Talk:Capitalism/Archive 16

New stuff

WTF on GDP chart?

World GDP/capita changed very little for most of human history before the industrial revolution and the introduction of capitalism. The chart has data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003 A.D.

What on earth is this chart supposed to mean? Or to have to do with this article? I guess the moral is supposed to be some sort of generic mantra of "capitalism is good". Which is not at all topical, but even if it were it's hard to imagine how this chart would show it... or how it would show anything remotely connected to this article. I guess if it shows that, it also shows that "communism" is a hundred times better than feudalism, which I doubt Ultramarine wants to advocate.

What could it possibly mean to ask the GDP of a world before nation states and national products? Or without monied exchange? And before commodities, and large distant transport, and lending institutions? Heck, before central banks that issue money. And of course, before many specific items that contitute GDP nowadays. Just how many goats is a year of DSL equivalent to anyway?

Even under the extremely unlikely stipulation that one could somehow come up with equivalences, and wash away the whole matter of money, nation-states, exchange, currency, etc... the chart makes no sense whatsoever. For one thing, most years before 1500 show just plain flat zeros. Does that mean that there were 1000 years of zero economic activity: i.e. during the rise of the Arab and Persian empires, and then also during the vast expansion of the Mongol empires? The silk trade resulted in a "GDP" of exactly zero, everywhere in the world?! And moreover, even supposing zero really means "very small, too small to show on chart", is it really a good description to say that everyone in the world lived at 1/50th the "income" level of current Ethiopian standards for the 500 years of the European "dark ages"... does that mean they had 1/50th the nutrition of currently nearly starving people?! LotLE×talk 06:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The source for the chart can be seen by clicking on the image. I think no one disputes that economic growth is an important characteristic of capitalism and the chart illustrates this. Note that the graph shows GDP/capita, not GDP. Since the population slowly increased, GDP rose. GDP/capita, however, did not change much and most people lived near sustenance levels with population growth checked by famines.Ultramarine 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly not original research.Ultramarine 06:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your statements regarding 1/50th of the Ethiopians standards? Note that also Afrcia has had some growth compared to the Middle ages.Ultramarine 06:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes... according to your claim, given the resolution of the chart, Africa has had much more than a 50x increase in so-called GDP/capita since the "middle ages". You can't just stick in a chart that purports at least a dozen things that are absurd on their face, with no discernable connection to the article topic, and that was developed according to your own quirky (i.e. WP:OR) take on some already special-purpose (and not very good) data. LotLE×talk 07:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You can check my "claim" here as noted in the image: [1] There you get exact numbers from the excel file. Regading Africa, GDP/capita has increased 3 times, not 50. Maddison is an very well respected researcher, Google scholar shows around 1000 citations for his papers and books regarding this: [2] If you want to criticzed him, cite the literatue, not your opinions.Ultramarine 07:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

3x would, of course, be absurd too. 1/3 of starvation level doesn't make for live people. But that's obviously not what your chart says. At the resolution shown, >100 units (dollars?) would show up, but you have a thousand years of actual zeros, which implies <100. I'd have to zoom in and count pixels, but I think it's actually <50 that is implied. Here's what I'd recommend:

1. Fix what is obviously a badly broken chart
2. Find some article where a corrected chart might be remotely relevant
3. Put it over there instead

LotLE×talk 07:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Followup: Actually, it looks like one pixel is about 42 units. So it's not just 50x you are purporting in the chart for increase in African "GDP", but more like 120x. Of course, in any case, if you follow the link to the GDP article that you link to, it clearly excludes all those years from the concept even being applicable. LotLE×talk 07:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

These are average levels, including the wealthy, and not for those in starvation. Most people in Africa are not in starvation today. For the years with zeros, there are no data. Maybe this should be made clearer. I have only included data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003 A.D. Maddison only gives those year before 1820. Regarding Afrcia, in the year 1 GDP/capita is: 456. In 2003 it is: 1549.Ultramarine 07:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, are you the creator/copyright holder of this chart, Ultramarine? Also, could you link to the document it comes from, I'm not searching the whole site.--Red Deathy 09:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The file is clearly stated, but here is a direct link fo Maddison's Excel file: [3].Ultramarine 13:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you do not like the data, fine. Criticze them using the literature, do not just delete views you do not like.Ultramarine 16:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section

It's common practice that criticisms sections/articles have refutation of criticisms. Otherwise they are unbalanced and violate NPOV. Presence of criticisms section implies that rest of the article is written from pro-capitalists perspective, and that isn't the case. -- Vision Thing -- 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that, it implies that the article is about discussing the topic in hand (capitalism) and presents capitalism neutrally. If there are criticisms they should be voiced as neutrally as possible (drawing attention to them and linking readers to source articles. I don't think rebuttals get anywhere, but anti-capitalists would then say they should have rebuttals to the rebuttals. More productive would be to have a small section on proponents of capitalism 9as opposed to theorists/analysts). We should avoid a debate sound.--Red Deathy 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, pro-capitalism section can be solution too. But as it now stands, this article is unbalanced. -- Vision Thing -- 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.Ultramarine 16:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardly, a couple of paras that mention that some peopel are critical and giving brief reasons does not unbalanced make - but go ahead and write a para on advocates of capitalism.--Red Deathy 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim about "critics of critics" being the norm in articles is, of course, utter nonsense. You can find very few articles that do that, and I would wager not one single Featured Article that does so. I wouldn't have anything against having a section called "Advocacy of capitalism" or something like that, as long as it was written in a concise and NPOV fashion, and is verifiable rather than as an editorial. But the material should also not needlessly repeat the description given in the Austrian section, or in the Classical section, both of which are largely "advocacy of capitalism" now. LotLE×talk 16:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

One example of the unbalance is Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters constant deletions of views he does not like, like the chart above.Ultramarine 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The chart didn't have a lot of content actually, but maybe one with more data would be fine.--MONGO 16:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly make a more detailed one by listing nations instead of continents or after 1820. However, I think the graph is quite interesting already. Much of economics deal with increasng GDP/capita which in turn increases the general standard of living, so this estimate has great importance.Ultramarine 16:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a wide variety of potential sources which could be used to render a graph about GDP/capita and how that may be a signal of growth. Maybe post graphs here before adding them to the article page...since this article has had some heated exchanges in the past...best to hammer out any additions here first.--MONGO 05:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That principle was certainly not followed by those who advocate for the current version. The whole article was rewritten more or less from scratch in a single edit without discussing anything on talk. Regarding the chart, it is a significant view and the author has numerous citations in Google scholar on this subject as stated above. No one has shown that it is incorrect or given an alternative sourced view. If someone does this, then we have a factual discussion. Otherwise we have deletion of significant views just because someone dislikes them, which violates NPOV.Ultramarine 05:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

there are more criteria than significance, such as relevence to the article, which is a matter of editorial judgement, and a graph with most of the years marked zero for no data is pretty useless - a chart based on the 1820 data onwrds might be useful, and fit with the history of capitalism section - but then, there are so many wqondersful charts out there (shoudl I go look for one that shows how the economic share of profit holders goes up when teh share going to wages goes down?).--Red Deathy 07:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be very interested in any factual arguments, if you can find any sourced. Economic growth was central to, for example, Adam Smith, so obviously is should be important for this article too.Ultramarine 07:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I think this article is pretty good, albeit a few may disagree with me. I had it watchlisted for awhile and recently took it off the watchlist since it appeared to be stable and the arguments had been minimized...so I have nominated this article for peer review to see what it may need to become a featured article. Generally you'll be lucky to get one or two people who will take the time to make comments...which will generally appear on the following page, which is also linked from the template at the top of this article...Wikipedia:Peer review/Capitalism/archive1--MONGO 16:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is pretty bad. It looks pretty and all, with nice pictures and decent grammar, and nice little sections. But it is not informative about what capitalism is. I remember seeing another version that was here before this one and it gave you a good sense of what capitalism was, all broken down into necessary components. The "Perspectives on characteristics of capitalism" section is too abstract to be useful. The "History of capitalism" section isn't any better. I suggest that the whole History section be moved to its own article and use all the extra space to go into more detail about what capitalism is. C-Liberal

Agree completely. The prior version was completely destroyed in a single edit without dicussing this first on the talk page.Ultramarine 05:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the last version before the massive rewrite: [4].Ultramarine 05:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I had almost forgotten just how bad that old version was, before 172's wonderful work in rewriting it as an encyclopedia article. Almost every sentence of that old doggerel has this excessively chatty, informal, and largely OR-ish tone; and the organization was sort of a scattershod approach of "throw a handful of ideas at the article, and see which ones stick (ignoring order)". Overall, if someone had turned in that old version in my upper-division course in Political Philosophy, I'd give it... well, not to be hyperbolic... I'd give it a solid B+ as an undergraduate paper. But what we have now starts to approach actual professional writing (despite the frequent disruptions), and actually looks like something one might hope to read in an encyclopedia! LotLE×talk 06:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm confident that someone that if two people didn't know anything about capitalism and each one read the old version and the other read the new version, the one who read the old version would have a solid understanding of the fundamentals of capitalism. The person who read the new version would not be able to give you a coherent summary of what capitalism is. The new version is all fluff and no real substance. If I were grading the papers I would give the older version a much higher grade because I would know the person who wrote it had a firm grasp of the concepts. We all know how to write "B.S. papers" to turn in in college and this is what this article looks like. It's value to the reader is marginal. C-Liberal 06:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree (ish) with Lulu that the newer version is much better, the old one rambles and repeats itself - although that does mean it occaisionally m,akes a point that's missing from the more conscise revision (i.e. its intro mentions waged labour as an essential characteristic of capitalism, something I'd like to see but can't think of a neat way of inserting). --Red Deathy 07:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with C-liberal. A reader of this version will have no understanding of what capitalistm is.Ultramarine 07:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, Considering I'd define capitalism as "The employment of waged labour in generalised commodity production" I think it's safe to say my def. doesn't get a look in, however, it would involve a god aweful fight to change it to that relatively heterodox def. What we have is reasonably robust atm, and, as a socialist, I'd be happy to send someone here to find out about capitalism.--Red Deathy 07:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As you just noted, there are many alternative definition of capitalism. Wikipedia should not without a qualifer state that one in particular is the true one. The sorry state of the current article is illustrated, for example, by not having any concrete explanation for how capitalism differs from feudalism, by not mentioning supply and demand, and by not mentioning market failures.Ultramarine 08:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a firm believer that to understand something you need to understand what it is not. To study its opposites. Capitalism should be compared and contrasted to other systems. What makes capitalism not socialism? What makes capitalism not feudalism? What makes capitalism not a centrally planned economy? And so on. C-Liberal 19:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Would a merge and reorganization of the 2 versions of the article be possible? Look through this version carefully; the first paragraph gives a rough definition of capitalism, and then it starts right on in on the history of capitalism. It then stays on the history of capitalism for well over half the article, and then the final couple of (small) sections relate to Democracy (which is very different than capitalism), and then, of course, a criticism of capitalism section. I would hope some of you could understand what some of us might see lacking in this version of the article, and would further hope that a bit more inclusion of what capitalism is, and perhaps a section listing some of the support of capitalism to mirror the criticism section would be in order. --Todd 09:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good ideas. Alternatively, I have thought about creating a new subarticle called "Characteristics of capitalism" which would include much of the former material. There could be brief section in this article and a link to this article.Ultramarine 19:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

GDP/Capita chart

{{linkimage|World GDP Capita 1-2003 A.D.png|right thumb 200px The economic growth under capitalism was central to, for example, Adam Smith's discussion and defense of capitalism in his book Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. World GDP/capita changed very little for most of human history before the industrial revolution and the introudction of capitalism. (Note the empty areas mean no data, not very low levels. There are data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003.)}} Why is this graph removed? It is well-sourced and this reserch has been cited numerous times by other researchers. You cannot just delete views because you do not like them, please read Wikipedia:NPOV. Add criticism from the literatue if you are critical.Ultramarine 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is poor scholarship and irrelevant to the article. first, GDP didn´t exist as a concept prior to a certain point in time and to apply it backwards in time is anachronistic. Second, Adam Smith did not use the word capitalism and there is much debate over what capitalism and what it isn´t. One can argue that technological innovations rather than a particular economic regime caused the àpparent increase in wealth. Or that it is a function of population increase due to the development of the germ theory of disease (which is independent of capitalism). In short, this chart is nothing but a rorshach test. You see in it what you want to see in it. I OPPOSE banishing it from Wikipedia. I INSIST we keep it - but in a different article. Given its title, it belongs in the article on GDP, along with a thorough discussion of the methodological and theoretical issues invlved in the construction of this chart and its use. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think your personal opinions are very interesting. Do you have source for "poor scholarship"? As noted above, the reserach has been cited by thousands of other reserachers.[5] Adam Smith did not use the word "capitalism" but the same can be said of Marx and Marxism. There seems to be a double standard here, Marxists are allowed to state numerous things about exploitation and so on with no empirical evidence. At the same time, pro-capitalists are not allowed to present their arguments. Using your argument, we should delete all the Marxism as it is not clearly proved that it it correct. At most, we could include it in "Marxism" along with a thorough discussion of the methodological and theoretical issues and the lack of empirical evidence.Ultramarine 22:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Given how much you have written, obviously you do think my opinion is interesting - thank you. As for bias, this is just your own delusion, due to your neurotic splitting of the workd into pro and anti capitalists. Did you see me delete the link to Smith, or the section on classical political economy, or the section on the Austrian school? If I had the bias you insist, I would have cut those too. I didn´t because they are scholarly and relevant. Why do you oppose presenting this chart in an article on GDP? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. Do you have source for "poor scholarship"? Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I will not report you this time. I will the next time. In addition, it just looks bad, like you have no factual arguments. I do not oppose putting this graph into the article about GDP also. Again, please anser my question: There seems to be a double standard here, Marxists are allowed to state numerous things about exploitation and so on with no empirical evidence. At the same time, pro-capitalists are not allowed to present their arguments. Using your argument, we should delete all the Marxism as it is not clearly proved that it it correct. At most, we could include it in "Marxism" along with a thorough discussion of the methodological and theoretical issues and the lack of empirical evidence.

Go ahead and report me. I dare you. As for your argument, you do not understand our NPOV policy. Wikipedia does not "allow" "marxists" to state things about exploitation. Wikipedia articles provide multiple points of view, and one of the views is that of Marxists. The article presents the views of Marxists. It is not up to any of us to judge whether Marxists are right or wrong. NPOV is not about truth. Similarly, we provide other points of view. Indeed, most of the views expressed in the article are non-Marxist. There is no double-standard, only your neurotic splitting. I did not remove a "non-Marxist" anything. I removed a graph illustrating GDP because it belongs in the article on GDP. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Even Marx argues for the importance of economic development and it is a central theme in Adam Smith's work. Have a look at Google scholar: There are 60,000 works mentioning "economic development" and "capitalism": [6]Ultramarine 22:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Marx (and many Marxists) equate capitalism with economic growth. I do not object to the article stating as much. But to comply with NPOV, we would not be saying that it is true that capitalism causes economic growth, only that Marx believed this to be so. This is the essence of our NPOV policy. The chart itself is very simplistic, conflating many things (even the concept of GDP does) and I do not think it is the most useful way to document economic growth and capitalism, since this chart says "western" rather than "capitalist" countries - their are arguably no purely capitalist countries, but even taking England in 1850 as a benchmark, the chart lumps together a wide array of societies including welfare states and socialist states as "Western" so it is unhelpful. Also, GDP measures economic growth in a particular, narrow way. I repeat: put the chart and a discussion of its virtues and flaws on the GDP page, not here. PS have you reported me yet? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Regarding the objection that the data is flawed, you are still just giving your personal opinions and not citing any sources. The objection that these countries are not capitalist is disputed by most. More generally, both Marx and Smith argues for a revolution in the economic system. This graph illustrates this revolution, corresponding to the industrial revolution.Ultramarine 23:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for intruding, but the graph cannot possibly prove that capitalism alone is the cause of all economic growth because it clearly shows that economic growth occurred in Communist states as well. At most, it may prove that capitalism produces more economic growth than other systems that have existed in the past. Non-capitalist industrial economies still had far more growth than non-industrial economies. And the graph does not prove anything about economic systems that have yet to be implemented, of course. -- Nikodemos 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No one has made any comparison to Communist states here or stated that the capitalist system will always be the the best. Again, both Marx and Smith observed and discussed a revolution in the economic system. This graph illustrates this revolution, corresponding to the industrial revolution.Ultramarine 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I have said elsewhere: I hate whenever someone tries to justify Capitalism on the basis that it promotes more economic growth than any other system. It is an irrelevant point. The point that needs to be answered is: which system gives each individual more freedom. If someone could conclusively prove to me that you could double the economic growth by chaining each human being to a machine, I would still root for capitalism. -- Dullfig 00:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, many people considers living standards important. If you are were poor, you are not free to do much. How about this new version?

{{linkimage|World GDP Capita 1-2003 A.D.png|left thumb 200px Both Smith and Marx observed and discussed a revolution in economic system and the importance of economic development. This graph illustrated this revolution. World GDP/capita changed very little for most of human history before the industrial revolution and the introudction of capitalism. (Note the empty areas mean no data, not very low levels. There are data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003.)}}

Excuse me, but freedom does not mean freedom to buy stuff. In any true capitalist society, wher there is no "in-crowd", "elite", or favoritism (don't forget that elites are preserved through force by the government), there would be no truly poor people, just people with less money, as you would always have a right to sell your work to others. Dullfig 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stunning irrelevance

Ultramarine keeps insisting on the weirdly delusional point that we must somehow "refute" the completely irrelevant chart if it is not to be added. In fact, I'd oppose including a so-called refutation even more than I oppose the chart itself. Piling more original research on Ultramarine's original research hardly solves any problem.

The problem, quite simply, is that this is an article about "Capitalism", not one about GDP growth. Now certainly, as Slrubenstein and I have both detailed at rather more length than should be needed, the chart is rather dramatically methodologically flawed across numerous dimensions. But that's hardly the main thing: Slrubenstein's comparison to a Rorschach Test is more to the point. Ultramarine apparently reads the chart, and feels warm-and-cuddly about it reassuring her that "Capitalism is good". I read it, and naturally the thing that pops into my mind is the simply awful methodological conflation of many measurement techniques. But actually, in some very, very fuzzy sense, I quite agree that monied exchange has increased quite dramatically over the last five centuries, probably very roughly in the parabolic shape the graph suggests. What should we make of that? I dunno, a lot of things are possible, only a small percentage of which have anything even remotely to do with capitalism as such.

Just by way of digression, I read Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee recently (I haven't got to Guns, Germs and Steel, though I understand it advances this point further). He asks why technologies developed to different degrees where they did... all basically in the way, way pre-Capitalist timeframe (say 4000+ years ago). Two answers he gives are the availability of domesticatable animals in different places, and the north-south versus east-west orientation of continents. That is, the Americas are north-south oriented as a whole, as is Africa to a lesser extent. Eurasia is east-west. The thing is, common crops and domestic animals can easily move along the same latitude line, but very poorly along longitude lines, for purely climatic reasons. The difference had nothing to do with the differing economic forms, and still less with the racialist nonsense about differing innate intelligence of peoples: The Americas just had the misfortune of being arranged from north to south, limiting "GDP growth". Well, continuing that thought, there's a lot of plausibility to see the GDP chart (bracketing its many flaws in data and methodology) as simply being a chart of improving transportation technologies. LotLE×talk 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, no one has given any evidence for flawed data. It has thousands of citations in the literature. Regarding Diamond, this is an excellent example of why the graph should be in. Then we can have a discussion of why capitalism has such high growth rates.I have read Guns, Germs and Steel. Diamond's explanation for why Europe and not China achieved such high growth rates is very interesting. China have very little geographical barriers which made it easy to create an empire. However, this eliminated the need for the state to be efficient since there was no competition. The government sooned degenerated until finally the state disintegrated. Now in Europe there were many geographical barriers which made military conquest difficult and created many states. These had to continually compete and gradually become more efficent.Ultramarine 19:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no! We CANNOT have a discussion of "why capitalism has such high growth rates". How many g*d d*n times does it take repeating before you understand that WP is not for original research?! Neither this article, nor any other WP article, is the place for Ultramarine and Lulu (or Red Deathy, or VisionThing, or 172, or whomever) to publish a thesis about our own personal hypothesis on some subject (my passing mention of Diamond was just for the negative point that the chart could have interpretations unrelated to capitalism). And this includes, btw, Ultramarine's partial, subjective, and methodologically suspect personal extraction of favored aspects of an already limited and flawed information source. Even if I felt citing Angus Maddison was germane, I most certainly wouldn't think citing "Ultramarine's selective research, indirectly based on Maddison" was germane. That latter has zero citations by third party sources (as likewise would "Lulu's novel thesis loosely based on Diamond", where Diamond has presumably been well-cited; but I wouldn't dream of putting my own speculation in an article). LotLE×talk 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In concilliation, I believe that a concise sentence similar to "Between 1500 and 2000 monied exchange increased dramatically" would be an acceptable statment of expert consensus. That sentence more than adequately summarizes anything of remote relevance in the chart. LotLE×talk 20:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you have shown no evidence that Maddison's data, cited by thousands of other studies, is flawed. Both Marx and Smith studied and emphasied the importance of economic development. Many, such as Diamond, how wondered why Europe gained so high economic growth and discussed this.Ultramarine 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, as I recently said elsewhere, just because something is sourced, goes from a verifiable or even notable academic source doesn't mean it is useful or relevent or belongs in the article. I'd be willing (ish) to see the chart truncated to its >1825 section, maybe, but that would be a different argument. As it stands I don't feel it adds much to the article.--Red Deathy 07:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, one of the main charateristics of capitalism is high economic growth, so it is relevant. Both Marx and Smith studied and emphasied economic development.Ultramarine 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And other "characteristics" that would have almost exactly the same-shaped chart are: CO2 emmision levels per capital per year; species extinction rates over time; tonnage shipped internationally by year; health care spending per person-year; etc. If some source could be cited (which it easily could for each of these), how would Ultramarine feel about substituting one of these new labls on the chart? Except that all these others actually make sense, since they don't rely, by definition, on the existence of nation-states and central banks, which were absent for most years and places supposedly charted. LotLE×talk 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Marx and Smith did not discuss those things. Note also that several of these things are mentined as criticisms, like environmental problems. I see no no problem with adding a graph showing growing environmental problems.Ultramarine 20:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Marx and Smith never discussed GDP either, and there is no reason to believe GDP is the appropriate measure of the economic growth they did discuss. World trade might be a better measure. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article on Ancient Rome and how economic growth declined due to lacking capitalism: [7]Ultramarine 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is another graph that we could also add: Image:Global Carbon Emission by Type.png (Roughly exponential increase in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, driven by increasing energy demands since the Industrial Revolution]]) Ultramarine 20:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While it is just as irrelevant to the article as the GDP one, that really is a striking and well done chart on CO2 emissions. There are a number of articles that would certainly benefit from use of it (not this article, but maybe ones on global warming, industrialization, etc). LotLE×talk 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That or similar charts are already in those articles. Please respond to the above arguments. Why should we disucss "exploitation" but not ecomic development? Ultramarine 06:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine no-one is saying we shouldn't include stuff about economic growth, but not this one that is badly flawed by having about 80% of its period covered blank. I mean, we know there was real economic and population growth up to the coming of the black death in Europe, is that shown? Does the chart show the shrinking production in teh Americas after the arrival of the Europeans wiped out possibly a fifth of the human race through transmitting Smallpox (etc.)? What about the trashing of the Indian economy by the British in the early 18th century? For all we know with that chart there may have been a really big spike in growth in 1150 but which isn't listed. Like I say, trim it to a sensible time frame and we can look at it again. To repeat, this isn't a criticism of the data, or the topic, but the usefullness of this graph as presented.--Red Deathy 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That is what has been stated above. This graph does not deny growth in GDP or population, it is a graph of GDP/capita and alos this shows a slow growth. Note that if a fifth of the population disappears but the remaining individuals each produce the same amount as before, then GDP/capita is unchanged. Regarding the general graph, what is interesting is the general trend. Minor fluctuations will not change this. However, it is very good that you agree that economic growth should be discussed in the article.Ultramarine 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was it is blank and so the trend it shows could be utterly illusory, between 1320 and 1410 could have been the fastest period of growth in the history of the Earth, for all we know (according to that graph). Find a better one - try a chart showing growth in comprable countries - Brazil and Russia 1900 onwards?--Red Deathy 15:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The same argument could be applied to all charts, which all use discrete data. Something dramatic may happen between the data points and not be shown in a graph. Thus, this could be used to argue that all graphs should be removed from Wikipedia. Again, what is interesting is the general trend.Ultramarine 16:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The same could, and we'd look at them, however thjis one has a spread of a thousand years or so wherein most of the data is missing. By any standard it is information poor. Look, you're better off showing real unit growths, I've seen Ricky Hobsbawm produce charts on coal output, steel output, etc. which do show real unit increase since 1790-odd. I've seen charts that show increases in world trade of remarkable proportions since 1970 - if you want a chart that illustrates economic growth, there are plenty out there - but not this one. Please, just so we can undo the lock, prsesent a more useful graph.--Red Deathy 08:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Population_curve.svg (Population (est.) 10,000 BC – 2000 AD.)

This chart on world population also has has such "blank" ares.Ultramarine 16:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the dataset attached to the graph there is a value for every year over the period, it's small but not blank - your chart just didn't have even estimates for most of the period covered. All I'm asking you to do, so we can get the page unprotected is find a diffferent way of presenting the data or finding a different graph that illusstrates your point, this one simply isn't good enough.--Red Deathy 07:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the data you will see gaps of a 1000 years, the same as in the GDP/capita graphs.Ultramarine 07:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I will also note the similar trend in in this link: [8]Ultramarine 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the gdp per capita in the world, after the extermination of a large percentage of the population of the americas, increased. This ocurred because the per capita income of the pre columbiam america was significantly smaller than the global average. I think that this gdp chart is wrong on some aspects, for example, the per capita income of the USA in 1900 a.C is represented as if it was smaller than the per capita income of modern asia (with is simply untrue since the average american 100 years ago had a much better standard of living than the modern average asian). Also, in the year 1 a.C the per capita income of the roman empire is greatly subestimated (the only serius estimates that I have seen put its per capita income in the same level as 18th century europe). And the global gdp per capita increase in the 20th century is overestimated while the gdp per capita increased more in the 19th century than this chart appears to show.--RafaelG 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, some interesting arguments. Do you have a data source alternative to Maddison's? Then I can create an alternative chart and we can show both.Ultramarine 17:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not have enough data to make a global chart. But I have data from this article "Cobb-Douglas in pre-modern Europe Simulating early modern growth", second to the article, economic grow ocurred before the industrial revolution but was much slower compared to modern economic progress (for example, england's per capita income increased from 550 dollars (1990 PPP dollars) in 1086 a.C to 910 dollars in 1500 a.C and them jumped to 2120 dollars by the year of 1820 a.C).--RafaelG 17:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Maddison also states a 4x increase in "United Kingdom" from 1 AD to 1820 AD.Ultramarine 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Posting a graph, with no evaluative comment by the *editor* is not Original Research. It is source-based research. Wjhonson 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but generating an original graph according to slightly unclear methods, and using a selective sample from a source of raw data is original research. LotLE×talk 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing unclear. The source is clearly stated as are the years. The chart covers the whole period for which there are data. Thre is no space to include every single year after 1820 if wanting a chart for the whole period.Ultramarine 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine (or whomever generated the graph) could you please state the exact bibliographic citation for the data in the graph and then also provide, here, an exact quote from the source without modifying that quote in any way? Thanks. Wjhonson 01:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the Excel file: [9] The name of the source can be found by clicking on the chart. Maddison's works on historical economic growth rates has been cited by hundreds or thousands of other studies: [10]Ultramarine 01:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I accept your contention that the raw data is not yours, but rather belongs to Angus. Is there some way you could post the raw data in text-only form, not as an Excel file ? Many editors do not have access to Excel, and we shouldn't limit verification to those who do. And by post, I don't mean to Wikipedia, but rather to an external web page, perhaps in a table, and then provide a link to that page? Wjhonson 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Excel file can also be opened with the free Open Office and probably also Microsoft's free Excel viewer [11].Ultramarine 15:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that that would fail verifiability. I believe part of your claim (far above) was that this data has been cited in hundreds of sources. If so, I would imagine there must be at least one text-only source that could be cited. Otherwise, I'm going to have to side with those who think this graph should not be in wikipedia unfortunately. The problem is that in order to verify it, someone has to have specialized knowledge on how to open the format. I don't think it's that common for the average person to understand how to open Excel files, regardless of what scholastics might think.Wjhonson 15:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can download the free Excel viewer or Open offce and install it. Then you only have to click on the Excel file to view it. No technical knowledge required.Ultramarine 15:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wanna point me to the FreeBSD version of that Excel Viewer so that "anyone" can view the alleged data? LotLE×talk 16:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Link given above.Ultramarine 16:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not: You've given a link to a Win32b-only viewer. Not only is it irrelevant to FreeBSD users, but also to OSX users, Win95 users, MacOS users, Linux users, Amiga users, z/OS users, VMS users, OS/2 users, etc. "Everyone" is not identical with "people who use "Win2000+" LotLE×talk 17:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please state what policy you are refering to that excludes certain file types? Ultramarine 17:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy that exclude certain "file types" the policy states that the data must be verifiable. The verifiability policy includes the concept of accessibility. My claim is that this data is not "accessible" is a standard way. You need a special reader, and then you need special abilities to interpret and join the data together in a non-trivial manner. This is hardly the same thing as "the ability to read", which 90% of us (at least) have. Wjhonson 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Data formats and synthesis

Of even more serious issue that the proprietary format of the data Ultramarine relies on, is the substantial original research that went into compiling the chart out of the data actually given (I actually have opened it in OpenOffice; it wholly lacks any chart like the one Ultramarine personally created.

I don't really disbelieve that Ultramarine used parts of Maddison's data. But it is disingenuous in the extreme to keep claiming that Maddison is cited "a million times" (or whatever the exact claim), and therefore anything loosely based on Maddison's work can't be original research. I think I can mostly guess at which rows of data Ultramarine decided to choose for her original chart, after I go to the work of examining the raw data... even though the methodology she chose is undocumented. It's not even that her choice of data slicing would be inherently unreasonable for an original paper in economics or sociology, but it still requires lots of synthetic work to arrive at. Moreover, there are many, many unspecified assumptions in the chart, and even in the source data file. For example: (1) What the heck is "Geary-Khamis dollar?"; Maddison may well explain that in his whole books, but it is hardly self-evident to readers of the chart. (2) What can it mean to be "former USSR" in 100 CE? Even apart from the incoherence of describing a political unit next to geographic units, does this describe "whoever lived on such-and-such land" or "the people (Mongols) who came to live there? (3)Why is New Zealand a "Western offshoot", but Hong Kong, Barbados, and South Africa are not? How might readers of the chart know that? (4) Even looking at, e.g. "Western Europe" raw data, it is not apparent whether the chart uses the larger or smaller definition in the data (I have no idea why Ireland and Greece are more "peripheral" than Norway, but that's how the data are arranged).

In any case, even if Maddison had himself extracted that exact chart, and even if other scholars had actually cited that particular chart, it would still fail on the basic issue of relevance to this article. If it were not original research, it might conceivably be usable in some other article; but it would remain completely non-germane to this article. LotLE×talk 17:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I if copied a chart if would be copyright infringement. I created one using the data which is similar to paraphrasing which is allowed by copyright law. Nor is paraphrasing considered original reserach. If claiming that, then there would very little that is not original resarch in Wikipedia. Maddison's work on historical growth rates has been cited by hundreds or thousands of other works.[12] If you dislike it, then you should cite the literature. Again regarding relevance, both Marx and Smith observed and discussed the revolution in the economic system and both empazied the importance of looking at economic development.Ultramarine 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied on the verifiability. Even after a user-talk-page conversation as well. Wjhonson 16:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please cite the policy text that you are refering to? I see nothing in Wikipedia:Verifiability that excludes certain file types.Ultramarine 16:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing that this chart on declining glacial thickness should be deleted? It was created using an Excel file.Ultramarine 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not edit my talk page comments.Ultramarine 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

{{linkimage|Glacier_Mass_Balance.png|280px left thumb Global glacial mass balance in the last fifty years, reported to the WGMS and the NSIDC. The increased downward trend in the late 1980s is symptomatic of the increased rate and number of retreating glaciers.}}

Yes I am arguing that any chart created in a similar manner is in fact, as stated above, by other editors, WP:OR. The creation of this chart was not a quote, nor a simple inference, but rather a complex process of selection, manipulating, and reformulation of some data into a vastly different form. That is not a trivial process. I myself could not do what you did, and I believe the average reader or even editor could not either. Therefore I do think what you did falls under WP:OR. In addition, some types of self-published material are allowed, but at the very least, you are required to provide a way in simple terms to access the underlying data. That you have not done, but keep insisting that people download a piece of software, that few already have, to do it. I don't find that viewpoint meets the requirement of accessibility which is part of verifiability. Also since you yourself are not necessarily a widely-known, published expert in this field, I would question whether your work meets reliable sources. So finally after viewing and reviewing the situation, I come to the same conclusion as others, albeit perhaps from a different angle, that this chart should not be part of wikipedia at all, unless you can satisfy the policies and guidelines stated. Wjhonson 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are arguing that many charts and maps in Wikipedia should be deleted. Could you please state the exact text which states that certain file types are not alllowed or that an "average" wikipedia reader or editor must be able to create the same chart? This would also to exclude most user created drawings and illustrations in Wikipedia, since the "average" reader or editor cannot draw such images, only artists with training, nor do they have the expensive programs required. Ultramarine 00:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that you seek consensus before arguing for this massive deletion of Wikipedia charts, drawings, images, and charts.Ultramarine 00:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sophistry to the side, I happen to know a little bit about the glacier-related charts, since I happened to be the creator of Glacier mass balance and major contributor to Retreat of glaciers since 1850. These make an informative contrast. Some of them were indeed created from source data by Wikipedia contributors. But there are three important differences from Ultramarine's chart: (1) The glacier charts describe the precise steps and assumptions that were used in their creation. The description at Image:Glacier Mass Balance.png is positively a marvel of explicitly detailed methodology. (2) The synthetic steps involved in creation of these charts was extremely minimal: generally they take an exact slice of data already presented by original sources as significant, and chart that and only that. In contrast, Ultramarine selectively picks rows, fields, and aggregation techniques. (3) Many of the glacier-related charts in fact were produced by recognized experts in glaciology and climatology, whom we are honored to have as WP contributors. Clearly, even a world-leading expert cannot first publish data here, but a certain deference can be given to the synthetic efforts of, e.g. Mauri Pelto producing a chart that is drawn from his own article which is prominently cited in the scientific article already.

But again, as always. I wouldn't want the glacier charts put in some article to which they were utterly irrelevant, no matter how solid the bona fides of the chart itself. Even if the UN, the Heritage Foundation, and the World Bank all jointly published Ultramarines chart, it still wouldn't be relevant to this article. LotLE×talk 00:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is anything unclear, I can add to the description. What do you argue is unclear? Note that this data comes from Maddison's published works which in turn has been cited by many others. I do not understand how you can aruge that economic growth is unrelated to capitalism.Ultramarine 00:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As a first start, give a way to access the data in text only format. Secondly stop repeating that Maddison is cited by a billion authors, and just give us one single citation to prove that contention. Third, explain in detail, not on this talk page, but somewhere where the reader is likely to view it, the *method* you used to select the data *out* of Maddison's raw data. Your graph does not present all his data, you selected some — how ? Explain it. But again not here. You need your own web page, most likely to explain the methodology. Finally, yes, many of the images on wikipedia, do not meet the no original research policy. That may be surprising but it's true. Most are not challenged simply because, most things on wikipedia are not challenged. That does not mean, that if challenged, they would survive. It simply means, most people don't challenge them because they feel they are useful. Wjhonson 00:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I again ask you to state the exact Wikipedia policy text requiring "give a way to access the data in text only format." Regarding citations: [13] Regarding your general proposal to delete most Wikipedia illustrations and drawings since the "average" editor can create them, I suggest that you seek consensus first.Ultramarine 00:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have clarified the exact lines and added that to the image "Data Source: Angus Maddison's "World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2003 AD" at The Groningen Growth and Development Centre. http://www.ggdc.net/ The chart includes data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003 A.D. Western Europe is line 23, "Total 29 Western Europe". Western offshots is line 29 "Total Western offshots". Eastern Europe is line 38, "Total 7 East European Countries". Former USSR is line 65, "Total Former USSR". Latin America is line 94, "Total Latin America". Asia is line 139, "Total Asia". Afrcia is line 195, "Total Africa". World is line 199, "World Average"."Ultramarine 00:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The policy is verifiability, which your data fails. The average person cannot reasonably verify the data. Therefore you need a source to state it the way you have presented it. That is the essence of verifiability. And contrary to what you keep repeating as a way of diversion, I have never stated a "general proposal to delete most Wikipedia illustations...". I have stated the truth that most of them would probably fail WP:NOR if challenged. Most of them are not challenged. That is what I said. Wjhonson 00:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I again ask you to state the exact Wikipedia policy excluding certain data formats since the "average" reader must download a free program to examine them. Or the policy stating that all images that the "average" reader cannot himself create is original research.Ultramarine 01:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added further instructions to the image so that also the "average" reader can understand how to read the file: "Data Source: Angus Maddison's "World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2003 AD" (This Microsoft Excel file can also be read by using the free Open office) at The Groningen Growth and Development Centre. http://www.ggdc.net/ The chart includes data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003 A.D. Western Europe is line 23, "Total 29 Western Europe". Western offshots is line 29 "Total Western offshots". Eastern Europe is line 38, "Total 7 East European Countries". Former USSR is line 65, "Total Former USSR". Latin America is line 94, "Total Latin America". Asia is line 139, "Total Asia". Afrcia is line 195, "Total Africa". World is line 199, "World Average"."

Protected

The page is now protected...I did this to keep the low level edit war in check and to keep you people under 3RR...so play nice.--MONGO 22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for reorganization of the article

Here is a thought about how to reorganize the article, and hopefully satisfy everybody

• Lead Section (What is Capitalism now?)

Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately held

Capitalism is also a historically specific set of institutions

• Other definition of Capitalism

Capitalism was originally defined by Karl Marx as Something or Other, and has evolved into its current definition over time. Although the former definition is not heavily used currently, it still appears in various Communist and Socialist writings. (Instead of linking directly to the capitalism article, the State Capitalism article would link to this section with something that looks like [[Capitalism#Other_Definitions_of_Capitalism|Capitalism]])

• Characteristics of Capitalism

Most of this would be taken from the previous article, which actually did a pretty good job of showing people what went into a capitalist economy

• Theory of Capitalism (with a subsection on contrasts with Capitalism)

Talk about how most economies fall on a spectrum from Capitalism to Communism with no economies actually falling at the extremes of either spectrum, and how some speculate how no economy could. As a side note, I'm pretty sure most of the pro-capitalist editors here would agree with the spectrum philosophy, and generally associate laissez faire markets with true capitalism, but the spectrum philosophy is in no way only believed by "Libertarian wackos"; I remember hearing that the US is not completely capitalist from my 10th grade social science teacher, who I don't believe was particularly libertarian. Also, the various associations that most of us pro-capitalist editors have is probably the root cause of some of the misunderstandings for content that goes into the article, not bad faith.

• Perspectives on Capitalism

The current article does a decent job at describing some of the major views on capitalism throughout the ages.

• History of Capitalism

The current article does a great job at describing the history of capitalism throughout the ages

• Support of Capitalism

Similar to the current Criticisms of Capitalism section, only from various authors as to why Capitalism might be a good system, and perhaps some rebuttals

• Criticisms of Capitalism

I think the current section could be expanded a bit, and of course, rebuttals

What would everyone think of this organization? Are there any other sections that would need to be included --Todd 20:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds very good.Ultramarine 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. This article could be expanded somewhat, but there is no need for another rewrite, especally one using the old text. This article is not perfect, but it is quite good and can develop by small changes and adding a few new sections. 72.139.119.165 00:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a rewrite, I'm talking about keeping the current article, especially the sections that it shines in, and adding in some of the better sections from the previous article in order to shore up some of the areas that the current article is lacking. More of a merge than a rewrite. --Todd(Talk-Contribs) 08:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a different Marxist definition of capitalism is necessary - I would prefer a def. that layid more emphasis on capital itself, rather than on legal categories of ownership. technically, most shares in the UK, for instance, are owned by pension and insurance companies - not so much private as corporately owned (and really corporations are property held in common as well), but I had this argument before and lost it. I'd be against a spectrum (as a defender of the state capitalism thesis I would be) and think discussing hegemonic economic formations would be too complex for this article. Again, I'd welcome a section of advocates of capitalism, but keep them prominent and avoid rebuttals and sounding like a debate--Red Deathy 11:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Red Deathy and others that a "Proponents/advocates/something of capitalism" section would be helpful, if kept brief, NPOV, and cited. FWIW, I personally agree with something closer to Red Deathy's emphasis on "capital itself"—but that's not really what most analysts have focused on: many Marxists, but not Smith or Locke (hmm, where's Locke in the article?); not Weber; not really the Austrians; possibly Sraffa, though he's "possibly Marxist" anyway. We do have a few words on the Resnick/Wolff style "tendencies" stuff... I think that could be fleshed out with another sentence or three on the Engels/Gramsci style "dominent economic formation", and through that an emphasis (withing a particular line of thought) on "capital itself" (except, of course, for Gramsci, it's not capital itself but "capital mixed with ideology").

Still, in a broad sense I am emphatically opposed to a general rewrite/merge that sounds like an excuse to gut the encyclopedic content we've obtained, and reinsert the editorializing and rambling. LotLE×talk 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ISTR Smith does spend a couple of pages early in WoN dealing with capital (though I don't think he calls it that, might be hoard) but maybe I'm reading in a dodgy sideways way....certainly he deals a lot with division of labour--Red Deathy 15:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very much opposed to this reorganization. As it stands, the article is basically divided into two parts. The first part provides six different perxpectives on capitalism; all six togetehr provide a fairly comprehensive multiple-POV account that complies with NPOV. The second half is an NPOV historical account of how capitalism has developed. I think this works fine.

I have no idea why Todd wants to single out Marx´s view of capitalism. marxism is just one of six major approaches to capitalism. Let´s keep them all together. It seems like Todd also wants an authoritative definition of capitalism and then "other views" which strikes me as inherently an NPOV violation. The article provides six major views still current and does not privilege any one of them. That is as it should be. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Slrubenstein. The several views presented as neutral theoretical descriptions works very well. And the fact the analyses themselves are presented in general chronological order is nice in not implying that one is "the most good" analysis or the like. The six-ness of the subsections seems inessential to me. It shouldn't be three, and it shouldn't be twenty, but not every thinker mentioned fits cleanly into exactly one bucket (e.g. Schumpeter, Sraffa, Friedman). But a half-dozen-ish buckets feels right in a general way. LotLE×talk 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As have been pointed out, the current article is very poor. It does not discuss the characteristics of capitalism and does not, for example, mention such things as supply and demand, market failure, private enterprise, what economies are capitalist, economic growth, and the many alternative definitions of capitalism. These things were discussed in the long standing and stable earlier version, destroyed completely in a single edit without any discussion on the talk page.Ultramarine 15:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the things you mention have to do with markets. Capitalism is only one kind of market economy. Yes, the market is central in capitalism, but "markets" is actually a larger and more inclusive topic. I think some of the topics you raise, as they pertain to any market economy and not just a capitalist one, belong in the Market article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if true, then this article should clarify this and what kind of market capitalism is. The other omissions, and many others better dicussed in the earlier stable version, are still unexplained.Ultramarine 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this can be done by augmenting existing sections. For example, first, theoretically different schools take different stands on the place of the market (e.g. Marx was critical of the labor market; Smith in favor of free international trade; Hayek in favor of a free labor market) so maybe more can be added to each of these six schools on how they viewed the market. Second, to what extent any market should be regulated was a persistent debate in various countries throughout the history of capitalism. I suggest that in each section of the history part, there be a review of debates among politicians within particular states (England and the US are two obvious ones, maybe we should pick two others for comparison) i.e. in the mercantilism section discuss debates in the British parliament over free trade; 3.2. and 3.3 also contain within them debates about tariff versus free trade, and the extent to whcih (in the US) Congress can regulate domestic commerce, and so on. In short, I do not oppose adding more material (properly sourced); my point is simply that the existing organization provides a good framework for adding more material. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to fit the material about supply and demand, market failure, private enterprise, what economies are capitalist, economic growth, the many alternative definitions of capitalism, and other omissions and deletions into the current format. A general problem is that some argue for an article that should mostly have and be organised to present old theoretical and person based theories, mostly listing various opinions by people long dead, while others argue that article should also include and be organised according to different topics such as, for example, economic growth, free market, what economies are capitalist, and private enterprise. The article should also include recent and empirical arguments.Ultramarine 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, as always, Ultramarine's suggestion seems to be about how one might write an article called "Why capitalism is good". That's a very different topic than the one this article addresses, namely "Capitalism". The ultra-presentist spin would be analogous to writing an article on steam engines, and insisting that the bulk of the article concern current research into them. Except that capitalism has a longer history than steam engines do, so the bias would be worse for this article. Maybe a better analogue, in terms of time frame would be printing press: should we insist that all those "antiquated technologies" by elided, so that the article can focus on what really matters: current on-demand laser printing?! A roughly chronological account of a social formation with a relatively long history is sort of a no-brainer.

Obviously, the topics Ultramarine claims would be difficult to fit are already in the article. Market failure is a pretty central issue among Keynes and the Austrians. Supply-and-demand could perhaps get another sentence or two somewhere, perhaps in the neo-classical section. LotLE×talk

That is not true. The article should obviously discuss arguments for and against. I do however agree that current article is not NPOV, it discusses claimed disadvantages like "exploitation", but not claimed advantges like economic growth. Lulu's statement "Obviously, the topics Ultramarine claims would be difficult to fit are already in the article." is simply false. There is not a single mention of, for example, market failure or supply and demand. Let us compare this article to the evolution article. It has only a very brief section about development of the theory. Most describes the current status of research organised according to different topics. If we should edit the evolution article to follow this article, then almost all of the article should be about the development of the theory, with very little discussion of what evolution is and the current status. Almost all the topic related sections, like that about mutation, should be removed and a little of that content should be placed in the history section which should instead be greatly expanded to in great detail discuss what for example Gregor Mendel though about evolution.Ultramarine 17:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)