Talk:Capitalism

Disputed paragraph

The paragraph below has now twice been removed as "biased", even though it is referenced to a major academic source.

"Capitalism is the most successful wealth-creating economic system that the world has ever known; no other system, according to economist Joseph Schumpeter, has benefited "the common people" as much. Capitalism, he observed, creates wealth through advancing continuously to ever higher levels of productivity and technological sophistication; this process, known as creative destruction, requires that the "old" be destroyed before the "new" can take over."

reference for the paragraph above: Gilpin, Robert (2000). The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century. Princeton University: Princeton University Press. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-691-09279-9.

This article has an entire section on criticism of capitalism, so the critics of capitalism (and sometimes I am one) have their say. But whatever the faults of capitalism, the creation of great wealth is one of its features. I think virtually all economists would agree on the factual accuracy of the paragraph. I will add more references if that is necessary. But I would hope the person or persons who object to the paragraph would explain their objection so we can discuss it here and avoid an edit war.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

While it is true that capitalism is the most successful wealth-creating economic system that the world has ever known, the phrasing is biased. It is phrased more like a defense than a description. Also, it is biased to provide just one opinion (the Austrian economist.) It is a utililitarian argument that while highland clearances, colonialism and total war have made millions worse off, on balance common people are better off. TFD (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"that the world has ever known" is peacock language. Perhaps the ancient Egyptian economic system was better - who knows?! It is completely unprovable. We should write the clause in attributed form - I am sure we can find an economist who has made this hyberbolic statement. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It is attributed (to Joseph Schumpeter). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Only the second half of the sentence, after the semi colon. If Schumpeter stated the first half as well, we need to fix the sentence structure. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

While the information is not in itself problematic, its inclusion in the lead and its current phrasing is quite biased. It is phrased in such a way to suggest that there can be no other superior economic system in the future, as Schumpeter himself believed that capitalism would eventually be displaced by democratic market socialism. -Battlecry 02:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Overuse of Karl Marx

Marx seems very overrepresented in this article. It reads a bit like the communist party have stuck him in at every opportunity; I counted 65 uses of his name, discounting the sidebars and references. Seems rather over the top. What do other people think?GliderMaven (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I see the same representation in the academic literature that touches on the term. This degree of representation is also common in other areas where the author of the first widely distributed book included the term and discussed the phenomena extensively. I see nothing strange about this. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Karl Marx is arguably one of the most influential economists and critics of capitalism in history, so his representation is fair if not underrepresented, in my opinion. Considering how anyone who is serious about understanding capitalism needs to read Marx's works, it's hardly abnormal for him to be a common feature of an article about capitalism. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps most of Marx's critique of capitalism can be moved to it's own page. If you come to an encyclopedia article on a subject you don't expect to see, mainly, one person's critique of it. Jbmcb (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Corruption

According to User:Srich32977‎ the NPOV on Capitalism is that there is no corruption in capitalism, it isn't subject to it at all; it is no way a weakness of Capitalism. Rich individuals never pay off politicians to write laws to distort markets. We Wave Been Told. Corruption can only happen under communism or whatever(!?) Apparently he's going to edit war until that's widely accepted.GliderMaven (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You are referring to the reversal of your section on corruption.[1] The problems with that section include that it is unsourced and does not explain the connection between corruption and capitalism. Advanced capitalist countries actually have lower corruption levels. TFD (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, User:Srich32977‎ did not say that. Secondly do you have any reliable sources that say that corruption is more prevalent under capitalism than other economic systems? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I made no claim that is more common, only that it is a known weakness that rich individuals not infrequently pay/finance politicians for favourable laws. Are you claiming that corruption cannot happen under capitalism and that it shouldn't even be mentioned? There's articles like crony capitalism and robber barons about how that happens at least sometimes. You certainly get corruption under (for example) communism, but it's usually of a different form.GliderMaven (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that it cannot happen, but that doesn't mean that it should be included. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Crony capitalism shouldn't be mentioned in an article on capitalism?GliderMaven (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The material that you added made no mention of capitalism, it was a general look at political corruption, not specific to one economic system. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, then I will add crony capitalism.GliderMaven (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Crony capitalism is already mentioned in the article but if you want to expand it, you need to show its relevance. As I understand it, underdeveloped and Communist countries have a history of corruption that continues as they develop capitalism. So a neutral way to put it into the article is to explain the introduction of capitalism into these countries that do not have strong liberal traditions. TFD (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090211160820/http://www.cato.org/university/module10.html to http://www.cato.org/university/module10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)