Lots of arguments for and against capitalism these days, but before I can discuss it I need to understand what is the definition of capitalism?And if there are many definitions of capitalism then I guess we need to state what type of capitalism we are discussing? What is the first historical use of word capitalism?What is current use of the word capitalism? Has there ever been implemented capitalism? if so to what degree and of what form/type of it? is it cyclical?Is capitalism static? or dynamic? a partly stochastic and deterministic animal ?I do not know, this is why I ask the wise men and women and spirits on this forum.

Capitalism is a method for matching investment capital and labor in which investment capital is subject to private ownership.

what about market prices set by supply and demand (without interaction from government or other control organs thinking of themselves as supreme beings) is this capitalism? or is this just the idea of free markets?

QuoteOriginally posted by: PaperCutCapitalism is a method for matching investment capital and labor in which investment capital is subject to private ownership.this definition seems very vague? it opens for many types of capitalism? at least in theory, some good, some bad, some in between?for example private criminal organisations could be matching labor and private investment capital (capital from the same private crime organisations)? would you consider this capitalism, a bad branch of it?

QuoteOriginally posted by: PaperCutCapitalism is a method for matching investment capital and labor in which investment capital is subject to private ownership.Production (the purpose of matching capital with labour) also requires resources. What distinguishes capitalism from other market-based systems is that capital controls resources (natural resources that rightfully belong to the whole of humanity are treated as just another form of capital and sequestrated by a small part of the private sector). This destroys fair exchange in the labour market and other markets and thereby enables the accummulation of capital in monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic hands.By "resources" I mean anything which facilitates production other than capital and labour. So we have the relationship:resources + labour + capital ====>>> production.Only the first two (resources + labour) are essential, but capital greases the wheels whenever the first two need organisation beyond the trivial.Under capitalism, capital has come to dominate and control the whole process instead of being the grease.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CollectorLots of arguments for and against capitalism these days, but before I can discuss it I need to understand what is the definition of capitalism?And if there are many definitions of capitalism then I guess we need to state what type of capitalism we are discussing? What is the first historical use of word capitalism?What is current use of the word capitalism? Has there ever been implemented capitalism? if so to what degree and of what form/type of it? is it cyclical?Is capitalism static? or dynamic? a partly stochastic and deterministic animal ?I do not know, this is why I ask the wise men and women and spirits on this forum.***I believe that the first use of the word "capital" is many centuries old and came from the Latin, capita, for heads of cattle.Will have a look at etymology now...

Found a site that covers the history of the term in brief: - yes on animals, but this says "kaput" from Indo-European root, rather than Latin."The etymology of the word capital has roots in the trade and ownership of animals. The Latin root of the word capital is capitalis, from the proto-Indo-European kaput, which means "head", this being how wealth was measured. The more heads of cattle, the better. The terms chattel (meaning goods, animals, or slaves) and even cattle itself also derive from this same origin.Related Topics:Latin - Proto-Indo-European~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~The lexical connections between animal trade and economics can also be seen in the names of many currencies and words about money: fee (faihu), rupee (rupya), buck (a deerskin), pecuniary (pecu), stock (livestock), and peso (pecu or pashu) all derive from animal-trade origins.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~The first use of the word "capitalism" in English is by novelist Thackeray in 1854, by which he meant having ownership of capital. In 1867 Proudhon used the term "capitalist" to refer to owners of capital, and Marx and Engels refer to the "capitalist form of production" ("kapitalistische Produktionsform") and in Das Kapital to "Kapitalist", "capitalist" (meaning a private owner of capital). By the early 20th century the term had become widespread, as evidenced by Max Weber's use of the term in his The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in 1904, and Werner Sombart's 1906 Modern Capitalism. The OED cites the use of the term "private capitalism" by Karl Daniel Adolf Douai, German-American socialist and abolitionist in the late 19th century, in an 1877 work entitled "Better Times", and a citation by an unknown author in 1884 in the pages of Pall Mall magazine.Related Topics:Thackeray - 1854 - 1867 - Proudhon - Das Kapital - 20th century - Max Weber - The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - 1904 - Werner Sombart - 1906 - OED - Karl Daniel Adolf Douai - Socialist - Abolitionist - 19th century - 1877 - 1884 - Pall Mall~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Under the Marxist theory of ideology, a dominant economic class is believed to have its own ideology serving its class interests. The ideology of the "capitalist class" or bourgeois also came to be known as "capitalism", giving the word another meaning. This usage has been adopted outside of Marxist circles, and today many economic liberals self-describe as "capitalists", even if they are not personally involved in business investment.Related Topics:Marxist theory - Ideology - Bourgeois"Spiritus Temporis - Capitalism etymologyon a second page, the site covers the Characteristics of Capitalist Economies in detail, with many further links:"In common usage capitalism refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated, and where investment and the production, distribution and prices of commodities (goods and services) are determined privately in a free market, rather than by the state. Those in control of the means of production generally run them for monetary profit. For examples of how capitalism has been defined by various sources, see .Characteristics of capitalist economiesA set of broad characteristics are generally agreed on by both advocates and critics of capitalism. These are a private sector, private property, free enterprise, profit, unequal distribution of wealth, competition, self-organization (or catallaxy), the existence of markets (including the labor market) and the capitalist class and the proletariat, and the pursuit of self-interest.Related Topics:Private sector - Private property - Profit - Wealth - Self-organization - Catallaxy - Markets - Labor market - Capitalist class - Proletariat - Self-interest"

so then what is wrong with owning a lot of cattle? the danger of global warming, all the metan gass?

I think it is more about staying lean and mean as a society - not just eating overly plump corn-fed cows. Here is something on innovation versus complacency in states that had both "cattle" and technology:"Ancient Rome and China under the Song dynasty are examples of societies that had some of the characteristics of capitalism, like no feudal fiefs, (weak) property rights, economic growth, and for their times advanced technology. It is much debated why these societies did not have their own "industrial revolution" and thus achieve industrial capitalism in the modern sense. It has been suggested that these states formed monopolies in their parts of the world with very limited competition from other states. The ruling class then become complacent and the successful institutions were overturned in order to enrich certain special interest groups. Much innovation has historically taken place when there where many competing states, like in the city states of ancient Greece and renaissance Italy.Related Topics:Rome - Song dynasty - Fiefs - Greece - Renaissance - Italy"

QuoteOriginally posted by: CollectorQuoteOriginally posted by: PaperCutCapitalism is a method for matching investment capital and labor in which investment capital is subject to private ownership.this definition seems very vague? it opens for many types of capitalism? at least in theory, some good, some bad, some in between?for example private criminal organisations could be matching labor and private investment capital (capital from the same private crime organisations)? would you consider this capitalism, a bad branch of it?Yes, I suppose, a negative sort. But it seems the same.

QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: PaperCutCapitalism is a method for matching investment capital and labor in which investment capital is subject to private ownership.Production (the purpose of matching capital with labour) also requires resources. What distinguishes capitalism from other market-based systems is that capital controls resources (natural resources that rightfully belong to the whole of humanity are treated as just another form of capital and sequestrated by a small part of the private sector). This destroys fair exchange in the labour market and other markets and thereby enables the accummulation of capital in monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic hands.By "resources" I mean anything which facilitates production other than capital and labour. So we have the relationship:resources + labour + capital ====>>> production.Only the first two (resources + labour) are essential, but capital greases the wheels whenever the first two need organisation beyond the trivial.Under capitalism, capital has come to dominate and control the whole process instead of being the grease.You have to understand, I'm not really an economics guru, so I don't really know the standard academic dogma. That having been said, your "equation" or flow diagram seems to be unbalanced, or at least pointed the wrong way or something. You don't really take resources (I am picturing lumber or whatever), some workers, and then "add capital" to produce things. The capital is simply the method of exchange that allows the investors to purchase the lumber and hire the workers.Regardless, maybe you're right, I dunno. However I do know that the central idea is that ownership is (and ought to be) private. Ownership of private property is a central concept to political freedom.

Nice question!It's all about a model to improve society's wealth. Historically there have been two antagonic models: "capitalism" and "socialism/communism". There's also a third model which is a bit mixed between the two: "social democracy" - the nordic system.In a capitalist system, society tries to maximize capital through a free market and private property. Marx believed that a capitalist system relying only in the private sector will always be unfair and the dominant class (burgeois) will try to get richer by exploiting the weaker class (proletariat).The marxist view was contested by liberal economists that argued that, in a free market, competition will ensure that wealth will be distributed in an efficient way. If a worker feels he's being exploited he's free to look for another job elsewhere, since the new employer will pay him more if he is really worth it.The problem is that when we're born we already have different odds of success. There is no such thing as equal opportunity so the capitalist view is immediately flawed.Economists that defend capitalism believe that individuals by maximizing their capital will take the most efficient actions to the entire society... (like the AIG, Lehman, Bear Stear bonuses, and so on! just kidding ) So they defend a free market with no State intervention.Social democracy (and the Nordic system) is a mixed system. It believes in private property but that there must be an altruistic agent to regulate the market in a social responsible way since individuals can cause severe damage to common welfare when pursuing only their interests. Individuals are not altruistic so this has to be balanced by State intervention.Social democracy also promotes the chance for equal opportunities across all individuals. In order to do that, they use fiscal policy to redistribute wealth in a more "balanced" way. They also believe that certain rights must be provided to individuals even if they are not able to afford them (healthcare, education, law)...The truth is that when we are born our outcome already depends on our family wealth. Since there's a huge gap among different classes the major objective of social-democrats is the redistribution of wealth in a fair way but also consistent with private property and merit.Well, this is a really hard question. This is just my view. Hope it helps!

QuoteOriginally posted by: PaperCutQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: PaperCutCapitalism is a method for matching investment capital and labor in which investment capital is subject to private ownership.Production (the purpose of matching capital with labour) also requires resources. What distinguishes capitalism from other market-based systems is that capital controls resources (natural resources that rightfully belong to the whole of humanity are treated as just another form of capital and sequestrated by a small part of the private sector). This destroys fair exchange in the labour market and other markets and thereby enables the accummulation of capital in monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic hands.By "resources" I mean anything which facilitates production other than capital and labour. So we have the relationship:resources + labour + capital ====>>> production.Only the first two (resources + labour) are essential, but capital greases the wheels whenever the first two need organisation beyond the trivial.Under capitalism, capital has come to dominate and control the whole process instead of being the grease.You have to understand, I'm not really an economics guru, so I don't really know the standard academic dogma.Neither am I. I just use my common sense. QuoteThat having been said, your "equation" or flow diagram seems to be unbalanced, or at least pointed the wrong way or something. You don't really take resources (I am picturing lumber or whatever), some workers, and then "add capital" to produce things. The capital is simply the method of exchange that allows the investors to purchase the lumber and hire the workers.Yes. I think that's what I mean by it being the grease.QuoteRegardless, maybe you're right, I dunno. However I do know that the central idea is that ownership is (and ought to be) private. Ownership of private property is a central concept to political freedom.Absolutely! But ownership of what? "Ownership of private property" is a tautology! It doesn't say anything. You have to say what can be privately owned. I think it's perfectly fine to own things that you have produced as long as you compensate the community for the resources you have used. I think it's perfectly fine to own things that someone else has produced as long as you paid for it and they compensated the community for the resources they used. That is what capitalism fails to do because it enables a small number to own and control resources (acquired historically ultimately by force) in order to control markets and thereby extract extra value at the expense of the community as a whole.

maybe this helps

QuoteOriginally posted by: Collectorso then what is wrong with owning a lot of cattle? the danger of global warming, all the metan gass?The biggest risk is that it engenders herd behaviour.