to him, YOU'RE the one initiating force. You would have a moral obligation to give him back his water. RJII 21:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Coercing him do to what? He needs water to survive. You are demanding that he be a slave in return for his life, and by keeping that water away from him are inflicting death upon him. Remember, to withhold water you are actually doing something, not nothing. He feels threatened and forced, since he will die unless he gives in. Infinity0 ^talk 21:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No you're not doing something. You're doing NOTHING by NOT giving someone water. If he tries to TAKE your water, and you forcibly hold it back, THEN you are doing SOMETHING. But, he is the one initiating coercion against YOU. You're responding with defensive force. RJII 21:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not doing nothing, you're making the decision leading to his death. That's an infliction. You are responsible for his death. How many other ways can I say it? Your logic is just trying to argue away the coercer's responsibility. The coercer is fully aware of the consequences of his action and the pressure it has on the coercee. The coercee feels this pressure very strongly, and in the end, that is all coercion is judged on - whether someone feels the force of coercion. If they don't feel the force of coercion, that coercion has failed. And if they do feel that force, the coercion is in effect. Infinity0 ^talk 21:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not INFLICTING his death; if he never saw you, he would die ANYWAY. Learn how to use the English language! You MAY be morally responsible for his death, but ONLY if you have a moral obligation to give him water. If you don't have such a moral obligation, then you are NOT morally responsible for his death. But, you CERTAINLY didn't KILL him. You LET HIM DIE. RJII 21:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that if he never saw you is irrelevant, since he DID see you. You have the choice to prevent his death, and actively chose otherwise. Moral obligation is irrelevant also. You caused his death, because you chose to. And he feels the force of coercion. Infinity0 ^talk 21:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If a person is going to die whether you're around or not, then you did NOT cause his death. If you can PREVENT a person's death that is dying already, you did NOT cause his death. You simply didn't PREVENT his death. RJII 22:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Say you weren't around. Then the guy has 100% chance of dying. However, you being around changes the situation TOTALLY. The guy now has 50% chance to survive, 50% to die. You chose the die option. You could have just as easily chose the other option, but you didn't. The fact that "if" you weren't there, "then" he would have died is completely irrelevant. Because you ARE there, and you chose otherwise, the responsibility of his death now passes to YOU. (not you personally RJII :P) Infinity0 ^talk 22:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What kind of "responsibility"? MORAL responsibility? That can only be the cause if one has moral obligation to save his life. What do you mean by "responsibility"? RJII 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"(partly) the cause of" Infinity0 ^talk 22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Then, no. Not saving someone's life is not causing their death. Do you think if a person is drowning and you don't jump in to save him, that you've "partly" caused his death? RJII 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If I am fully capable of saving him but chose not to, then yes, I've partly caused his death. Infinity0 ^talk 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's insanity! He would drown whether you witnessed it or not. Whoever pushed him in the water caused his death. RJII 22:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, me being there changes everything. If I am fully capable of saving him (ie. no reason not to do it), then I will have closed the door to life for him. If I wasn't there, there wasn't a door in the first place. The person who pushed him in takes the most responsibility, I agree, though. But sometimes there is no such person. Infinity0 ^talk 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you're not talking about "cause" but moral culpability. You think you are morally blameworthy for not saving him. You're not CAUSING him to drown. You're just not intervening to prevent it. And, you think that's unethical. In other words, you think people have a moral obligation to help others in need. RJII 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with morals, and I'm not thinking of this situation in terms of morals. "Doing nothing" isn't the default choice, if that helps to explain it. Since I have the illusion of free will, saving and not saving are equal actions, because they require equal amounts of thought to carry out. I contributed to his death, partly caused it. Removing a variable is just as causal as adding a variable.

That's just crazy thinking. By not saving a drowning man, you are not in any way causing him to drown. That's self-evident. It needs no further explanation. RJII 02:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You're treating a human as if it was an inanimate object. But when you decide to do "nothing", you do something, because you have made that decision. Only when you don't KNOW about the situation, then can you NOT decide and truly do NOTHING. Infinity0 ^talk 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you decide to do nothing (even if you say doing nothing is doing something, which is complete stupidity), then aren't causing the person to drown. You're simply not interfering. RJII 20:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone must recognize this is NOT a black and white issue. The water example: if I am dying of thirst and you don't know, not giving me water is neither coercion nor exploitation - it is ignorance. If you do know, but refuse to give it to me because you would rather keep it for yourself, I don't believe it falls into either category - just plain selfishness. If you know I'm dying and ask me to work for you in exchange for the water - exploitation. If you know, and demand I work while holding the water painfully and visibly close - coercion. You must consider not just the over situation, but the motives and actions of both parties. Morality cannot be defined by the merely physical, or else we would consider the stars and planets to be moral. It must be tied to consciousness and to the acts of conscience.

If you are dying of thirst and I don't know, then I am truly doing nothing. That is the logical extension of my argument. If you are dying of thirst and I do know, and I choose to physically do nothing, I have done something - mentally chosen to not physically do something.

I don't see the difference between "if you know I'm dying and ask me to work for you in exchange for the water - exploitation. If you know, and demand I work while holding the water painfully and visibly close - coercion." I'd say it's only different degrees of coercion, since the victim in both cases will die otherwise. -- infinity0 17:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of word Peso

I need a source for this. I speak spanish, and I always thought "peso" (weight in spanish) refered to "weight in gold or silver". Here is says that the origin has something to do with animals ("pecu" or "pashu"). Which is it? -- Dullfig 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Edits by User:Ramayan need to be checked for POV. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 21:09Z

Moved one section further down, removed the other. Infinity0 ^talk 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Ravi Batra and others may also have POV. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-08 21:40Z

Removal of peer-reviewed study

Max rspct, please explain why you deleted the link to the peer-reviewed article? Ultramarine 15:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not verifiable. Infinity0 ^talk 15:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave a link to a peer-reviewed study. Most peer-reviewed articles are published in journals that are not free. There is no requirement in science or Wikipedia that only the very few that are free should be allowed.Ultramarine 16:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of giving a link that readers can't access? Infinity0 ^talk 16:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Can usually be accessed in a library. Your policy would remove almost all science from Wikipedia.Ultramarine 16:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Almost all links on wikipedia are to public access resources. The internet is a public domain, after all. Infinity0 ^talk 16:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal would state that almost all the information in the articles about physcis, medicine, biology, and so on are unverifiable because they rely on information from studies published in not free journals. Are you really advocating this? Ultramarine 16:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no proposal and what I am saying does not state what you are trying to imply. The original research may be from a paying journal, but all links on all articles link to public, accessible information. Infinity0 ^talk 17:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. People post sources that aren't posted on the net all the time. I do as well. Can you imagine how limited we would be if we could only post sources that were on the net? Do you realize how many books there are that haven't been copied on to the net? We should be bringing information ON to the net, not just copying stuff over to Wikipedia that's already on the net. Your objection is bogus. If you want to verify something, then get off your butt and head to the library or open your wallet and purchase a book or study. You're just trying to make it easy on yourself, at the expense of keeping knowledge out. RJII 21:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, that wasn't my point. My point is that any LINKS should point to accessible information. Infinity0 ^talk 13:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because you have to pay to see it doesn't mean it's not accessible. RJII 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

On those sites you have to pay a subscription to see the resource - and that's not worth it to see one article. So, it's as good as inaccessible since no-one will pay the subscription just to see that source. With a book, you pay once for the actual book, and you get to keep it. Also, anyone can publish anything on the internet. Infinity0 ^talk 22:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It costs next to nothing. Whose fault is it if it's a problem for you to come up with the funds? If you can't afford to purchase the articles, maybe you should get off Wikipedia and go make some money. That's just pathetic. RJII 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Most readers will not pay to read it, for reason stated above. Please remember that wikipedia is free, and that most readers come here because they want free information. Why should we include a source only a select few will be able to access? Infinity0 ^talk 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only will most reader not pay to read it, most will not even read it if it it's free. I find it reprehensible that you will censor information from Wikipedia because it costs money to access the source of that information. Apparently you don't have the same goals as most of us who are here to bring knowledge forth, rather than sacrifice it for economic "fairness." RJII 16:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, RJII, if a reader sees a source for claim they dispute, they will click that link. But if it goes to a service you have to pay for, they'll think, "screw it", and most likely edit the page to remove the link. Infinity0 ^talk 17:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. I pay to verify sources. If you care about knowledge you'll pay to verify. If you don't then you'll censor the info instead. RJII 19:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If you care about knowledge you wouldn't make it inconvenient for people to access. Infinity0 ^talk 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A little off tangent but worth mentioning I think is Ultramarine's extreme fetishism for "peer review" that amounts to little more than a false appeal to authority. Ultramarine tends to pretend that a peer reviewed article represents a "scientific" consensus. He also wants us to follow his non-sequitir by believing that "peer-review" somehow confers authority on the content of arguments. There are several problems with this little pretence. PHD's in most academic disciplines are not terribly scarce. Journals require only a handful of phd referees to slap the "peer review" label on. Groups of more or less like-minded peers are not hard to find, but they do not represent consensus opinion even on matters of methodology within a discipline. The hard sciences are relatively more unified but within a discipline such as economics there are examples of peer-reviewed journals that espouse completely antithetical positions. For example compare Ultramarine's favourite journals with peer reviewed Marxist and world-systems journals such as "Science and Society" and "The Journal of World Systems Research," and you will find authors arguing and providing "peer-reviewed" evidence that is completely contradictory in relation to one another. All this so far without considering interdisciplinary contexts. Social sciences like sociology and anthropology have dominant schools that run notoriously against the grain of mainstream economics. Which "peer-reviewed" evidence is correct?- the economist's or the sociologist's? The fact of the matter is that peer-review, when it is not abused can serve an okay purpose, it can ensure a modicum of scholarly standards, organized presentation, and quality in the employment of chosen methodologies. My point is to not overstate peer review's merits, the concept of peer review itself, especially within the social sciences does not evince some strong claim to authoritativeness. The following excerpt from an essay in the Post-Autistic Economics review at least indicates the reality of a lack of consensus between disciplines and the scarcity of peer-reviewers capable of functioning beyond the confines of their academic fiefdoms:

"This problem emerges concretely in the process of peer review. Reflecting on their interdisciplinary co-editorship of Economics and Philosophy in the late 1980s, Hausman and McPherson (1988) confess to finding intradisciplinary paradigm differences much more difficult to navigate than differences across disciplines. “The sharpest divergence in terms of standards has lain . . . between different schools of economists. . . . [W]e have generally shied away from refereeing across schools, precisely because the differences are so sharp and so predictable and the results so generally unhelpful” (Hausman and McPherson 1988, 3). These problems would not be so severe if there were some semblance of transparadigm agreement about methodological and epistemological norms in economics. Yet each of these meta-economic fields is a contentious conversation unto itself, with no consensus rules or guidelines. Hence there is no easy resolution to these evaluative dilemmas. Backhouse recounts similar experiences from his editorship at the Economic Journal (Backhouse 1994). In addressing the issue of standards, he says, we must recognize the reality of “paradigm bias.” At the same time, one cannot resolve this problem by adopting balkanized editorial procedures (e.g., Marxian articles can only be read by Marxists). It is better to mix and match, though one then runs the risk of being criticized (and understandably so) for stacking the deck against authors whose submissions were rejected by reviewers from rival schools of thought. The underlying problem here is that today’s academic economists often lack the pluralist capability to evaluate work beyond their own narrow fields of expertise. Their economic education has not given them sufficient knowledge or intellectual humility to read effectively across methodological boundaries. This is the very conclusion reached by Backhouse. He suggests the need for capabilities-enhancing reforms in economic education in order to produce more scholars who are capable of fair-minded peer review. The ideal reviewer, he writes, would be a scholar “whose position is different from that of the . . . author, but who [is] prepared to treat [the work] sympathetically as well as applying high critical standards” (Backhouse 1994, 116)." http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue35/Garnett35.htm BernardL 04:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I can access pay journals since I am a student at U of Toronto. Many others are in the same position. So putting links to pay journals is very useful for a lot of people--69.194.149.147 23:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Taxes

I just want to know an answer to a rather simple question. Would it be in any way possible for a state, capitilist or not, to survive without taxes? WASTREL 14:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Without taxes the government would have to look for sponsors, and become essentially privately owned (and you could buy shares in the government). Something like that. Infinity0 ^talk 18:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How are you defining "state"? RJII 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wastrel, IMHO, the answer is "yes" in a very abstract sense, but success in that endeavor over a period of months, much less years, doesn't seem very likely. I gather that you're using "state" as a rough synonym of "government" here, and that you refer to a monopoly on the use of force, or on the licensing of force by others, within a given territory. Without taxation, such a monopolist could try to support itself by, say, the sale of lottery tickets, or by toll booths at the highways. But it seems unlikely such measures could produce the revenue necessary to maintain such a monopoly for long, especially since anyone willing to challenge that monopoly could also sell lottery tickets, and the psychology of legitimacy in the affected population (the idea that the government's force and lotteries were better because of the nimbus of official-dom) would quickly fade. --Christofurio 15:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments They are very helpful and relevant.WASTREL 10:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pros and cons section

I think I see what is wrong with the pros and cons. The pros are not related to the cons. For example, ther first point in cons is "workers are exploited". there is no rebutal point in the pro section saying "workers are paid in full for their work. profit is due to the value added by the employer". or something like that. I hope you see what I mean, each point is unrelated to the other, leaving you confused. Dullfig 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That sort of approach tends to a non-stop chain of rebuttals and counter rebuttals. A usual formula is attack->response->counter-response. You should probably put each point and its responses and counter-responses in its own paragraph, instead of having a disjointed list of attacks and rebuttals. Infinity0 ^talk 17:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Destroyed me soon, didn't you!

You wanna do something about capitalism, go out there and do something, or even edit the criticisms section of this article. Writing what you did is pointless and only invites attacks from pro-capitalists, since they make up most of the people who read this page. Posting here doesn't do anything, since nobody except us editors read this page. Infinity0 ^talk 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I understand now. Thanks:) My apologies.

POV fork

Massive amount material has been removed to a POV-fork "Criticisms of capitalism". First, much of the material moved is not criticism. Second, much of the defense agaisnt criticism remains in this article, making the new article unbalanced. Third, POV-forks are not allowed. If the article is too long, create neutral subarticles. Ultramarine 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a POV fork :| It contains exactly the same information that the section previously did. And no content has been deleted. Infinity0 ^talk 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article." From Wikipedia:NPOV Thus your article is not allowed nor is the removal of the material from this article. Please correct.Ultramarine 19:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's exactly the same as criticisms of socialism and criticisms of communism; all these articles have responses to the criticisms in it. How is this "an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines"? Infinity0 ^talk 19:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I consider these article POV-forks also. Again, if you consider the article too long, create neutral subarticles. Also, much of the material moved is not criticism. Much of the defense agaisnt criticism remains in this article, making the new article unbalanced. Ultramarine 19:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, discuss on talk page and seek consensus before making massive changes.Ultramarine 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism articles by definition also contain responses. Give examples of "much of defence against criticism remains in this article". WP:BB. MrVoluntarist didn't complain this time, nor did anyone else the last time I rearranged the sections. [51] Infinity0 ^talk 19:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The massive changes were done now. Regarding defences, for example the Index of Economic Freedom remains in this article. Again, POV-forks are not allowed. This is clearly creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. .Ultramarine 19:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between this and criticisms of communism which you so love to edit? The "Index of Economic Freedom" can easily be moved to the new article if that is your concern. Though I fail to see which criticism it is supposed to be countering. Infinity0 ^talk 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would gladly delete criticisms of communism since it is a POV-fork. Instead there should be appropriate section under Communist States, Marxism, and so on. Again, your subarticle is not allowed. Create neutral subarticles instead. Again this is clearly "creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts."Ultramarine 19:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it POV? How is it "clearly creating a [POV fork]"? What's your rationale for making this claim? Infinity0 ^talk 19:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the definition of POV-fork in Wikipedia:NPOV and its subarticle about content forking. It is even explicitly stated that an article called "Criticism of XYZ" is a POV-fork.Ultramarine 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't find that statement anywhere. It doesn't help that you accuse me of POV. This is a content fork, not a POV fork. "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism."

Actually, dude, from Wikipedia:Content_forking:

In line with Wikipedia's semi-policy of assuming good faith, the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that justifies a separate article. There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available. And the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article. See also Wikipedia:Criticism

And the new article does contain rebuttals. And the original article contains a summary of the criticisms. Infinity0 ^talk 19:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, there should be some agreement on the talk page before making this massive change. If you can get a majority to agree with you, I will accept the change. Ultramarine 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If an edit is acceptable to everyone then no-one will try to revert it. How about we wait a few days to see if anyone else complains? Infinity0 ^talk 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Subarticle not a POV fork

I hate to say it, but for once I agree with User:Infinity0. All he did was move the criticisms to their own article to save space. It is exactly parallel to how others were handled, to which no one has objected. Now, we should probably provide more of a summary of each of the anti-capitalist arguments in the capitalist article. And we should make sure the criticisms article doesn't *become* POV. But what Infinity0 did is fine. MrVoluntarist 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Aww. ^^ Infinity0 ^talk 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

When to split off criticisms

I use the following rule of thumb: The criticisms section of an article should be split off into its own sub-article if (and only if) it becomes longer than the entire rest of the article put together. It is only reasonable to split off a section (any section) when it becomes that big. But the criticism section of this article did not meet the length requirement, so I oppose the split. -- Nikodemos 20:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But then, you can have 200KB articles where the criticism takes up 90KB. The criticisms section of the article was pretty close, though. Infinity0 ^talk 20:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

37kb (criticisms) cf. 58kb (capitalism) - criticisms over 2/3 size of original Infinity0 ^talk 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As Ultramarine pointed out, however, a lot of the text in the criticism section did not consist of actual criticisms (e.g. the "capitalism on the rise or in decline" sub-section). Likewise, there are criticisms interwoven in the article outside of the criticism section. And if criticisms are to be split off, advocacy should be placed on the same page with them, rather than leaving it in the main article. In brief, you would have to go over the entire capitalism article, pick off text that supports or opposes capitalism, and integrate it into the criticisms of capitalism article. A rather daunting task. -- Nikodemos 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh look honey, another person who doesn't reveal his actual reasoning until several exchanges have passed.

That's nice, dear. MrVoluntarist 20:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Now 41kb (criticisms) cf. 54kb (capitalism). I now need to move "indices of economic freedom" but I'm not sure what that is a counter-argument for. Infinity0 ^talk 21:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved that section to its place. Now currently 44kb (criticism) and 51kb (capitalism). That's about equal, so that should meet your requirement, Nikodemos? Infinity0 ^talk 21:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it won't. He's going to change the standard. Watch. MrVoluntarist 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Aww, come on, there's no need for the assumption of hostility. WP:AGF Infinity0 ^talk 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked over either of the two articles in detail. As they stand now, I believe they clearly need a lot more work (and by that I mean cleanup in particular, and moving text between them), but I see no reason to object to the split any more. I keep my standards, for your information, so, in accordance with those standards, I hereby change my vote from no to abstain. I've also made a note of MrVoluntarist's completely uncalled for hostility. -- Nikodemos 03:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't hostile. You did hide your reasoning until your first phoney reason was exposed. Let's try to put all our cards on the table when we state a position. Otherwise it tends to look ad-hoc.MrVoluntarist 05:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I recently noticed the RfC for this article and decided to weigh in. I have read Capitalism and Criticisms of capitalism. There is a lot of information in the CC article, so the material must clearly leave the C article. The thesis of the CC article states that it deals with the issues surrounding capitalism, criticisms of its characteristics and failures, and responses to these criticisms. I can infer from this that the article makes a good-faith attempt to address counterclaims. Regardless, the CC article is about as close to a clear, rational, scholarly article as I have seen since I joined Wikipedia. If you still feel there is not enough counterargument in the CC article, you can certainly add content to it.  Cdcon  07:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you guys have a capitalist, free-market, libertarian economist write the capitalism article and a commie (or other deluded creature) write the criticism article.

Deletion of the fact Fidel Castro and Mao Tse Tung oppose capitalism

Why is this being deleted by Infinity and Zsinj? It's well established that leftists dictators oppose capitalism. RJII 19:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Critcised. They didn't publish their original criticisms of capitalism. -- infinity0 19:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they did. Mao Tse Tung wrong extensive philosophy opposing capitalism. I provided a source. And Fidel Castro has a lot of material opposed to capitalism. And, there is no requirement that a criticism has to be published. A vocal criticism from a famous dictator is quite notable. Dictators can't stand capitalism --that needs to be made clear. RJII 19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If dictators can't stand capitalism is your point of inserting those two names, then you are wrong. Dictators of Chile and Argentina were supported by capitalists. Mao Ze Dong drew his theory from Marx and so did Fidel Castro, and they are not known primarily as critics. -- infinity0 19:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. What capitalist supports dictatorship? Also, an important point is that to prevent capitalism you have to impose a dictatorship to keep people from having private ownership of the means of production and engaging in trade, unless somehow everyone is going to just volunteer to do otherwise. We already know that when people are thrust into anarchy, they default to capitalism, as has been seen in Somalia experience. Anyway, aside from all that, they are strong and notable critics of capitalism, so they be noted. RJII 19:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does it have to be a dictatorship? It could be any form of government. And if capitalism is the "default", how come there isn't a pure laisez-faire capitalist society anywhere in the world? Cadr 19:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All governments hold a monopoly on violence. Coersion is the halmark of governments. Our constitution was written to limit the government on purpose, because the founding fathers had observed that all governments slowly try to stick their nose in every aspect of life. Most inhabitants of a country would slowly drift towards laissez-faire, if it where not for the gorvernment trying to "fix things". -- Dullfig 19:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you mean capitalism would be the default in a paralell universe where governments don't exist? Unfortunately, governments exist by definition, since a government is simply the most powerrful institution in a society. Cadr 03:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We try to keep lists down. Peter Kropotkin is better known for criticising capitalism than Mao is. Also, by the logic of your argument, to prevent slavery you "have to impose a dictatorship". -- infinity0 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Mao is much more famous than Kropotkin --or other names you included. Few people have heard of Kropotkin, Prouhon, or Tucker. Anarchist philosophy is very obscure. RJII 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

FOR criticising capitalism. Mao is not known well for criticising capitalism. -- infinity0 20:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes he is. And Fidel Castro is as well. Stop deleting this information. I've provided sources. I'm going to put an NPOV tag on the section, because you're making it look like obscure anarchists oppose capitalism. RJII 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying he didn't criticise capitalism. He's just not primarily known for that. The section is only a small list. -- infinity0 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are known for that. Those anarchists you listed are very obscure. If you think Fidel Castro is not known for opposing capitalism, then those are was less known for that. RJII 20:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh gosh. How does one in good faith co-operate in the task of formulating an informative reference work with people who aren't aware that Maoism is anti-capitalist? --Christofurio 15:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

American System and Dirigisme

Added two links...American System economics and dirigisme for further study with the rest of economy thought. American System was America's economic system prior to 1929 and Dirigisme was the French System after WWII for about thirty years until 1981. --Northmeister 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)