Is Capitalism Dead?

Post Reply New Topic

economics and capitalism are not the same. Capitalism is an ideology not a system of economics. How do I know? read a book on economics. There certain concepts, but overall it is an ideaology. The othr ideaologies are socialism (not communism) and mixed economy. That the government already interferes in the economy according toadam smith would mean that we are not capitalist and since he was against international trade you can say goodbye to most of the products made in this country which are manufactured by china as well as japan.

the opposing concept to efficiency(doing it right) is effectiveness (getting it right). Scarcity can be used in any economic system. Keynesianism is an economic system, capitalism is the ideaology that can be associated with it.

The US is one of the countries in the world that is actually considered capialist at all although it is not even considered purely capitalist.

I would like to begin my post by condemning matsuiny2004 for necromancy.

And I would like to conclude by criticizing matsuiny's absurd claims.

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by free markets and private enterprise.

Um... Smith was against international trade? No... no, he wasn't. He was one of the early critics of mercantilism, which promoted trade protectionism. He demonstrated that larger markets are better than smaller markets, and so by reducing trade barriers you can effectively increase market size, improving economic performance. Smith was the first known advocate of free trade, and that is largely what he is known for.

http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/quotes.htm#jump8

Ifit involved monopolies he did.

Free trade and intrnational trade are not the same concepts. Yes he supported free trade.

How did he demonstrate that it was better?

the whole concept of trading items such a gold, jewelry, etc is mercantillist concept not capitalist. They even had bimetallism.

Anyways, dismissive instruction to "read a book on economics" from someone who believes Adam Smith was a protectionist rings rather hollow to my ears.

Efficiency is not opposed to effectiveness, as efficiency is seeking the balance of all things so that they can be optimal.

Keynesianism ISN'T an economic system at all, it is an economic theory developed by John Maynard Keynes, and that has various variants of it, such as old Keynesianism, neo-Keynesianism and post-Keynesianism, none of which are economic systems so much as systems of understanding economics. Capitalism can be taken ideologically, but it also refers to a set of institutions. This isn't an odd notion.

Actually, the opposite is true. Most nations are variants of capitalism. A mixed economy isn't itself, but rather is just a capitalist economy with significant modifications over a laissez-faire version of it, as capitalism is the driving function of that economy as it is what coordinates the prices and such in the system.

http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/quotes.htm#jump8

Ifit involved monopolies he did.

Free trade and intrnational trade are not the same concepts. Yes he supported free trade.

How did he demonstrate that it was better?

the whole concept of trading items such a gold, jewelry, etc is mercantillist concept not capitalist. They even had bimetallism.

http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/quotes.htm#jump8

Ifit involved monopolies he did.

Free trade and intrnational trade are not the same concepts. Yes he supported free trade.

How did he demonstrate that it was better?

the whole concept of trading items such a gold, jewelry, etc is mercantillist concept not capitalist. They even had bimetallism.

keynesianism doenot require capitalism.

Actually the word capitalism was created by Karl Marx

take it up with the US department of state (source of article)

http://economics.about.com/od/howtheuse ... talism.htm

Well, trade is a part of capitalism, umm.... as for trade existing outside of a capitalist system, sure, I can see that.

The issue with a gift economy is that there has to be a culture encouraging gifts, as otherwise it breaks down into the moneyed economy or the contract economy, both of which are very capitalistic modes.

"Even technocrats"??? Umm.... technocrats are anti-capitalist, so duh! But very few people are technocrats, and technocrats usually do not have a good understanding of economics. If they did, then they wouldn't invoke thermodynamics, but they just don't have the conception that there is a difference between human actors and particles, and that this difference is meaningful, but invoking a physics idea seems to suggest that they aren't even engaging relevant fields of study. Otherwise they'd invoke psychological concepts, political concepts, sociological concepts, etc.

And mercantilism is relatively capitalistic, but it had some very anti-capitalistic traits, such as the denial of free-trade.

The behavior of the US and the UK can be contested on whether or not the policies taken were ideal. After all, if you think that political pressures are dumb and self-serving, then you can argue that the policies taken were bad, or often bad, while the outcomes of a more market economy would be better.

As for a free-market and capitalism, that depends on how you define terms. Many people define the two as being about the same thing, where deviations in one is a deviation from the other.

Ok, it is corporate welfare. I don't see the relevance.

I know who invented the term, but that hardly matters. A word is a word, regardless of who uttered it. Once loosed, it has a life of it's own.

Oh, for crying out loud, learn to use the quote feature properly. You've been on WP long enough that you should know how to by now.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with what you posted, unless your communication skills suck beyond all comparison. I would say that several of the quotes in that link undermine your point rather devastatingly.


You are a dolt.

"It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy...What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. "

That'd be from the link you posted. An early articulation of the notion of comparative advantage.


Read his book if you want to find out. It is painfully obvious that you have not done so yet.


Um... I referred to mercantilism in connection to trade protectionism (ie opposition to international trade) which is indeed a mercantilist notion.

It is government interference which is not capitalist.

People can interpret economics however they see itto work. Orwell said it himself what doe capitalism care about science? So what does science care about capitalism?

economics is a social science not a rock hard concept.

That is your interpretation. Is it not ironic you are using concepts created by Karl Marx?