Capitalism

Originally posted by normbenign
This assertion ignores the fact that a pure laissez faire capitalist system hasn't been tried.

Many 19th Century economies got pretty close. It failed horribly. No one remotely interested in political economy today advocates laissez faire capitalism.

Originally posted by sh76
At capitalist economic system is not inherently controlled by anybody. It is not a political system at all.

Would you not agree that there is a principle in operation; and it is something along the lines of "Ownership of the means of production is to be in private hands wherever economically justified, and is to be used to generate profits for the owners"? The owner could be an individual, a private corporation or a publicly traded (stock) corporation. So there is a controlling principle, no?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see the word as generally referring to a system in which a livelihood is obtained via labour, whereas socialist implies that livelihood is given to members of a society merely for being members and not in proportion to their labour. Here I am including things like education and healthcare as part of livelihood.

Of course most societies contain a mix ...[text shortened]... st system usually results in some people having inherited wealth, and not all 'labour' is equal.

No. Capitalism implies that the wealthy get income from those who use their private (not personal) property which can be anything from money to land to slaves.

Originally posted by JS357
Would you not agree that there is a principle in operation; and it is something along the lines of "Ownership of the means of production is to be in private hands wherever economically justified, and is to be used to generate profits for the owners"? The owner could be an individual, a private corporation or a publicly traded (stock) corporation. So there is a controlling principle, no?

Still not political. When government takes partial control it becomes fascist.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No. Capitalism implies that the wealthy get income from those who use their private (not personal) property which can be anything from money to land to slaves.

Lots of capitalists aren't wealthy. Capitalism enables the growth of wealth, and if unimpeded lets all get involved and benefit.

Originally posted by normbenign
Still not political. When government takes partial control it becomes fascist.

Agreed. But is the rest of my suggestion about right?

Originally posted by sh76
At capitalist economic system is not inherently controlled by anybody. It is not a political system at all.

That is nonsense. Capitalism cannot exist without specific government policies like enforcement of contracts, and recognition of "property rights" among many other things. Absent a political system and a State that that system runs, there is no capitalism.

Originally posted by normbenign
Lots of capitalists aren't wealthy. Capitalism enables the growth of wealth, and if unimpeded lets all get involved and benefit.

What other fairy tales do you believe in where everyone lives happily ever after?

Capitalism is a hierarchical, exploitative system.

Originally posted by normbenign
Lots of capitalists aren't wealthy. Capitalism enables the growth of wealth, and if unimpeded lets all get involved and benefit.

I see... and people with lots of wealth are now so terribly "impeded" in giving most of it away?

Originally posted by normbenign
Lots of capitalists aren't wealthy. Capitalism enables the growth of wealth, and if unimpeded lets all get involved and benefit.

Funny, that.

Your country puts fewer impediments in the way of laissez-abuser capitalism than mine does.
Your country has a much larger gap between the rich and the poor, and many more of the latter, than mine does.

I wonder what gives...

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Many 19th Century economies got pretty close. It failed horribly. No one remotely interested in political economy today advocates laissez faire capitalism.

Name one?

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Funny, that.

Your country puts fewer impediments in the way of laissez-abuser capitalism than mine does.
Your country has a much larger gap between the rich and the poor, and many more of the latter, than mine does.

I wonder what gives...

My country is largely fascist, with government supporting and in bed with large institutional capitalists that are too big to fail.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Capitalism is a hierarchical, exploitative system.

You describe the fascist, government run system prevalent now that pretends to be capitalism. How many people would be growing corn for ethanol without government subsidies?

Originally posted by JS357
Would you not agree that there is a principle in operation; and it is something along the lines of "Ownership of the means of production is to be in private hands wherever economically justified, and is to be used to generate profits for the owners"? The owner could be an individual, a private corporation or a publicly traded (stock) corporation. So there is a controlling principle, no?

The entities are controlled by the owners, but the system is not controlled, therefore called Laissez faire.

Originally posted by normbenign
Name one?

The UK.