Can anyone define "Capitalism"

It makes perfect sense it is the roots of socialism. Not my perfereed method but +1 neverthrless

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I apologize for using economic terms. But they are basic concepts I'm sorry many of you don't understand.<!-/Quote-!>

Conceited little jerk. Dont you be condescending to me pal.

Here's some quotes from Friedrich Hayek:
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

"It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only those individuals know."

Capitalist is just freedom, letting people do what they want to do with their money. That some people don't benefit from voluntary trade is unfortunate, but if they can't succeed in getting what they need or want with the consent of others, I fail to see how simply creating an institution to simply take the thing by force to give to the person or people in question is somehow an improvement.

Love this debate lol

How about this one .

Capitalism clearly has some good points , I dont think i can deny that . But left unregulated has the potential to destroy society .

So paired with a democratically ellected goverment that creates the regulation to keep it under control . It can and has worked .
Maybe the problem and my negative view on it is based on the fact that the balance has failed in that the Goverments have themselves become the capitalist , or influenced to much by the Capitalist .

I still lean more to socialism , but with a capitalism system run by a democratically ellected goverment by proportional representation .

Quote " Capitalism is a monetary system and thats it. But when adopted as a way of life its becomes a legitimate way to rob someone under the guise of profit and intelligence. "

Would this be what you mean by " a way of life " ?

Shoot Crafty that wasn't directed at you at all there was no condescension to begin with, that was targeted at those who didn't understand my initial argument. I figured price elasticity wasn't a term that many understand.

MantoArms Socialism is Capitalism. But I like the way you put it. But if regulated away from policies that support profit maximization or put in the hands of people that will not grow or promote growth but merely leach off the society that allows them is not capitalism but yet also a common conception of socialism. However nearly all of American Capitalism have this self servicing issue in which hurts a society and doesn't help it.

@ Scarlet - 2 things it would appear Hayek supported the opposite idea of the rest of your posting. I could of course misconceived the idea because I don't know him, and the surrounding context might be different. Second more important point, Capitalism=Freedom? Far

I was really hoping I'd get someone to confirm my definition of capitalism but I'll just ignore that fact. It appears that almost all of you believe that unregulated capitalism does cause bigger differences in wealth disparity and encourages a classist aristocracy at least to some level. So I'll go on to point two. Capitalism steals money from a society, lowering the value therein of:

This is complex idea but can be said in simple ideas. For the basis of this argument MV doesn't really matter, hopefully you will understand why during your reading of it. So... I had mentioned earlier that someone making 300K only 25% goes to necessity spending, this is inaccurate but it fits the trend I was attempting to explain before. So I'll still use these numbers. Let's say that another 25% goes into luxurious spending, which leaves 50% remaining. Now everyone knows that money not spent should not sit but be invested to make more

Yeah, the first built in rule of capitalism is that you need the consent of both parties in any transaction. In a capitalist system, I'm not required to part with any wealth that I don't want to for any reason. Requiring me to do so does constitute a direct violation of my freedom. This is what is required when you imply we should provide others with access to things. If you still require my consent in the distribution of my property, the system is still capitalist (to the degree this is true) because I can still disagree and act on that disagreement. If you do not, the system is not capitalist (to the degree this isn't true).

The fact is that you're arguing that people should put their resources to use in the manner you deem best rather than the manner each of them deem best. How this is not authoritarian is beyond me.

I didn't get that from the post Scarlet. I see it saying for capitalism to work then the money needs to circulate. Spending fuels industry fuels employment, creates more available cash to continue the cycle. This is how real growth (not paper asset growth) happens. I didn't see anyone saying people must use their resources in any particular manner. So it's not authoritarian at all, it's just one opinion of how to make our financial system work. Spend our way out of debt. And I agree with it on the whole, but then I am no economist by any means, I just like to think I have a bit of common sense.

I just feel capitalism is far more authoritative. There is one object with ultimate power and the people have no say in the value of that object. It decides the life they want to live, and people do NOT got to determine how much they can make and become slaves to the system. Forced into these harsh rules. This goes back to my first point of the infinite price elasticity on necessity goods. Too say a person can't attend a movie because the price to see it is 14$ when the distribution of the movie to theaters is practically free how do people have a choice? The only choice they have is for people not to go see and let the industry fall a part before their is ample time to correct it. Freedom? Bah! Give people the ability to experience as much life as possible that is for sure way better, you might find a little more nationalism, compassion, and charity by doing so.

When I see these sort of questions, I wonder to myself... why should anyone care?

You dont seem to have anything constructive to contribute Laguna. Maybe the subject is over your head?

Isn't Laguna an economist? Over-exposed maybe?

Crafty, my response was more directed at the post previous to the one directly above my response. Of course, it is partially relevant to everything. There is no means of implementing any economic system except capitalism without using the powers of a government or government-like organization. This is definitional as capitalism is about reducing the role of government in the economy to the bare minimum of preventing the use of fraud and coercion. The use of government to enforce any economic system is anti-capitalistic. Of course, we're talking about a manner of degrees, the degree to which government does not interfere with the economic decisions of its citizens is the degree to which the system is capitalistic. Many people do agree with having a mostly, but not completely, capitalistic system. Think anti-trust laws, various regulations, etc. However, this does not make the statement that cap

People NEED food to eat, people NEED a house to live in (so they don't die from the man made and naturals elements), people for the most part NEED transportation to supply them with money to afford the other necessities. People don't have a say when MV makes the rules on necessities. I have brought this up a few times I'm not sure if you don't believe me or refuse to refute this claim. People don't decide what things cost or what they make, they minutely influence it. The movie example was a perfect example in one respect and a horrible one in another. I understand production costs but then there are replicated costs. When a farm has all the equipment it pays for expenses not for investments. Most companies in the world are charging fees for products and services without regard to actual cost the influence of new competitors don't bring prices down because they don't have the same level of infrastructure. The sy

sarcasm alert: Oh, yes, capitalism is a pure evil, and the font of all ills in any society. We must have a Government to regulate all prices and wages, to tell us what our labor is worth; only then will all people be happy and free. everyone should donate their time and energy to the State, and look fawningly to the State to dole out largesse to all and sundry. the entrepreneurs must be reined in, for if they make any money, it must be by defrauding others. Why, look at microsoft, Apple, and the automobile industry: the visionaries who make these ideas into reality should get the same reward as anyone who performs 8 hours of meaningless labor and then zones out on the couch watching the Colbert report and "Beavis and Butt-head" while guzzling a couple six-packs. No more capitalism, folks, it is a ruination and no country that has allowed it has ever prospered or had a decent standard of living! I will stop now, before I go on a rant...

But I like "Beavis and Butt-head" while guzzling a couple six-packs.

Yes, I'm an economist, one of my M.Sc.'s courses was History of Economic Thought, where we dealt with questions such as this and yet I'm remarkably indifferent to this sort of endeavour. And, pragmatically, so should everyone else.

To our social life, it matters not what which is the most capitalist or socialist proposal. The main question we should ask is does it work? That is to say proposals should be judged on their own merits to the objectives they are assigned; which implies ideology ought to bear no weight in that judgement.

Plus, the definition of capitalism belongs more to Law than to Economics, so, quite naturally, the answers to these sort of questions are always convoluted.

In that sense, here's my small contribution:
The birth of capitalism is usually associated with the rise of protestantism. Whatever sets capitalism apart from the rest, must lie with the conditions which gave its origin,

Maclean your sarcastic rant is short sighted. Once again the only alternative to capitalism is some authoritative redistributing regime. THAT'S NOT TRUE!!!!! If anyone doesn't like capitalism they are commie/socialist. Instead of thinking hey let's improve upon capitalism because we don't like it, you condemn them without hearing them out.

Nice post Laguna

I concede one point, that is, capitalism can be improved on to better benefit society as a whole. However, yes, I stand by my belief (knowledge, rather) that anyone who hates capitalism is a socialist/commie/pinko.

Capitalism is slave labour of the poor and vulnerable, exploitation of the value of labour and organised crime on a global scale.

So many smart young minds in Simcountry. Anyone want to take on sorting out my check book for me??? ha ha ha ha

Aren't y'all tired of talking about boring ol' "capitalism"? Let's change this thread to something much more important and exciting!

Can anyone define "Shoes"?

Happy Weekend, Sim Peeps!!!!!

LLee: If that is how you define Capitalism, I would really hate to hear your definition of Communism.

Laguna: How about a little more info on the relationship, Protestantism/Capitalism

Max Weber Laguna? What I have heard is that his theory was, at best, debunked.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Social Forces © 2001 Social Forces, University of North Carolina Press
Abstract:

We investigate the thesis widely credited to Max Weber that Protestantism contributed to the rise of industrial capitalism by estimating the associations between the percentage of Protestants and the development of industrial capitalism in European countries in the mid- to late nineteenth century. Development is measured using five sets of variables, including measures of wealth and savings, the founding date of the principal stock exchange, extension of the railroads network, distribution of the male labor force in agriculture and in industry, and infant mortality. On the basis of this evidence, there is little empirical support for what we call the "Common Interpretation" of Weber's The Protestant

That's interesting Crafty, thanks for the posting.