Talk:Capitalism/Archive 18

VisionThing GDP chart
I am pleased the VisonThing's GDP chart solves many of the problems with Ultramarine's earlier one. It is somewhat less guilty of original research in that it simply takes Maddison's aggregate total data rather than selectively picking out regions/polities/whatever-they-are. And it makes it more clear both in the chart itself and in its image page exactly what data is and is not being presented.

Nonetheless, I still feel that the chart somewhat falls down on relevance. Tying it into the "proponents" section is a bit clever, since some proponents really do say something about growth being a good of capitalism. But even after that, I feel no extra information is added by the chart over the caption by itself (under my improvement for tone and NPOV): Angus Maddison argues that available data indicates a strong increase in GDP per capita since 1000 CE. Perhaps with a citation at the end of that sentence.

Rather than just remove the chart, however, I'd like to gauge support for its use. Obviously, VisionThing and Ultramarine will want it. Does anyone else?


 * WGee. Is this the comment you are referring to? All disputes are dealt with below.  In particular the chart is:
 * Relevant - It deals with the argument that Capitalism helps achieve growth as it shows that the growth starts around the time that capitalism did.
 * Not original research - It is the same data regardless of whether it is presented in graph form or text form
 * More helpful than just the text - The chart shows the scope of the growth, which the text alone cannot.
 * Please stop deleting it.


 * Quick point about it, though, it claims that industrialisation has promoted growth - and we know for a fact that non-capitalist countries have industrialised. Indeed, a great many countries could hardly be described as capitalist until around the start of the twentieth century, well after the growth growth...--Red Deathy 08:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Chart of the World GDP growth is there to accompany sentence: "Proponents argue that the rapid, and largely consistent, worldwide increase in economic measures since the industrial revolution is due to the emergence of the modern capitalist." -- Vision Thing -- 14:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe its caption should be changed to reflect this?--Red Deathy 15:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In what way? Caption is pretty neutral as it now stands. -- Vision Thing -- 15:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Proponents argue that the rapid, and largely consistent, worldwide increase in economic measures since the industrial revolution is due to the emergence of the modern capitalist." Might be a slightly better caption?--Red Deathy 08:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we also put in a chart showing astronomical increase in environmental degradation and species extinction since the industrial revolution...just to make it "neutral" ?BernardL 16:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You could certainly put something like that in the criticisms section, I'm sure you could find a source criticizing capitalism for pollution. Although depending on what type of pollution you are talking about, it might not be terribly accurate.  Air pollution, for instance, has become much better since the advent of capitalism: As bad as fossil fuels are, they are 100 times better than the coal that was originally being used.  -Todd ( Talk - Contribs ) 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hell, we can surely use the same TOTALLY,THOROUGHLY SLOPPY methodology as the inclusion of the chart spanning the years 1000-1998 and thus pretend all pollution/environmental devastation of any type was due to the capitalist system -(more specifically it was all due to the "emergence of the modern capitalist"- be sure to give all the credit for scientific and industrial advances to this mythic capitalist). Hell, we can even pretend that the environmental degradation caused by Soviet, Chinese, Eastern European regimes, etc. was essentially attributable to the "emergence" of this capitalist system, since the World GDP chart effectively defines centrally planned economies and market socialist economies as capitalist. BernardL 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen a chart similar to the one you are describing in The Skeptical Environmentalist, and it does not show what you seem to think it shows. Proponents of capitalism believe that even centrally planned economies benefit from other capitalist nations, unless they close their borders to trade.  In any case, most of the communist countries had really crappy growth, and don't contribue much to the growth shown in the chart. -Todd ( Talk - Contribs ) 19:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Skeptical Environmentalist is a bogus corporate stool whose work has been more than effectively refuted by numerous scientists, in magazines like Science, Nature and Scientific American. (eg:. Getting back to your coal analogy it is not that impressive. So capitalism substitutes a petrol-based energy system for coal, not for reasons of sustainability of course, but to drive its inherent need for endless accumulation and growth. For what it's worth and in limited terms,it's a good development. Yet on the other hand one should recognize that in it's inherent need for endless accumulation capitalism incentivizes massive consumerization and therefore total ouput of existing technology as well as the spin-off "by-products" exemplified by the petrochemical industry's proliferation of plastics and pesticides, along with the carcinogonic and teratogenic toxins associated with them. So in reality the absolute level of environmental destruction increases, despite what Lomborg may assert in his notoriously selective pseudo-scientific greenwashing. Barry Commoner has written very convincingly about the environmental destruction associated with the change to a petrol based energy system in books like "Closing the Circle." For example there was mass substitution of toxic synthetic materials such as plastic containers for containers that were organic and biodegradable. Entirely new products were introduced that had little relation to functionality. He wondered why after centuries humanity suddenly found it necessary to produce millions of little plastic swords to hold sandwiches together. (eg: see Capitalism's Environmental Crisis: Is Technology the Answer? Finally, regarding indications of economic performance of etatist regimes, a book released last year that was co-winner of the book of the year from The Economic History Association used Angus Madisson's data to argue that growth in the SU actually outperformed most OECD countries, and in a more credible comparison easily outperformed developing countries with a comparable starting point. "The Soviet Union (with a 1928 income of $1370 and a growth factor of 4.1) was the non-OECD country that did the best in Figure 1.1. Its growth factor was also higher than that of all OECD countries except Japan. Soviet performance exceeded the OECD catch-up regression, which is a more stringent standard since its value is higher for poor countries than for rich. Figure 1.1 shows that the USSR performed exceptionally well over the 1928-70 period if it is classified as a less developed country and also outperforms the average OECD country even allowing for catch-up."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardL (talk • contribs)
 * I guess we'll just have to disagree about Lomborg. I agree that it is mostly a polemic, but also believe that his data is at least as accurate as most of the people who are "refuting" him: if my paycheck depended on me refuting Lomborg, I might whip some data together as well.  Quite a few of the problems that you list with Capitalism's "inherent need for endless accumulation," quite simply don't seem like problems to me, only evidence that human nature differs from your idealized view of the way the world should be.  In any case, if you find a chart that shows what you're looking for (I doubt you'll find a very good one), feel free to post it in the criticisms section. -Todd ( Talk - Contribs ) 11:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you object to "World" chart, I can add growth rates of the Western Europe, US and Japan. -- Vision Thing -- 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A chart confining itself to countries that are more straightforwardly capitalist is far superior methodology, even if in the end it cannot be taken on its own.BernardL 20:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick poll
Include the chart Image:World GDP per capita (1000-1998).png within the "Proponents" section of this article?

Support
 * 1) Conditional support since I consider my image superior. See the discussion above and continue it if objecting.Ultramarine 11:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1)  LotLE × talk  03:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Unless I'm being monumentally stupid, the reference points appear to be equally spaced on the image but not of equal duration, giving a sharpening effect to the perceived curve. Also doesn't seem to display it's units.--Red Deathy 07:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) A major problem with inserting it as support for proponents of capitalism is that, in the graph, capitalist economies are not disaggregated from rival systems. If anything the graph belongs in an article that discusses world economic growth and surely not an article discussing capitalism.BernardL 14:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) A major problem with inserting it as support for proponents of capitalism is that, in the graph, capitalist economies are not disaggregated from rival systems. If anything the graph belongs in an article that discusses world economic growth and surely not an article discussing capitalism.BernardL 14:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:2 They give dampening effect. If reference points were equally in duration, curve would be almost vertical on its end. As for units, they are international dollars (1990), they were in caption but Lulu deleted them. -- Vision Thing -- 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true that the uneven interval generally decreases rather than increases the visual slope; but that doesn't make it less misleading. A better chart would space the times where they actually occur.  But given that at least half the chart entirely precedes capitalism emerging, the relevance is quite poor either way.  Moreover, this concept "international dollars" is distinctly non-obvious, and is an indirect theoretical unit that abstracts many measures (its not just conversion rates by a longshot, most of the chart falls before any central currencies).  LotLE × talk  21:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can easily make a chart with reference points equal in duration. Data that precedes emergence of capitalism is important for perspective. If someone argues that there was an acceleration of growth, previous rates of growth must be shown for comparison. International dollars are best measurement there is, and they are often used in statistics.-- Vision Thing -- 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:3 As the proponent section says: "Proponents argue that the rapid, and largely consistent, worldwide increase in economic measures since the industrial revolution is due to the emergence of the modern capitalist." This graph illustrates that worldwide increase. -- Vision Thing -- 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think any great harm would be done be a very concise clause (or at most a whole short sentence) that mentioned that Madisson's data supported that sentence. But the chart is definitely undue weight by far (even minus its other flaws... it still isn't quite free of the original research concern, for example, as much better than Ultramarines as it is).  LotLE × talk  21:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You have still not manged to explain why this chart is supposed to be original research. Please try again. Why is it undue weight? It has been cited by many other researchers.Ultramarine 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since all other objections have been met, I'll put GDP (1500-1998) chart with even intervals in the article once the page is unprotected. -- Vision Thing -- 11:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Specify
There are a number of fairly general claims in the article that I feel could use better citation. I confess that I recently came across Template:Specify, but I think it is very useful. There is a good discussion of a number of related "citation needed" tags at Template:Fact. The useful thing about {specify} is that it lets us indicate that while editors do not particular doubt a claim, the article would still be improved by more specific citation supporting it. The overused {fact} is more along the lines of "this simply cannot stand w/o citation"; which is often too strong. And {dubious} is more or less "calling bullshit" on a claim that appears untrue on its face. LotLE × talk 05:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Privately owned
Not wanting to open a can of wyrms or nottin' but - I was recently flicking through some official statistics, and most of Britain's shares are actually owned by Insurance and Pension firms, with Banks coming a distant third and private shareholders well off into the distance. Of course, some pension firms are private concerns, a great many are public bodies, and theoretically they are a sort of commonhold for their contributors (especially company pensions where you can't sell up your stake and re-invest it). I know some have wittered in the past that share ownership by pensions means the end of capitalism, but should it effect what we say here, by the lead in the current article, is Britain a capitalist country if most of it's shares are held collectively?--Red Deathy 10:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Both insurance and pension funds represent specific individuals or firms. They are not socialist, any more than a stock company is because it is collectively owned.Ultramarine 10:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there is a difference between a stock company and an insurance/pension firm in that their investments are not property (i.e., say, I pay my premiums, those premiums buy shares, I never get my omoney back, I cannot realise those shares). Mind, I also think the issue of stock-companies is one worth more addressing, Engels for one considered them a forerunner of communism, since they represented a bug change from the private firm.--Red Deathy 10:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have some kind of accident you will get far more money than you paid in premium. The important thing is that both insurance and pension firms and stock companies are that they are agents for specific individuals or firms, and what they may in the end pay back is proprtional to the initial amount of money given to them.Ultramarine 11:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But not (necessarilly) to the original investor (teh premium buyer to the pension fund member). These funds are owned by corporations, which are creatures of the state (a corporation of any kind has no existence beyond the law that summons it into being), so they are, quasi (at least) state actors.  Anyway, I'm not debating the toss, just  thinking aloud about a way in which this seeming fact relates to the article and authors on capitalism--Red Deathy 12:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)--Red Deathy 12:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? You're saying that the assets of an insurance company aren't really privately owned, because each insured person doesn't get all his premiums back?  As for corporations: the idea that they are "a creature of the state" is hotly contested, so you don't get to include it as a matter of fact. MrVoluntarist 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that the Insurance company is privately owned, but the shares it in turn holds are of a mixed status - they are the property of the firm but no one private individual can liquidate them and return them into money for themself. As for corporations, I agree is a tendentious area, and one that maybe needs exploring in the section on capitalism and the state.--Red Deathy 08:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Of course an individual can liquidate his shares at any time.  I think you mean an individual can't order some specific illiquid asset sold and the proceeds given to him.  So what?  Are you saying any time anyone enters into a contract that restricts his access to something, that something is no longer private owned? MrVoluntarist 13:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is that some people define "private ownership" solely in opposition to ownership by the state. Whether something is owned by the state or not surely is an important distinction. But whether something is owned by an individualor by a corporation is also an important distinction -it was most definitely important to Marx. Lest Ultramarine accuse me of POV pushing, I am not saying that the POV that private ownership = not ownedby stateshould NOT beincluded, nor am I saying that the POV that private ownership = not ownedby a corporation should bepresented as the truth. No. I insist only onjcompliancewith our NPOV policy which demandsthat all POVs be included and properly identified. Ultramarine is presenting ONE point of view. It is an important point of view but it is not "the truth" or "the fact." It must be identified as a POV. Andother points of view, and RedDeathy has opened up a discussion on these, should also be included and properly sourced. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a note: I think you mean all notable POV's. The earth article doesn't need to say "the earth is widely held to be an oblate spheroid, though some disagree".  Also, I don't see why this distinction matters.  Some hold that corporate ownership counts as private ownership, and some hold that corporate ownership is separate from private ownership.  People in both groups call themselves capitalist under their definitions. MrVoluntarist 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree about "notable." As to your second point, it does not matter whether you see why the distinction matters or not. What matters is that it matters to Marxists and that is definitely a notable POV that has to be included, and it also matters to many people currently debating the nature of globalization, and their views too matter. It may matter for a variety of reasons. One reason it may matter has to do with whether a group calls itself capitalist or not. But there are other reasons it can matter - it matters to how people understand the nature of capitalism, how it works, what its effects are, whether capitalism should be defined as the economic system of a state or instead as a global phenomenon, and so on. I am not going to argue over any of these issues with you. That is not what talk pages are for. They are for improving the article and I argue only that the article will be improved if it includes these notable points of view and explains the implications of these points of view for how we understand the development and current functioning of capitalism, as well as how we define its boundaries. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I wasn't clear above; I don't disagree that the distinction needs to be explained. My point was that it doesn't need to go up top with the definition.  Capitalism is defined and understood to refer to mostly "private ownership".  The debates about the intricacies regarding what exactly constitutes "private ownership" can come later, where it can be explained in greater detail without loss of continuity. MrVoluntarist 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood - thanks for the clarification. I agree these differences should be presented and explored in the body of the article, not the first paragraph. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Private owners of means of production make their own decisions, not government
Lulu, please stop removing my edit which says "The private owners of the means of production decide what they will produce and in what quanties, with their decisions being mainly influenced by supply and demand." What could possible be contentious about that? In capitalism, the government does not tell businesseses what to produce. They decide for themselves. It is important to note that because it's unlike a command economy where the government tells business what to produce, how many to produce, and how to price the goods. Economizer 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The above claim seems unlikely to be true to me, and is certainly not general to various theorists of capitalism. For example, is Haliburton or Boeing a capitalist company, despite producing predominantly outside of supply-and-demand cylces, and primarily at government direction? As in the above thread, exactly who are these owners of the means-of-production, and how do they make this decision exactly? For example, if a company is owned largely by a retirement fund (say, a government run fund), do the pensioners make these decisions? Do the board of the retirement fund? Or does the company directors? If the last, do they really decide based on supply-and-demand, or does the corporate charter and bylaws actually determine this?
 * Yes, Haliburton and Boeing are capitalist companies because they sell a service (and goods to go with the service) to the government. There is a demand from the government that the company supplies. The company does make the decision in the form of a bid to the government's request. This is very different from the government running the company directly, passing a law that the company shall perform services, or appointing directors of the company, or dictating its actions. Also, not all decisions a company makes are related to supply and demand. Besides, capitalism doesn't imply democracy. Hires an editor 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming there isn't some level of abstraction in which Economizer's claim doesn't have a certain sliver of truth. But it is far too broad and far too inaccurate to merit inclusion in the lead.  Or that's my sense... if consensus is that Economizer's comment is needed in the lead, that's how Wikipedia works.  But consensus doesn't consist of exactly one editor who is new to the article.  LotLE × talk  20:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It6 sounds like Economizer is providing not a factual description of capitalism (Wikipedia is not about truth, anyway) but rather expressing a claim that many people believe about capitalism. It is true that people believe this.  I think that we need to properly identify the particular POV, source it, and included it in the article as such. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Government does not tell Boeing or Haliburton what to produce. They decide for themselves. They are private companies owned and controlled by private people. The government does not own or control them. The government offers money to them as a customer in order to receive a good or service. The businesses do not have to take the offer. In capitalism, businesses have autonomy in choosing what to produce, or whether they produce anything at all. Beoing and Haliburton are definitely subject to supply and demand. The government is providing the demand and they respond by increasing production. That's how a market economy works. In a command economy (centrally-planned econonmy), the government forces businesses to produce things. Business has no choice otherwise. If a business produces what government wants in exchange for money, that's not government "controlling" that business any more than is it you controlling a business by offering one money to purchase a product. That's still a market economy. The ultimate decision lies on the owner of the means or production. What is essential about capitalism is the "private" and voluntary nature of it. Business are not coerced by government to do the government's bidding. You ask about a company being owned by a large fund. Well, those are private owners of the business. The stockholders make the decisions, rather than the government. The point is that decisions are not forced by the government. Not only are the means of production privately owned, but they're also privately controlled. (By the way, whoever wrote this article doesn't seem to understand the first thing about capitalism. This article is horrendous). Economizer 20:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, this is one view of capitalism. It is your ideology.  It should be represented in the article.  So should other views of capitalism.  Also, any factual account of the US economy has to include tax-breaks for companies, protection against foreign competition, how military contracts are actually negotiated and with what parameters, and of course government bailouts to various companies.  We also need to be factual about the relationship between "ownership" e.g. shares in Boeing, and how decisions are actualy made and by whom.  I am not making any ideological claim (e.g. US is or is not capitalist; capitalism is or is not good) I am just saying any account has to include all relevant facts. "the stockholders make the decisions" sounds like a very naive belief by someone who really does not know how things work. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not "ideology" at all. It's how capitalism is defined. If the government is forcing business to produce the items of their choice instead of letting them to decide for themselves, then it' not capitalism but a command economy. You say ""the stockholders make the decisions" sounds like a very naive belief by someone who really does not know how things work." Ok, Mr Rubenstein, why don't you tell us "how things work"? (And remember, that the CEO is also a stockholder). Economizer 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Economizer is not very familiar with the defense contractors I mention in my example above. I don't mean to single out those as the only cases where his/her over-generalization is a problem, but it's one pretty good sector to look at.  The large majority of Haliburton's business is done on a "cost-plus" basis, and mostly under contracts that are open-ended rather than specifying products and deliveries.  That is: the DOD and Haliburton sign a contract for Haliburton to provide "defense construction services" on a to-be-specified basis for the next, say 5 years, and with a built-in profit rate of, e.g. 30%.  It's true that Halburton isn't compelled to sign the contract in the first place, but they are required to fulfill the open-ended contract once signed (more-or-less, modulo corruption and lobbyists).  Supply-and-demand, and even production decisions, are a very far away "ultimately" in the actual story.  Again, like Slrubenstein, I am not here saying that this is good or bad, or capitalist vs. non-capitalists.... the story just isn't as simplistic as the fairy-book story Economizer wants in the lead.  LotLE × talk  21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You said yourself that Halliburton isn't compelled to sign a contract. So, it's no less voluntary than if Halliburton signs a contract with a private business. They have a choice. In a command economy, there is no choice. As long as Halliburon has a choice of entering into a contract or not, it's capitalism. It's capitalism whether government is the customer of a business or a private business is a customer of that business. In a command economy, like Cuba, if the government tells you to produce a Widget, you produce that Widget and have no choice otherwise AND you have to price it where they tell you to price it. There are no negotiations. How can you you claim to have any clue of what capitalism is if you don't know the fundamental distinction between a command economy like Cuba and a capitalist economy like the U.S.? Economizer 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Some points to both sides: defense contractors are still constrained by supply and demand of the underlying inputs. DoD expenditures do have practical bounds and if a contractor overspends too often and takes advantage of the "cost plus" nature of the contract, it will be noticed and can cost them later contracts. But on the other hand, Economizer, I'm not even sure most pro-capitalist supporters would classify government-created demand and government purchases as a "market phenomenon". MrVoluntarist 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you read Von Mises? He's a supporter of capitalism, and makes that very point. Just because government is taxing and is a customer of some businesses, and even owns some means of production, that doesn't mean it's not a capitalist economy. That's because market forces are still in operation. It's not a capitalist economy if market forces are no longer in operation, which is when government coerces businesses. Economizer 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, well, I think that's beside the point. If there's a market economy in which the government merely provides defense, and its defense department contracts out stuff, that would still be "capitalist".  But it's not because those contractors "decide to enter the contract voluntarily".  It's because those interactions are only a small part of total economic activity.  If the government "contracted out" for literally all visible production and consumption.  That is, if government ran all e.g. bread stores like the the defense department, that would probably no longer count as capitalist. MrVoluntarist 21:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course. That wouldn't be capitalist because it would no longer be a market economy. It would be a centrally-planned economy. Economizer 03:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In other words, by Economizer's own description, almost nothing in the sentence survives:
 * The private owners of the means of production (OK, already in lead)
 * decide what they will produce (Nope, the contract they signed does not indicate "what")
 * and in what quanties (Nor in what quantity)
 * with their decisions being mainly influenced by supply and demand. (Supply-and-demand is no factor here, just the 5-year contract)
 * So what it boils down to is that there are private owners, which is exactly what the lead says now.
 * If defense contractors are a counterexample to points 2-4, then currency or stamps or something else would work as a counterexample to point one, leaving us with no definition....   Or maybe the existence of a counterexample within an economy doesn't complete preclude it from the definition, instead only changing the degree to which the definition fits; maybe the United States isn't completely capitalistic. --Todd ( Talk - Contribs ) 09:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * MrVoluntarist is right, of course, that constraints do come into play in this sector; maybe not as many as I would like for my tax dollars, but there is certainly interplay between contracts and deliveries. But even long-standing contracts between private companies makes Economizer's generalization rather poor.  Firestone and Ford likewise probably enter into 5-year contracts with somewhat open-ended terms that impose constraints only very loosely related to market forces per se.  I know the picture Economizer paints is a sort of Cliff Notes version of Smith that is easy to understand, but we need not write at quite so childish a level on WP.  LotLE × talk  21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Being a private owner of a means of production is not enough. You also have to have the free from government controlling your means of production. You have to be free to make the production and distribution decisions. That's the difference between a command economy and a capitalist economy. What you are saying about contracts is totally irrelevant. A contract is a voluntary agreement. A business does not make a contract unless it can profit from doing so. Economizer 21:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Lulu, I don't know what you're getting at with the Firestone/Ford comparison. Are you trying to make some point about how "large corporations are like the government"?  If you're saying that in a long term contract, Firestone may have to deliver tires at a set price, even if their inputs skyrocket in price, that's not a disconnection from the market.  It's a company getting screwed by market forces.  If bonds fluctuate in price due to changing interest rates, and still have to make the long-since-fixed interest payments, no one says "bonds are disconnected from the market".  On the other hand, if you're saying that Ford and Firestone might have some contracts in which Ford's payments fluctuate with Firestone's input prices, that's not a disconnect from the market either. MrVoluntarist 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This all brings up another point. There is no such thing as a capitalist economy where supply and demand don't matter. Essential to capitalism is that it's a market economy. The intro doesn't say anything about supply and demand. How can that be? Economizer 21:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC) What am I saying? It doesn't discuss markets and supply and demand in the whole article! This article is a joke. Wake up people. Capitalism is a market economy. Supply and demand are at work. Economizer 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This does sort of relate to the discussion I launched above. One point, most corporations are not controlled by the private owners, they are controlled by CEOs who are bound by law to serve the interests of their owner - I know that's tendentious, but I think it needs to be taken into account. To be clear in all this, I'm not pushing any line here, save that I think ownership is a weak characteristic of capitalism, and more important by far is the eexistence of capital as capital, whoever owns and controls it (I've made that position clear in discussions passim). I ask the question, if a government establishes a corporation, say a telephone or postal service, which it then runs at a commercial profit, and which it established through borrowed money is that corporation a capitalist entity or not? I think that cuts to the nub of things. Just thought I should add, of course, the interest on the loan is paid for from the state-company's profits, not from taxation - just before anyone splits that hair, so the firm is a state owned company that behaves in every way like a private firm...--Red Deathy 13:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC) and --Red Deathy 13:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC) --Red Deathy 07:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the government owns the means of production, then no it's not capitalist, it's socialist. If they own just a few, like maybe some utilities or mail delivery, and the rest are owned privately (and they aren't controlled by the government) then it's a capitalist economy. Economizer 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if the state is behaving just like a capitaliost entrepreneur - borrowing all of the cost of the capital, paying the interest and principle back from revenue? The only defining feature being state ownership?  What is the qualitative difference at work?--Red Deathy 08:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. User:Economizer should be aware that there was a debate here a while ago about the theory of state capitalism, I for one would define Cuba as a capitalist economy, by my undertsanding, capitalism is a society where goods are produced for exchange with a view to realising a profit through the empployment of waged labour - whoever sets the prices, even if the choice of who sells what to whom is constrained, that economy still remains capitalist, because its economic activity revolves around capital, and capital is essentially a good used to for production of wealth with a view to increasing its own quantity (i.e. money to make more money). --Red Deathy 07:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's great, but this article isn't about your view. MrVoluntarist 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I see what's wrong with this article. As long as the people in control of it think that Cuba and North Korea are capitalist economies, there is no hope. So every economy in the world is capitalist. Ok sure. Economizer 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just one contributor, who came here via work on the state capitalism page. I don't push my POV here, I was giving you an example of a fellow heterdox on this poage who goes with the consensus.--Red Deathy 08:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Current dictionaries define capitalism as an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and a system by which people compete to gain profits. Such a definition fails to reveal the features of capitalism that differentiates it from other kinds of economies. For example, there was much private ownership of the means of production (farms, tools, and ships) in ancient Rome and medieval Europe, and there was competition for wealth. But these were not capitalist economies. What is unique about capitalism is the reliance on free markets. In a free market, freely made choices of individuals set prices and wages. That is, people decide for themselves what price they will charge or pay. They cannot be forced to by or to sell, to hire or to become employed. Each is free to make the best possible bargain. Prices and wages are set by supply and demand. Competition among many people selling some commodity forces prices down. Competition among people wanting to buy something in limited supply forces prices up. Competition among people wanting to be employed forces wages down. Competition among persons wanting to hire foces wages up. The essence of this system is that everyone seeks to maximize personal gain and that such gains can be accumulated in the form of private property, secure from arbitrary seizure from the government." (Stark, Rodney. Sociology, Thomas Wadsworth (2003), page 488)

I think the main problem we're having here is that we are focusing far too much on the extremes. There is no country that is PURELY (sorry, don't know how to do italics) capitalist, just as there is no country that is PURELY socialist. It's always a mix between capitalist and socialist. For Canada, for example, the government owns things like the water companies and utilities and Canada Post. The government owns these sorts of things because these things give rise to natural monopolies. Can you imagine two or more companies competing to provide you with water? Electricity? Or snail mail service? It'd be terribly inefficient. If a country was purely capitalist, then EVERYTHING in that country would be privately provided, even the army, the justice system, healthcare, and welfare services (for example). If a country was purely socialist, then there would be no private property. The chair I sit on as I write this would be owned by the government. When we say "Country X is capitalist", we are really saying "Country X is more capitalist than socialist" (and the reverse for "Country Y is socialist"). omegadirective 00:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing in lead
Unfortunately, every one of Economizer's edits to this page (so far) has been pushing a particular partisan perspective in the lead... and not so much as touching anything else in the article. The lead, obviously, has been particularly carefully worked out through negotiated consensus; and introducing a bunch of new "special pleading" topics is very destructive. Rather than continue to try to redefine "capitalism" from the consensus of both article editors and prior thinkers, why not work on one of the other sections, some of which could use more careful citation, and in some cases clarification?

I will not argue too much with the removal of the corporate-personhood sentence from the lead. User:172 added that, and I've tended to feel that it is a bit too "special" for the lead also. I do think something like that sentence should be moved elsewhere in the article though. It's still germane, just not quite enough for lead material, I think. And a few of the tweaks with some/most/many are reasonable enough (not necessarily needed, but not harmful). But mostly, please just cut it out! The lead is particularly sensitive, and changes to it really need discussion here on the talk page first. LotLE × talk 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The lead is horrible! It's a bunch of incoherent sentences and original research, whether there by consensus or not. That was the past and this is today, and there is obviously no longer consensus now because I'm here. You have to understand Wikipedia. Consensus changes from one day to the next. If you're trying to keep a fixed intro then you're misguided. That thing is going to be totally overhauled over and over. Even if you stayed here the rest of your life to try to guard it you wouldn't succeeed. I don't like you're approach. As soon as someone changes something you revert it back and complain. Let others have their input as well. Economizer 20:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's simple: talk first! Once it got to this talk page, it became clear that all the simplistic caricature you wanted about "decide based on supply-and-demand" had no support from any other editor, not even the most fervently pro-capitalist editors. Frankly, the clause about "free markets" you added is iffy too, but I haven't taken it out since its nominally unobtrusive.


 * It's just not going to work to join the page (and Wikipedia itself recently) and declare: "Now that I'm here, consensus is whatever I individually want". If you want a change to the lead, build a consensus for the change here on talk, and then implement it.  In principle, the same applies to other sections as well, but it's easier to be non-controversial in the details.  Welcome to Wikipedia.  Here's how it works: if you make an uncontroversial change, it can stay without comment.  If you make a change a longstanding editor objects to, it's time for discussion.  It doesn't mean you're wrong per se, and it doesn't necessarily mean the change can't gain support... it means it's time to discuss it~  LotLE × talk  20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't play by your rules. I play by the Wikpiedia rules. There is no rule that says you have to announce and explain your edit in a Talk page before you make it. That's your own rule, and I won't abide by it. Stop reverting every edit by people just beause they didn't announce it to you on the Talk page first. You don't own this article. Economizer 20:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually have some sympathy with Economizer's suggestion that the lead is capable of improvement, although Lulu is right to suggest discussing it here before implementing changes in the article. Do you think we could cool it a bit, and come up with a redraft we could all be happy with? I'll have a think about a compromise and try to post it here. If either of you can manage it quicker, that would be great. --Guinnog 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Democratic peace theory
Instead of this sentence: "Research on the democratic peace theory further argue that democracies rarely make war with one another and have little internal violence.", that comes out of nowhere and looks like it doesn't belong to this article, some arguments from here could be included. Comments? -- Vision Thing -- 12:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned as a response to the claim that captialism is imperialist and causes wars. While certainly capitalist states have made many wars, democratic capitalist states have not made war on one another.Ultramarine 13:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then is should be noted that it's talked about capitalist democracies. Currently that isn't mentioned. -- Vision Thing -- 13:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In "Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century, James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer carefully run through several case studies that demonstrate why the DPT amounts to a load of...ideology...that has erected artificially narrow definitions of central concepts like "war" and "democracy." They run through 7 case studies where democratically elected popular regimes were overthrown by military forces backed by a capitalist class and a hegemonic power. The case studies include Finland (1918), Guyana (1953, 1961-64), Chile (1970-73), Guatemala (1950-54), Iran (1954), Haiti (1991 and 1994), and Nicaragua (1984). BernardL 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the DPT article. The theory and the empricial reserach does not claim the absence of coups supported by foreign democracies, only the absence of outright wars. None of the above are wars between democratic states. In those cases where there have been such foreign supported coups, this is usually because the regime was not perceived as democratic or communist dictatorship was feared, correct or not. Some of the examples above are extremely strange, how can the Finnish Civil War have been a war between democracies? How can the coup against Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his return have been a war between democracies? Ultramarine 14:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the article, now you read the book. As I said a major problem pertains to artificially narrow definitions of "war" and "democracy". You counterpoise the DPT to theories of imperialism but it is so restrictive that it cannot possibly describe the range of phenomena that imperialism (and any theory of international relations worth considering) allow. For example, the astronomical expansion of the global arms trade propelled to a significant degree by military-industrial complexes of western democracies or ...

"For example, with few significant exceptions, the US largely prosecuted the Cold War in the Third World through a variety of client forces, supported and sometimes installed in power with covert or overt use of US military and intelligence professionals (see Cohen, 1994, for a realist analysis). This force was often deployed against the extension of democracy. US covert action to overthrow Third World elected governments (e.g. Allende in Chile; Arbenz in Guatemala; Ortega in Nicaragua) is not seen as invalidating the democratic peace proposition because the US did not use its national military forces openly, but relied instead on clients, mercenaries and covert operatives (Russett et al., 1993: 123; cf. McClintock, 1992). In this way, sovereign juridical conceptions obscure the actual constitution of force, through imperial ‘advice and support’, and its use in projects of informal empire. This Cold War practice is but a variation on an old theme. Force is integral to globalization but assumptions of embedded statism obscure the transna- tional constitution of force, and in particular the role of forces raised in the periphery itself as ‘agencies of the globalizing trend’ (Cox, 1996: 155)....Our discussion of the relations of democracy and war proceeds from a set of political commitments other than those of liberal scholars such as John Owen or Bruce Russett. These commitments do not make our account any less scientific; all social inquiry necessarily proceeds from an evaluative standpoint (Weber, 1949). Much of the literature upon which our account is based, despite being directly concerned with the relations between democracy and force and of the highest scholarly quality (e.g. Kolko, 1988; Robinson, 1996), is invisible in the democratic peace debates. The spread of liberal democracy takes on a different character when read through this literature." []

Far be it for me to conjure up the arch-ideologue Friedrich Hayek but he did he make a few good points about the pitfalls of “scientism”—the imitation in the social sciences of the methods of the physical sciences which is exactly what you bring into the wikipedia arena. The pretence that just because some theory has required a fiefdom of supporters who can stamp it with a "peer reviewed" label it constitutes good science and some sort of broad consensus, even when one can find "hundreds" of other "peer reviewed" studies that contradict such claims. In this case DPT is not a "theory" that it is robust enough to explain complex reality but as a narrow and arbitrary assertion it works beautifully as an ennabling myth for propagandists. BernardL 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, you have not given an example of a war between democracies. Yes, there have been some coups supported by the US of elected regimes, the best probably being in Iran and Guatemala (there is no evidence for any direct US involvement in the coup against Allende). But in all those cases these regeimes were seen, correct or not, as becoming Communist dictorships and thus not as democracies.Ultramarine 15:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is no need to repeat ad nauseum. According to DPT the forcible undermining of democratically elected governments by capitalists in coalition with western powers (often offering decisive proxy support) do not constitute acts of war. How convenient..."Covert activity was a factor in almost every major election between 1963 and 1973 and United States intervention was massive. "The scale of CIA involvement in Chile was unusual but by no means unprecedented." []
 * Yes, no battle or battle deaths between the armies of two different nations, no war. When there were support for coups against elected regimes, it was because these were perceived, correct or not, as abandoning democracy in favor of a Communist dictatorship.Ultramarine 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)