Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:24, 14 October 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Capitalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Capitalism was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 8, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted August 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 2, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Capitalism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Capitalism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CapitalismWikipedia:WikiProject CapitalismTemplate:WikiProject CapitalismCapitalism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Capitalism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Capitalism at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Capitalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Large blank area.

Is there any way to avoid the large blank area that appears, at least in my browser, below the table of contents? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Little Confused Here.

When I was in high school economics (way back in the Reagan years) we were taught that the distinguishing characteristic of "capitalism" was allowing investment in and ownership of companies by investors who weren't directly involved in their daily operations. From what I see here, though, the current definition of capitalism seems to just be "any system where companies aren't nationalized."

What I'm wondering is this: Are there distinctly different labels for a business that is privately owned and operated by a single individual, one that is a partnership between a relatively small number of people who have employees but hold all ownership between the partners, a company that can be owned by everybody who can buy shares of its stock, and a business that can be owned only by the workers in that company, or are they all "capitalist" companies because they are privately owned? The One True Dave (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A good reference on the many forms of Capitalism is a little book titled "Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction" by James Fulcher. The short answer is that your high school economics teacher got it wrong. Capital is money used for investment (as distinct for the purchase of goods and services or put in a savings account). In a capitalist society, those who have money to invest are free to create a business, whether they do it individually or by incorporating. Sam Walton was a capitalist, though he was directly involved with the daily operations of Wal-Mart. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Depends on how precisely you want to make your definition. Companies have all sorts of structures which can be differentiated. Partnerships, for instance, are not limited liability (traditionally, although the law has adjusted lately), so if it goes belly-up you lose not only your capital but also your socks and cuff-links. Some issue shares between a close-knit group which are privately rather than publicly traded (e.g. you might have to ask other shareholders for permission to sell your shares; in publicly-traded companies, you sell whenever and to whomever you like).

The critical feature of capitalism, however, is control - that is, he who owns the capital, has ultimate and complete control of the production decisions. How the capital is divvied up, who owns it and the rules by which it is traded can vary immensely. But so long as the "fact" of capital-ownership translates to decision-power, you're in a capitalist system. A single-owner-run business is still "capitalistic" - that is, a single man just wears two hats, one as capitalist (owner of capital), another as entrepreneur-manager (he hires himself, as it were).

Cooperatives are different from employee-owned companies. Employee-owned companies are where employees own the shares and thus also wear two hats (one as capitalist, another as worker). Thus they are still "capitalist". Cooperatives, however, distribute decision-power according to "stakehold" rather than "sharehold". That is, cooperatives are usually structured in a way that employees get a say in production decisions, regardless of how much capital (if any at all) they bring in. So cooperatives are not "capitalistic".

Now, it is true that some people use the term "capitalism" in a much narrower sense, esp. in history, to specifically refer only to the period after the emergence of incorporated permanent joint-stock limited liability publicly-traded companies, and refer to everything else as not-quite-capitalism. But that is a rather arbitrary criteria, and far too narrow. Walrasiad (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Lede

I see a recent edit to the lede, a section which I'd not previously considered. The text is not a clear description of capitalist institutions and seems to be laden with various analytic or normative concepts implicit in the cited source. Dictionary definitions and a garbled sociology text cannot be the best sources for a description of a capitalist economy. To be specific, both individuals and corporations are private agents. "Creation" is an imprecise and value-loaded term in this context. Prices aren't determined by competition, they are set by agreement between the buyer and the seller, or one might say set by the seller and accepted or rejected by the buyer. To say that prices come from "competition in a market economy" is largely tautological. "Central elements.." are not prescriptions of Capitalism, they are labels for observed processes or results of Capitalism.

I think this could all be improved by considering the central statements in the article body and summarizing them in the lede. As it is, it appears to be a weakly sourced and poorly defined separate statement. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

In the last sentence of the introduction, it is mentioned that "crony capitalism" is considered normal by Marxian economics, but "aberrant" by "certain advocates of capitalsim." Who are these advocates? Can a source be named? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.111 (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Bloated introduction that deviates from subject matter

The current iteration of the lead paragraphs are bloated with unnecessary material that go off on tangents about taxation, defenses about specific ideologies within capitalism (Ayn Rand, Welfare economics et al.) and make controversial claims about the "defeat of communism", all of which have little to do with the definition of capitalism. These subjects belong in a section in the article dedicated to the various ideologies in support of capitalism.

The information on Schumpeter is incorrect or taken out of context, and referring to contemporary Western Europe as followers of a "socialist ideology" is extremely biased and inaccurate.

The lead should focus on a definition of capitalism, a brief overview of the different major forms of capitalism, and a brief mentioning of its etymology and multiple uses of the term by different groups. -Battlecry 09:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

whoever the idiot is that keeps putting this bit in about ayn rand in the damn intro about how what she said about capitalism "did not stand up to logical or historical scrutiny" and then gives one random citation for it, just stop. does not belong here. - anyonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.66.42 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the biases of the lead, I agree with Battlecry that the lead is too long, contains overly specific information (ie specific economists' names and positions) that belongs in subsections instead. Dialectric (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Recently there's been some addition & removal of Ayn Rand related material. This material is inappropriate for the lede as it adds to the bloat. Whatever Rand material is appropriate should be added to the text first, and then summarized in the lede (if appropriate). – S. Rich (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Where in the text? MilesMoney (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't figure out where is a good place for it in the body of the article, but it really should not go in the lede. (BTW, at the moment I'm about to move the very last lede paragraph (about taxes) into its own subsection.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Following up on Ayn Rand, did she really have much to contribute to the theory of capitalism? If not, then she should be left out of this article. (Exposition of her thoughts in this area might be expanded upon in her article.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As the quote says, she contributed both popularization and a moral defense. MilesMoney (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps her views can be put in the "Advocacy" section. But did her popularization or moral defense really have a significant impact? I don't know one way or the other. – S. Rich (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

She's legitimized naked capitalism and has had a huge political influence. There'd be no American Tea Party without her. MilesMoney (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Her work is often cited by Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, not to mention Ron Johnson -- the new generation stars of the American Congress. It would be hard to overstate her influence as a rallying point for the emerging wave of American libertarians. In fact, she has surpassed the previous icons Reagan and Rothbard in popular significance. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard who? Reagan is still a touchstone for American conservatives, but he's not so much an influence as a trophy; he represents the moment that the conservatives took your country back and held onto it. MilesMoney (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Two words: "Jean" "Chretien". SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't look at me! I'm not responsible for Chrétien. MilesMoney (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to placement (which as of this writing seems to be resolved), there is another problem with this passage. There is a "source" cited for it that does not mention capitalism at all or discuss the nature of Rand's advocacy for it. Given that the text pronounces a specific POV, it should not only have a true source cited, the POV should be attributed in-text. --RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, back to the question that pertains to the article. Did Rand contribute to theory involving capitalism? If so, how? And what RS is there to show these contributions? And even if her work is cited by others, so what? Are the new stars saying "I/we support capitalism because Ayn Rand wrote about it?" Even with RS, mention of her as a popularizer and defender of capitalism seems tangential. Perhaps more about her efforts in this regard could be put in Criticism of capitalism. I still don't see how it fits here. – S. Rich (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand should not be mentioned in the lead. The U.S. was already capitalist, support for capitalism is a core liberal value, and the concept had already received acceptance by the mid 19th century. Right-wing groups in the U.S. typically support capitalism and draw their inspiration from American historical figures, such as the Founding Fathers, rather than from atheist Europeans. Reagan's policies developed out of Hayek and Friedman, who in turn drew on 19th century liberalism. TFD (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, Hello. I smiled after reading your comment. I don't believe that Reagan ever read Hayek and certainly not early Milton Friedman. He may not have read Rand either, but his sponsors sure did. However I agree with you that her influence was not the primary inspiration for the first wave of reaction against the Trustbusters, Labor laws and the New Deal in the US. Nevertheless her influence is greater today with the current wave and is growing. Or it was until last month at any rate. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have the paragraph or so from the cited source? MilesMoney (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The entire paper is available online. --RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, hello. Were you smiling as you figured out how to misrepresent me? I did not say Reagan read Hayek etc., I said his "policies developed out of Hayek" etc. Do you understand that presidents may support policies devised by other people whose sources they have never read? In any case, what relevance does this have? The U.S. was capitalist before Reagan and continues to be capitalist after him. TFD (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi TFD. Sorry you feel I misunderstood you. Perhaps some further clarification or explanation of your view would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, the US was indeed capitalist before Reagan, but Reagan represents a huge shift to a more conservative brand of capitalism, one which forced even his opponents to endorse the virtues of the free market. Likewise, the US was capitalist before Rand, but it didn't have the aggressively righteous ideology to justify the capitalism and wash away any guilt for the casualties. Remember "greed is good"? MilesMoney (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is veering way off-topic. E.g., we should be asking "how do we improve the article with material from Ayn Rand" (if at all)? "Did she contribute to theory of capitalism?" "Did she have influence on the spread of capitalism?" Information in this regard may improve the article, and whatever is provided needs RS. So far I've seen nothing that helps the article in this regard so the Ayn Rand material should be omitted. – S. Rich (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a discussion about which people are relevant to the article. Unfortunately, the questions you ask are irrelevant. For example, contributing to the theory of capitalism isn't a necessary criterion for inclusion, although it may be sufficient. MilesMoney (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I brought up the topic in discussion because I had removed the mention of Rand from the lede. Looking at the Robert Bass article, I cannot find where he talks about capitalism, laissez-faire, Reagan, Hayek, Frieman, etc. So how do we say AR attempted a "positive moral defense of laissez-faire capitalism"? – S. Rich (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the current citation isn't good for this, but good sources are easy to find. You could start with these peer reviewed works from academic publishers:

• Burns, Jennifer (2006). "Godless Capitalism: Ayn Rand and the Conservative Movement". In Lichtenstein, Nelson (ed.) (ed.). American Capitalism: Social Thought and Political Economy in the Twentieth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-3923-2. {{cite book}}: |editor-first= has generic name (help)
• Rasmussen, Douglas; Rasmussen, Douglas (1984). "Capitalism". In Den Uyl, Douglas; Rasmussen, Douglas (eds.) (eds.). The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-01033-7. OCLC 9392804. {{cite book}}: |editor2-first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
• Thomas, William (2003). "Ayn Rand: Radical for Capitalism". In Frost, Bryan-Paul; Sikkenga, Jeffrey (eds.) (eds.). History of American Political Thought. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-0623-6. {{cite book}}: |editor2-first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
• Younkins, Edward W. (2005). Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-1076-4. OCLC 59147844.

Those would all support the straightforward statement of her defense of capitalism. For criticisms of its validity you could turn to something like this source, which says Rand's approach has "obvious flaws" (p. 132):

• Finn, Daniel (2006). The Moral Ecology of Markets: Assessing Claims about Markets and Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-67799-8.

I'll stop with that, but finding even more shouldn't be difficult. --RL0919 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I updated the section myself. I used the first two sources I listed as citations for Rand's position. For the reaction, I turned to Ayn Rand Nation by Gary Weiss. It summarized the situation (that her ideas are widely rejected but still have influence in some places), rather than repeating the details of individual reactions, which seems appropriate given that this is an article about capitalism and not about Rand or her ideas. --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me (but what do I know?). Big improvement on what she said and who's listening and on where her influence has been felt. I do not think mention of her limited influence belongs in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• C-Class Economics articles
• Top-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class social and political philosophy articles
• High-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Top-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles