09 Apr 15
Originally posted by JS357Not a good definition. A lot is hidden in the word "private" and "rather than the state" implies a false dichotomy.
Would you agree that capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state?
This is the definition the Google search returns.
Capitalism is an political and economic system in which the state forces the poor to pay the rich in order to earn money. This is usually in the form of business overhead, property rent payments, interest etc.
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by JS357At capitalist economic system is not inherently controlled by anybody. It is not a political system at all.
Would you agree that capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state?
This is the definition the Google search returns.
09 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357I see the word as generally referring to a system in which a livelihood is obtained via labour, whereas socialist implies that livelihood is given to members of a society merely for being members and not in proportion to their labour. Here I am including things like education and healthcare as part of livelihood.
Would you agree that capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state?
This is the definition the Google search returns.
Of course most societies contain a mix of the two, and the words are often used to refer to other aspects of political and economic systems and I am not claiming my definition is the 'correct' one.
In reality, a capitalist system usually results in some people having inherited wealth, and not all 'labour' is equal.
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by JS357i would rather say "owned" instead of controlled
Would you agree that capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state?
This is the definition the Google search returns.
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by JS357Capitalism is an economic system, but not necessarily a political one, which works best when combined with a laissez faire government (minimal political involvement). The political implications are added by its opponents who are in fact usually Statists who look at any economic system as controlled by the State.
Would you agree that capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state?
This is the definition the Google search returns.
Lots of economists, and writers from Adam Smith forward, and even before him, have expressed views on capitalism, but the most consistent are those of Murray Rothbard, Hans Herman Hoppe, and Ayn Rand.
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot political. Politicizing it makes it instead Fascism.
Not a good definition. A lot is hidden in the word "private" and "rather than the state" implies a false dichotomy.
Capitalism is an political and economic system in which the state forces the poor to pay the rich in order to earn money. This is usually in the form of business overhead, property rent payments, interest etc.
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis is the intent of those favoring controlled economic systems, political economies. Capitalism is the only laissez faire system, and it is the goal of collectivists to make it as similar to their systems as possible.
In modern political discourse, "capitalism" has become such a loaded term that it has lost any relevant meaning.
09 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm in the middle of reading Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. He makes the point in the second chapter, that demographic growth has a great deal of input into how much inherited wealth effects income distribution.
In reality, a capitalist system usually results in some people having inherited wealth, and not all 'labour' is equal.
Of course demographic growth has to do primarily with birth rates vs. deaths, as well as longevity. With large families, inherited wealth is less of a factor, simply because inheritances are divided into more, smaller slices. As birth rates diminish, in most Western countries to 1.5 or fewer, inherited wealth becomes more of a factor, although even then the previous generation's skill and ingenuity is not necessarily equaled by the following one. The two most fabulously wealthy Americans Gates and Buffet are adamant that they will not directly pass their wealth along to their children.
To be sure those kids are advantaged by their parents, but why not? Don't all parents want to help their kids succeed? But nobody can guarantee it.
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn the 19th Century discussions between political economists, "capitalism" referred to the private ownership of the means of production, while "socialism" referred to common ownership of the means of production.
I see the word as generally referring to a system in which a livelihood is obtained via labour, whereas socialist implies that livelihood is given to members of a society merely for being members and not in proportion to their labour. Here I am including things like education and healthcare as part of livelihood.
Of course most societies contain a mix ...[text shortened]... st system usually results in some people having inherited wealth, and not all 'labour' is equal.
Now we are 150 years further and anyone who has made the slightest effort in studying 20th Century history knows that a mixture of private and common ownership works best. The question just remains in the finer details of what (sub)sectors of the economy ought to be privately and which ought to be collectively owned, and how it should be put into practice.
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis assertion ignores the fact that a pure laissez faire capitalist system hasn't been tried.
Now we are 150 years further and anyone who has made the slightest effort in studying 20th Century history knows that a mixture of private and common ownership works best. The question just remains in the finer details of what (sub)sectors of the economy ought to be privately and which ought to be collectively owned, and how it should be put into practice.