(My)Definition of capitalism (after the enlightening discussion; ... chicken and eggs):= the system for a capital-oriented economy. Due to its inevitable? symbolic distortion, it has the practical consequence of the accumulation of capital, protectionism and monopoly building AND it leads finally to PLANNED economy; in very extremes to state capitalism and communism (expropriation of the accumulated capital) ??

QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionAs usual, when it comes to ascribing benefits or disadvantages to capitalism, you have them backwards. For the vast majority of the population, capitalism detracts from the individual freedom you desire.I would disagree here. I think fundamentally, capitalism is supposed to provide an additional layer of freedom, in that all are free to use their capital as they see fit. You decide what you want, at what price, to both yourselves and others. One obvious problem is then that those with more capital are also more free, and the only way around this is to ensure that all have some basic level of capital. Beyond this, you can choose to work harder or simply to earn more, just as you can choose to be satisfied with your lot (whatever the implications of this may be). Just as some choose to throw away their vote.Your approach of putting the resources in the hands of the community seems to me one way around this issue, and does not necessarily end up with a system that it is uncapitalist (although there's an obvious fundamental evolution).

A very concise definition from Andre Jaun (fellow Quant): "At the core lies an idea that capital (indeed any kind of asset such as money, raw material, even patents) owned by an individual (the investor) can be lent to another (the entrepreneur) to produce a certain number of goods or services." This definition (together with the possibility of separation between the producers and the owners ) is the key trait of capitalism.

QuoteOriginally posted by: PaintydogA very concise definition from Andre Jaun (fellow Quant): "At the core lies an idea that capital (indeed any kind of asset such as money, raw material, even patents) owned by an individual (the investor) can be lent to another (the entrepreneur) to produce a certain number of goods or services." This definition (together with the possibility of separation between the producers and the owners ) is the key trait of capitalism.It fails in two key respects:1. It fails to distinguish types of assets (resources, cash, slaves?).2. It omits to say who may own and control each type of asset and does the lending.

A slave does not exist in this simple model for capitalism. By definition, a person is an owner of an asset or a producer. Nothing precludes a person from playing the role of owner in one setting and producer in another. Simplicity can lead to tautology, of course--by this defintion, an asset is something that someone owns(!)Yes, of course, implementing capitalism as defined means that rules must establish ownership and control of assets. But the specific rules don't need to be spelled out for the definition to be valid.

QuoteOriginally posted by: PaintydogA slave does not exist in this simple model for capitalism. By definition, a person is an owner of an asset or a producer. Nothing precludes a person from playing the role of owner in one setting and producer in another. Simplicity can lead to tautology, of course--by this defintion, an asset is something that someone owns(!)Yes, of course, implementing capitalism as defined means that rules must establish ownership and control of assets. But the specific rules don't need to be spelled out for the definition to be valid.Ok. I see what you mean and I agree. The failure to distinguish asset types and who can own or control them is indeed a key feature of capitalism. In fact it is precisely the problem with capitalism.

A great strength of capitalism is that it can encourage insightful risk-taking, to the benefit of all. Owners receive reward in exchange for identifying good places to put assets at risk; the placement of assets at risk in turn provides opportunities for producers to earn. An important vulnerability of capitalism, as I think you are pointing out, is that it is may be possible for owners to use means other than the placement of assets at risk, in order to consolidate ownership.

Another vulnerability of capitalism would be a situation in which owners put assets at risk, but turn to producers to compensate them in the event of a down-side outcome to their risk-taking.

Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and moreof expensive goods, houses and mechanical products, pushing them to takemore and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. Theunpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to benationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventuallylead to communism. (Karl Marx)

QuoteOriginally posted by: jfuquaOwners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and moreof expensive goods, houses and mechanical products, pushing them to takemore and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. Theunpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to benationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventuallylead to communism. (Karl Marx)It's has been vigorously and repeatedly pointed out by various commentators that the quote above DOES NOT appear anywhere in Das Kapital. This is faux Marx you be quoting...