Can anyone define "Capitalism"

Laguna, I understand that such questions may not be of relevance to the "science" of economics. However, I disagree with the notion that these questions are not of importance when discussing the relative merits of which economic system to implement because any question of "does it work?" presupposes that we've answered the question "what are we working towards?" Both questions must be settled before determining which economic system to implement. To attempt to answer the first question without knowing the answer to the second question is silly, to presume that the answer to the second question is obvious to everyone is ignorant at best. The question of what works can only be answered once the objectives are known.

Drew, the only alternative to a capitalist system is some form of authoritative regime... however, it need not be limited to authoritative redistribution. In either case, the problem that most people have with

@Laguna: "Plus, the definition of capitalism belongs more to Law than to Economics" Agreed.

"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." Agreed, and disagreed. To the extent that an ideology corresponds to reality, a proposal that accords with that ideology will work. With the qualification that not only the primary, first order effects of the proposal be considered, but also the secondary and tertiary effects, which can sometimes be quite long lasting and of great consequence.

OK you touched the point, but ignored some facts.

Capitalism only works because society as a whole gets to determine the value by a choice of whether or not to purchase. If people refuse to purchase then the price goes down. The cycle continues until a new profit maximization point is hit. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE with items necessary for survival. This is the whole food point, you don't eat ya die! No one can wait the time it takes to readjust sales figures too buy at a lower price point. There are goods with indefinite price elasticity it is immune to "capitalism." I'm not merely saying an individual has no control, I'm saying the society, the majority, the mob has no control. So it's not a complicated idea of people need certain things, but what I fail to see is your inability to connect those dots. Absolute capitalism also supports a monopoly which would take prices to a whole other level of servitude to the dollar.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

<!-Quote-!>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.<!-/Quote-!>

Haha, I'm not the only one rankled by the "expert" tone. Drew, the reason people upthread complain about not being able to understand what you're saying is not that you're talking above them. It's that you write as though English is your second language.

I don't mean to pick on you. You have a few good insights, I think. So much of what you write isn't clear enough to even engage with, though.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

if you don't have money you don't have accessibility to the things that the world has to offer.<!-/Quote-!>

That's insightful.

Drew, when you say "the things that the world has to offer" are you talking about natural resources, or are you talking about goods and services that people produce? The people who produce the goods and services are real people, who have their own motivations. If not offering them money, which they can exchange for other goods and services, what incentive will you offer them to produce things for you?

Thanks jojo you put that in a better way for me to clarify. I'm not trying to say there shouldn't be a way to earn things, I'm merely trying to point out that not all things can be evaluated fairly with extremely capitalist means. An IPhone can easily be adapted into the free market, but there are things that can't. If all food prices increased by a factor of 100 all at once people will begin to try to make preparations to produce their own, but they would be forced to buy them in the mean time. So my point or at least the point I'm forced to defend is that for items that do not have the option to say no to cannot be subjected to the free market. If you can say no, then its fine. But not all items are luxury items you can do without. Now this can be construed as a small section of commerce, but it is easily 90% of the products that poverty consumes. This is not okay. People will always be put in poverty because something that i

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.

I take it you have all heard of the Petro-Dollar? LOL

Who robbed all the Gold!......Who robbed all the Gold!......You Fat Bas'#rds!......You Fat Bas'#rds!......You robbed all the Gold!

Capitalism was created by the Zionists so they could tap into the Worlds wealth and resources to create the Worlds biggest Army (USA) with the aim of re-taking Jerusalem.

Simple ;)

Lord Lee: You are proving my point.
Nix: I reserve comment on your idea of capitalism until I am sure you are not joking.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

If all food prices increased by a factor of 100 all at once people will begin to try to make preparations to produce their own, but they would be forced to buy them in the mean time. So my point or at least the point I'm forced to defend is that for items that do not have the option to say no to cannot be subjected to the free market.<!-/Quote-!>

But to a large extent the price of food is determined by the free market, and over the long term the price of food has steadily fallen, not risen (in real terms, adjusting for inflation). In free, capitalist countries you just don't have the situation you are describing.

Food Inflation
2008 4.5%/2009 6.3%/2010 -.6%/2011 1.8%/2012 5%

Inflation Rate
2008 2%/2009 0%/2010 0%/2011 1.5%/2012 1.3%

I think you are wrong. And it is the no course for deniability there is no FREE market. Like I said before I understand the use of the free market for everything other than things required for survival but those items that are needed for survival have a positive correlation with the approximate buying power of those in poverty, and do not with the general inflation rate.

This is interesting.

As Share of Income, Americans Have the Cheapest Food in History, and Cheapest Food on the Planet

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The USDA recently updated its data on "Food expenditures as a share of disposable personal income," and reported that in 2009, Americans spent 9.47% of their disposable income on food (5.55% on food at home and 3.93% on food away from home). The share of income spent on food last year was just slightly higher than the 9.42% in 2008, which is the all-time record low (see top chart above).<!-/Quote-!>

We'll thats because your all being fed GM food. Did you know Monsantano spend millions to make sure the health risks of eating GM crops are not labeled? Mmmmmmm wonder if there will soon be a 'tobacco moment' for your food soon?

That quote has outside variables. It doesn't account for changes in income. <-Minor, but my figures represent only the figures in the beginning of the year, and if you at my numbers with that information then the day day 2009 ended food was in deflation. So you are using out of date figures with too small of a scale. That quote was perfect to explain your point however it is an outlyer to the long term effect.

Also I try the link and it sends me SC, so I can't trust a quote until I can realize the significance of the biased spin the journalist takes. I'm merely attempting to say I'm right and your wrong but I've already seen this 1 period and it is inconsistent with the larger trend.

While econometrics did develop as a way to help prove or disprove a particular hypothesis (theory), it is somewhat amusing to see it applied to the case of Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. While I would use it in this case as well, I would treat it as a mere curiosity. I imagine so would many economists. Econometrics has its failings, and, in this particular case, we could be seeing poorly chosen regressors or just plain crappy data.

I do have to stress, that Weber did say that his answer was only probable. As probable as it may be, it still has traction to this day, because it remains one of the best explanations to date. The number of times I see Weber mentioned in a topic about capitalism in the ecosphere is rather impressing. We should have a Godwin's Law version for Weber and capitalism.

When Weber proposed that protestant ethic was one of the factors that enabled the rise of Ca