Talk:Capitalism/archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Authoritative definition

You are correct, I would like an authoritative definition of capitalism, but I don't think it would be inherently POV. The current article goes into different perspectives on the characteristics of capitalism without talking about the characteristics of capitalism, and makes it very difficult with a reader who is unfamiliar with what capitalism actually is to get a grasp on what each of the subsections are talking about. The subsections talk about the different values ("Adam Smith wrote articles about production of goods, and was critical of monopolies") that the major thinkers had, but does not always explain how the major thinkers defined capitalism ("The understanding of a capitalist economy had yet to be developed at this point, but Smith laid out the groundwork for future understandings of capitalism or something or other"). If this article is to be of any educational use, it needs to have a primary definition; without telling the reader what they are going to be reading about, they will have trouble understanding the context of everything else. Explaining the current definition, and then talking about how it came to be that way, should not be any less NPOV than talking about how Steam Engines work, and then talking about how they came to be that way. If the Marriage article can have a definition of marriage, so can capitalism. If there are more than one current prevailing definitions of capitalism (which there might be, but I have a feeling are similar enough to be lumped into a major definition), then the article needs to state that, and explain the definitions, but you can't talk about the perspectives without giving some sort of definition.

There is definitely no "authoritative definition" to be had. However, adding a few sentences of the sort you describe seems resasonable enough. E.g. "Smith laid the groundwork for future understandings of capitalism..." It should definitely be clear to readers that each thinker or school addressed is addressed in order to understand their answer to "What is Capitalism?" I agree that not all the theory sections make that sufficiently clear (but they're not too far off either, it just takes a clause here and there to sharpen it). LotLE×talk 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, it wasn't clear to me at all that that was what the sections were trying to accomplish when I first read through it. There should also be some text at the top of the perspectives of capitalism section explaining that the concept of capitalism has changed over time; these are the major thinkers on capitalism, and how they viewed capitalism. Or something like that right before "Classical Political Economy" --Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. LotLE×talk 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, you are correct that the topic is not "Is Capitalism Good?" but neither is the topic, "Is Capitalism Bad?", and there is still a section listing different perspectives on why Capitalism is bad. I don't think it would be a stretch to include a support of capitalism section either right before or right after the criticism section.

I'm afraid this makes me want to quote the movie version of Buffy, the Vampire Slayer: "Does the word 'duh' mean anything to you?". Of course the topic isn't "Is Capitalism Bad?" I haven't seen anyone argue for an article like that, at all (as Ultramarine argues for one on the "Is it good?" topic). Even the criticism section is really not at that level... but in any case, I think every person on this talk page has concurred that a section on "Proponents of capitalism" would be good to have (as long as concise, NPOV, and cited). Wanna write one, and propose it here on the talk page? LotLE×talk 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of singling out the Marxist definition as I proposed, we could start with a primary definition, and then explain how the different views of capitalism differ from the current one. Red_Deathy could then link to Marx's view of capitalism.

Again, there is no "primary" definition. The half dozen lines of thought we give each have a different take on the matter (actually, within each theory sections, a few different such lines are represented). The lead starts with a vague but not innaccurate generalization already (which I think is quite good now), but past the gesture in the right direction, a reader just has to read the different schools to know how they differ... and differ in their answer to the basic questin "What is capitalism?", not just in prescriptions or minor policy details. LotLE×talk 20:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my rambling, hopefully my point came across --Todd(Talk-Contribs) 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be possible, before going into the different perspectives, list out the characteristics that go into capitalism. I think it is important that the reader get an idea of what they are going to be reading before they read the perspectives. Every online dictionary definition of capitalism lists "private ownership" as the major component of capitalism, and I would suspect that any major definition of capitalism since the cold war would list "private ownership" as the major component as well. Going into a short definition of what exactly "private ownership" means would go a long ways towards helping the reader understand what we're talking about. "Free Markets" and "low governmental control" often show up in the definitions too, but in explaining those characteristics, it would be important to explain that not all understandings of capitalism include those characteristics. Also in the characteristics section, could be various features important to other definitions, so that somebody in reading the article can understand each of the major viewpoints, without getting a "tl;dr" face, which I fear is going to be the result of reading the current article. From an educational perspective, when you have to read 6 definitions of something before you can start to understand what it is, it makes it difficult to learn about. If you can break it up into components, and talk about the components, then learn which components go with which understandings, it breaks down the load considerably.

How does the first sentence fail to do this?: Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned mostly privately, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services, for profit. Private ownership is right in the first clause. The meaning of "private ownership" has certainly evolved, both as new theorists have approached the matter, and as legal regimes have changed; it's hard to give an ahistorical one-liner here. But again, I definitely think you are right that the section "Perspectives on the characteristics of capitalism" needs its own lead to orient readers to what they are reading. Something indicating that the concept of capitalism has evolved over time, with prior thinkers often building on earlier ones, and that the component concepts used in defining capitalism—such as private ownership, markets, and investment—have evolved along with changes in theory, in law, and in practice. Maybe something describing generally that the following subsections describe schools of thought in which the thinkers involved do not necessarily agree on all analytic points, but participate in a common general approach to understanding what capitalism is. I dunno... would something along the lines of those words clarify the structure? LotLE×talk 21:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean the concept of capitalism has evolved over time? Capitalism is still today understood to be the system described by Adam Smith. The conception of capitalism hasn't changed at all. Maybe justifications for it and explanations of why it works vary according to different theorists, but the definition certainly hasn't changed. C-Liberal 00:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, as far as creating a support of capitalism section, or even maintaining a criticisms of capitalism section, it is hard to either criticize or support something if there is no definition of the thing you are criticizing or supporting. If we are going to use this many definitions, the criticisms section might need to be split up. "Islam forbids usury"; which isn't necessarily an important aspect of capitalism, depending on which definition of capitalism you're talking about.--Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's crazy. But there is no need. There is a consensus definition of capitalism. It's private ownership of the means of production with goods and services distributed by way of free markets (as opposed to controlled markets where the government sets the prices). C-Liberal 00:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section

This is taken out from old version of Capitalism. Maybe it can be used as a starting point for new section on advantages of capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 17:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea.Ultramarine 20:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put the text itself in a subsection to separate from discussion. In general, I think there are some good and usable concepts in the copied text. It is a bit rambling though: I'd like to see about 1/3 as many words used to cover the concepts addressed. Minus the OR chart, I think we could use a neutral sentence like I have proposed to the effect that "Monied exchange has increased rapidly for four centuries in nations where capitalism has predominated"... and give a footnote to Maddison. The use of "GDP" is really off though, since the formation of nation-states (i.e. "domestic product") has largely been more recent than this. LotLE×talk 17:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do editors like the section title "Proponents of capitalism" or "Advocates of capitalism"... or something else? LotLE×talk 18:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the former titles "Economic growth" and "Self-organisation" were good. These sections also contains criticisms, not only pro-capitalist arguments. These criticisms could be expanded if needed.Ultramarine 21:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the titles. Add more criticsm if needed.Ultramarine 06:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This text is being considered—if it can be trimmed down to a sufficient degree—as a potential new section, to be called something like "Proponent of capitalism". There's not point in changing the section title to something what will not be usable as an addition to the current article. The emphasis here is making it much shorter, definitely not on expanding it with yet more digresssions. Criticism should be reduced, or ideally eliminated, from this section; we already have a "Criticism of capitalism section" LotLE×talk 07:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. It is better to have sections based on topics, where arguments for and against are mentioned. See the much perferable earlier version of the article I have added an alternative text below.Ultramarine 07:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a complete non-starter. There is no way in hell we're going to go back to the old, badly-written article, and throw out the vast improvements. Masturbation is fun and all, but I'd rather work on writing an encyclopedia article. Still, I'll give your "repeat the old article" stuff a section, and you can have at it. LotLE×talk 07:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a borderline personal attack. Please be civil. How about a separate article called "Characteristics of capitalism"? Ultramarine 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Such a topic does not seem unreasonable. If it were sufficiently NPOV to keep, we could well link to it in several places within the Capitalism article, and it could flesh out a number of concepts that don't fit well in this topic. Quite likely even a discussion of growth rates and GDP that stuck to NPOV and wasn't WP:OR. Why don't you make a start at that article? When it becomes reasonable to unlock this article, we can add appropriately concise links to the new article. LotLE×talk 08:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For a start I will simply copy the relevant parts of the old version: Characteristics of capitalism.Ultramarine 08:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not edit my talk page comments

Lulu, never edit my talk page comments and arguments. I show the charts as part of my arguments.Ultramarine 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC) There are several different charts.

You may do your strange edits if there are duplicate charts, on the duplicates only, but leaving one example of each chart.Ultramarine 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.Ultramarine 17:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting graphics once on a talk page is often disruption, especially where they are irrelevant. Putting the same chart multiple times on a talk page is, IMO, outright vandalism. If you keep that up, I am confident you should and will get blocked for it. Just don't do it! For g*d sake, you put multiple copies of the same GDP chart over at discussion on WP:OR, where it has not even the slightest relevance... and I've seen you do it on many other talk pages too (with various other charts). People don't disagree with you because they've only seen nine copies of whatever graphic you're pushing, rather than ten copies! Address the actual issue, don't turn talk pages into graffiti walls.

It is always better to use a link to a chart on a talk page (as I have done for you above). Give the link, explain why you feel the chart relates to the current discussion, etc. Although I think it is undesirable, it falls slightly short of vandalism to put an actually graphic on a talk page exactly once. Even then, it only falls short if the chart is actually about the article topic, not if it's to illustrate "the nature of charts" (all the stuff on glaciers, and carbon emissions, and population growth, and whatnot is vandalistic to throw up even once when a link is more than adequate). If you subsequently want to suggest it would be better with a different caption, or to make some other point about it, simply refer to "Such-and-such chart, earlier on talk page". I'm really not going to keep tolerating this outright vandalism too much longer. LotLE×talk 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added your strange edits to the duplicates. Most of the charts are different. Editing other users talk page comments is not allowed. Please state the talk page policy regarding images you are referring to.Ultramarine 18:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you add back the duplicates that I removed? [1] Was not this your objection? Ultramarine 18:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an accident... an edit conflict thing. I thought I was pasting my additional comments into the right version, but apparently it was not so. I think it's back fixed now. LotLE×talk 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are not allowd to edit my talk page comments. I do insist that the other charts remain to illustrate may arguments. Please state the Wikipdia policy regarding talk pages images you are referring to.Ultramarine 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd really hate to have to file an RfC or a vandalism report over such a trite thing; but it is extremely disruptive to litter talk pages with random charts and graphs. If you feel an image illustrates something about the nature of images (or their creation process, or whatever), just link to it with [[:Image:So-and-so.png]] rather than including it with [[Image:So-and-so.png]], and then explain why you think it is germane. And no, there is no policy that explicitly and categorically says "no images on talk pages"... but you and I both know perfectly well that you are doing it with the main intention of disrupting discussion. Cut it out! LotLE×talk 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to you removing my arguments. You may not like them, or consider them irrelevant, but that is not an excuse for making them less clear. I am certainly not attempting to disrupt to discussion, I only want my arguments presented clearly. I see no reason for your removal except that you want to make arguments less clear.Ultramarine 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As you know full well, I never removed one single word of any argument you made. Even the captions to the multply-repeated graphics were left intact. Just cut out the disruption of graffiting the talk page with images. LotLE×talk 20:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you have removed some text, but that was probably by mistake. But the images are an integral part of my arguments. You have given no explanation for hiding them, except that you consider them irrelevant. I do not and I would object no less if someone deleted or hide my text arguments because the other person thought them irrelevant.Ultramarine 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you give no good explanation, like a Wikipedia policy prohibiting images on talk pages, I will shortly restore them.Ultramarine 11:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting unprotected

Over a 12,000 year spread, and with many more reference points across the whole spread, yours had something like four before 1825 (and world population is probably easier to estimate from archaeology than GDP (whatever that is). As an aside, ISTR a story that when the former Soviet states changed they altered their national accounting, moving from Gross Material Product to using Western style GDP. This led to a massive leap in their recorded growth because of the way that state activity is recorded in GDP. Just an interesting Factual I once ran across. Anyway, I reiterate, could you find a betetr graph, or just truncate the period presented to 1825 onwards, that shows enough growth to make your point.--Red Deathy 08:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How about 1500?Ultramarine 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be amenable, certainly more relvent sinc it covers teh period of the rise of capitalism. I'd still have grave doubts on a notion of GDP stretching back that far (AFAIK tehre were national accounts in the 19th century, hence why I favoured that period), but convince away and I'd back inclusion.--Red Deathy 10:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Angus Maddison has many papers regarding his calcualtions available on his homepage. For some reason it cannot be linked to directly but can be easily found here http://www.ggdc.net/ since his data is prominently mentioned.Ultramarine 10:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the data, and I still think it's a bit sparse - reckon if you insist on wanting GDP in, you'd need to focus on one or two countries. I still think, though, there are better indicators and better bits of dataa out there you could use.--Red Deathy 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. More interesting with world data. As noted earlier, Maddison is very widely cited, so the data are significant. If you are critical, you should really cite a paper.Ultramarine 12:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I need to cite a paper to suggest that the use you're putting it to isn't all that helpful - my disagreement isn't with the data (at this point) but with the graph. Now, it follows that no capitalist state is an island, so a well documented history of capitalist growth can tell quite a story of world growth. As I've said elsewhere, just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean it has to be included nor included in a particular article--Red Deathy 13:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, since it is cited by many, it is significant. Exactly what is the problem with showing a chart for the period after 1500? Ultramarine 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is significant it does not follow that it belongs - considerations of style, context and presentation apply. As for post 1500, my problem is that much of the data is scanty before the 1820 mark, and i'm dubious about GDP before national accounting (c. 1650 odd over here, IIRC)--Red Deathy 07:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Exacly what is wrong with "style, context, and presentations"? Fortunately, orignal research is not allowed. ´Do you have any sourced criticism? Ultramarine 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think charts can be disruptive to the flow of text, can deter non-mathematically minded readers and do not necessarilly add to the information on the page - they can and should be included where they can clarify matters or where they are central to the argument. In this pag, many of the subjects could and often are subjected to graphical treatment, but we haven't room to include them all, so I'd suggest a general prejudice against graphs unless absolutely necessary. That is a matter of style and context and nothing to do with the content of the chart nor its citations, nor anything else.--Red Deathy 08:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Freedom charts

Charts showing Economic freedom and various other indicators. The red bars shows nations with less economic freedom, the green bars those with more.

I have created some nice charts for the text mentioning Economic freedom. Thoughts? Ultramarine 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion

1. They do not belong in the article on capitalism. The belong in a linked article on capitalism and freedom - a heavily debated topic that deserves its own article. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Interesting, but maybe they could be linked to rather than shown--Red Deathy 07:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. These are also entirely irrelevant to the current article. Maybe somewhere else. LotLE×talk 07:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Support inclusion

1. The is one of the central pro-capitalist arguments.Ultramarine 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As a rule, I think data on specific countries, or charts representing data from specific countries, belongs in articles on those countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

These are not specific countries but all nations in the world.Ultramarine 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

I've unprotected this article...play nice please.--MONGO 05:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loose the history?

Given the article is a touch long, and most of the History of capitalism section seems to be almsot the same as teh main article on history of capitalism, couldn't we loose that section and trim it to one paragraph or so that basically says "see the otehr article"?--Red Deathy 07:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cut it quite so extremely. But I agree with the general idea. Let's try this though (LotLE×talk):

[edit] Quick poll on history section trim

Should we reduce the length of the "History of Capitalism" section to no more than a few paragraphs, and move any relevant erased material to the existing History of capitalism article?

Support

1. the article is about capitalism as a concept/structure and space should be given to expand on the various perspectives and ideas parts. The article is over recommended length (not a great sin) but if we want to have a more rounded article that maybe kills the POV wars around it, we'll need to make space.--Red Deathy 07:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. for now. Right now the article is not that long ... and personally I think the history is important especially for revealing that capitalism is not a homogeneous ideal system but rather a complex heterogeneous and changing set of practices and beliefs. I think this is a crucial point and only the history section illustrates it clearly. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose per Slrubenstein. The material is fine, and the article is far from long given the topic. If anything, it probably should be expanded. 172 | Talk 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
3. It's length is fine for such a deep and constant (i.e we live it) subject. I had never heard of Utilitarianism before I looked at this talk page and it's just as long (atleast from a glance) (note: take out foot notes etc.); and the Utilitarianism article doesn't include pictures.--Taboo Tongue 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm swayed by Slrubenstein's reasoning here; enough so that I change from support to neutral (at least for now... convince me otherwise!) LotLE×talk 17:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite yet terribly concerned with the length issue. WP:SIZE indicates this rule-of-thumb:

> 50 KB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

> 30 KB - May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size; this is less critical for lists)

< 20 KB - Probably should not be divided

< 1 KB - ...consider combining it with a related page;

It's at 47K currently. I think it's a topic that we shouldn't necessarily split (for strictly length reasons) until a we get to about 60K. I've seen some articles that are 100K or more, which I think is way too much. I'm more influenced by a general organization concern than raw size. LotLE×talk 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not edit my talk page comments

Lulu, do not hide my comments and arguments, even if you do not like them. If you do it again, I will report you.Ultramarine 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abovementioned chart

Just an observer here....make sure that all major additions, such as that which has been argued over here, achieves a consensus of editors before being added. This includes all text and tables and or charts. Thanks.--MONGO 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was this principle not used destroying the previous version in a single edit without discussing this on talk first? Lulu and Red Deathy are ignoring this and adding text without consensus.Ultramarine 21:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My addition was of the "proponents of capitalism" section that was discussed at considerable length on this talk page (mostly during the article protection, though somewhat prior to that). I also mildly restructured for logical flow, and used the "Advocacy" section as way to group proponents/critics/democracy as related subsections. In fact, the proponents section was chiefly written by Ultramarine in the first place, though I cleaned it up and trimmed it a bit (on this talk page, prior to adding it into the article itself). Red Deathy made a couple wording clarifications to the Keynes section that were clearly not attempts to change the overall meaning or organizatin of the article.

In contrast, the self-created chart the UM wishes to add has been rejected by at least a half-dozen editors, both for its violation of WP:NOR and for its simple non-relevance to this particular article. Just stomping her feet and insisting that the data source that is indirectly related to her research based on it has been cited answers neither the OR or the relevance problems. LotLE×talk 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We have certainly not reached a consensus on any of those issues.Ultramarine 21:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest an article RFc...making sure the Rfc discusses the core of the dispute and not involving attributing the dispute to each other...that may bring in a few other outside views on the matter that may be helpful to reaching some sort of mutually agreeable action.--MONGO 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard any good explanation for excluding the chart. Let summarize:

• 1. Original research or the data/methodology is dubious - The author is respected scholar whose work on historical economic growth rates has been cited by hundreds of other studies. If you want to criticze the data, use the literatue. Original research opinions are not allowed.
  • The author is User:Ultramarine. Her original research is loosely based on the earlier work of a "respected scholar". LotLE×talk 14:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • From the chart, no original research: "Data Source: Angus Maddison's "World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2003 AD" (This Microsoft Excel file can also be read by using the free OpenOffice) at The Groningen Growth and Development Centre. http://www.ggdc.net/ The chart includes data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003 A.D. Western Europe is line 23, "Total 29 Western Europe". Western offshots is line 29 "Total Western offshots". Eastern Europe is line 38, "Total 7 East European Countries". Former USSR is line 65, "Total Former USSR". Latin America is line 94, "Total Latin America". Asia is line 139, "Total Asia". Afrcia is line 195, "Total Africa". World is line 199, "World Average"."
• 2. There are "blank" ares - The important thing is the general trend, all charts use discrete data. A version using data from 1500 would also be acceptable.
• 3. Not relevant - Both Marx and Smith observed a revolution in the economic system and both emphazied studying economic development.
  • Stunningly, glaringly, overwhelingly not relevant, acutally! Yes, it very vaguely falls in a slightly similar field to something Smith wrote somewhere, and through a large number of inferential connections which have nothing much to do with this specific topic, and if you cross your eyes just right, you can kinda-sorta think it might relate to his writing. Plus you have to try to ignore all the explanatory gaps and lack of direct connection even to what Smith wrote. But it is not anything even in the same ballpark as actually being about the topic of this article. LotLE×talk 14:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That capitalism created superior economic growth is a central argument for capitalism. Even Marx saw this revolution and discussed it.Ultramarine 14:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• 4. Seems to show that capitalism is good - The chart only shows data, let the reader form his own opinion. Ultramarine 13:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And here we get to the only actual reason Ultramarine wants the chart here. In her mind, the chart advances the thesis "Capitalism is good". But only in her mind, of course, since she already firmly endorses this opinion. In other words, Ultramarine wants to turn this encyclopedia article into an advocacy editorial, and she thinks that smuggling in an irrelevant chart of her original reserearch will covertly convince readers of her editorial stance. Of course, as bad as the chart is in ever so many other respects (not forgetting the really piss-poor set of methodological assumptions that went into it), even then it doesn't particularly advance (nor refute) Ultramarine's advocacy position. But that goal remains the only actual reason she wants it included. LotLE×talk 14:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. All significant view should be included. Excluding some because some persons disagree is not allowed.Ultramarine 14:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that there are other graphs that could also be added, if wanting more view, for example those showing sharply increasing greenhouse emissions or even a peak oil chart. I see no problem with adding such an opposing graph.Ultramarine 14:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Note, I am adding back the chart so the reader can see what is discussed.Ultramarine 14:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

World GDP/capita changed very little for most of human history before the industrial revolution and the introduction of capitalism. The chart has data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003 A.D.

Lulu, this is your last warning. If you edit my tak comments again and hide the chart I will report you.Ultramarine 14:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I see on Wikipedia: Vandalism that I must warn you repeatedely on your talk page first. I will. Please read this from that page:

"Talk page vandalism: Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism.".Ultramarine 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interest

I do not mind Lulu´s edit at all, maybe in Christianity it is only Catholicism that was opposed to lending money at interest. I know traditional Judaism is opposed to it squarely (there is an extensive discussion in the Talmud about how to get around the prohibition against charging any interest) and I am pretty sure the same is true for mainstream Islam. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

They have some interesting traditions in Islamic countries. Some of the really strict ones strongly enforce the anti-usury stricture. But in places like Turkey, they tend to arrange loans as "joint stock" companies. I'm not sure exactly how the accounting all works out, but it's something like members pay to be a member (i.e. if they borrow money at "no interest"), but if they make deposits they get a share of revenue of the company. In Christianity it's not just Catholics who worry about the prohibition: "mainstream" denominations have sort-of forgotten it, but many of the evangelicals still believe interest is prohibited, especially the "revivalists". And obviously, Judaism has been a mixed bag too... a lot of the "Jewish banker" stereotype stemming from the European middle ages stemmed from a Talmudic interpretation that allowed lending money for interest to goyim, just not to other Jews. LotLE×talk 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For me the bigger issue here is again how some editors mix up capitalism with market economies. I am not sure that the Mishnah is anti-capitalist ... sounds anachronistic. The confusion is compounded when we use the word useury. "excessive" interest is relative. But the rabbis 8and Islamic jurists whose work I know of) are working around a blanket prohibition against charging interest, not "excessive" interest. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course. Don't take my little digression as anything I think should go in the article. One concise sentence (as we have) is more than enough to address the general direction of the concern. I just meant on the talk page to point out there is not just one precise usage of 'usury', nor one precise prohibition... which is pretty much what the current version says. LotLE×talk 23:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Right-oh. Pope JPII once issued an encyclical (I think) critical of both socialism and capitalism. It would be interesting to summarize that in any "critic" section! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The king

What's wrong with this ? To me it looks plausible. -- Vision Thing -- 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In previous periods de jure all property belonged to the head of the tribe or the king, and could be revoked by his permission. (ref: Ayn Rand. "What is Capitalism?"; "Capitalism: Unknown Ideal". Signet (1986), p.13)

The rather simplistic Rand comment conflates many different times and places with many different legal regimes of property ownership in a way that conflates much more than it reveals. While conceivably, the legal status of property under capitalism (itself a widely varying, and actively changing thing) could be illuminated by a less caricature contrast with the feudal period that immediately preceded it, but the Rand quote strongly fails to do that. LotLE×talk 21:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of any historical example that contradicts that sentence? -- Vision Thing -- 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know of far more historical examples that contradict that sentence than I do of examples that support it. LotLE×talk 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A fact that contradicts it is that land in England nominally belonged to the crown until, IIRC, the 1920's, well after capitalism was established and advanced. More relevent than legal fictions is that land was not consaidered alienable, look at teh shenanigens feudal magnates got up to to prove that they had blood ties to a piece of land they were trying to snatch...--Red Deathy 07:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enclosure acts

There's a sentence that someone added about Marx's comments on the enclosure acts. Specifically:

Karl Marx, focusing on a different legal aspect, argued that the Enclosure Acts in England were an integral part of capitalist primitive accumulation; and so the state was, he suggested, integral to the origin and growth of capitalism.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm | title=Capital, v. 1. Part VIII: primitive accumulation| author= Karl Marx| accessdate=September 04 | accessyear=2006 }}</ref>

I think this observation is quite germane, and makes a very nice parallel with de Soto's thoughts on the role of a central bank. It's been taken out a couple times, I think out of some general anathema to the fact it's Marx who's quoted. I don't think the Marx part is all that important, but I do think a mention of the role of enclosure in capital formation is extremely relevant. Anyone have an idea on who else we might cite, or if it might be phrased slightly differently (it's not just England that had similar laws, so that might be possible to generalize). LotLE×talk 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More peaceful

This sentence was part of a few that VisionThing moved from "proponents" to "legal frameworks". Most of the moved stuff makes sense in its new position, but this one doesn't:

Capitalist democracies are argued to be peaceful both internally and externally against other democracies.^{[citation needed]}

I'm not against including the sentence somewhere, most likely under "proponents", but we need to figure out how to make it flow naturally (and it desperately needs a citation). LotLE×talk 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)