Capital markets could develop without government but it is unlikely that property ownership necessary to accumulate surplus wealth for risky capital investment would be possible or that a sufficiently large scale of trust to create a public investment market would ever develop without at least some minimum, but absolute guarantor against fraud and deceit.
Yes, there is a related discussion which often takes place as well. It involves people equating government involvement in the economy with socialism. In their eyes capitalism is entirely free of government, and any government intervention in the market, is an encroachment on capitalism, which undermines capitalism and is a step towards socialism. The fact that capitalism is inexorably linked to the state, and that the state has been an ever-present component of every capitalist system in history, doesn't seem to sway people. They define capitalism in whatever irrational way they choose, evidence be damned!! It is the same with their belief in free markets.
There are social and structural reasons for the centrality of the state in non-economic terms as well. The state reproduces the forms of power, which produce good capitalist subjects. State education teaches kids to sit still, obey authority, do their work on time, work on a set schedule, etc. The criminal justice system removes threats to capitalist productivity, not just people who commit fraud or steal property, but they also criminalize any behavior which undermines people's ability to be good capitalist producers. Drug criminalization is a good example of this. It does this not only by incarcerating people, but also by producing the sense that the state is always watching and any negative behavior can result in repercussions, even when there is obviously no one watching. Schools are again useful in producing this sense, not just prisons and forms of state surveillance. On top of all the things you mentioned, many of the entities we consider fundamental to capitalist production, are the product of the state. Corporations are an obvious example, as they have their modern roots in monopolies granted by the British crown and parliament, and continue to this day to be a legal entity whose risk is limited by the state. The state institutes regulation, which may stifle competition, as free market advocates love go on about, but they are very useful in protecting capitalist profits. That sort of behavior is fundamental to the reproduction of capitalist profit!! So when people go on about the incompatibility of the state and capitalism, it is really astounding. What makes it even more so, is how prevalent that sort of nonsense is!!
Here here!! Capitalists are the spoiled children of society, granted all sorts of special and exclusive privileges and liberties, treated with kid gloves, only to become petulant grasping monsters completely resentful of everyone and everything that tries to stand in the way of their own selfish desires. Like all selfish and petulant children they should be beaten with sticks, confined to their rooms, and have all their privileges revoked until they apologize and pledge to improve their behaviour.
I'm sorry but this seems a very vague explanation. I also can't make heads or tails of the car analogy you make. I don't argue with fools who actually take themselves seriously.
Not at all. The role of government is to stop monopolies, enforce contracts, and protect property. What we have now is state sponsored monopoly, violation of contracts, and seizure of property. Big corporations, unions, and special interests, buy government rules and regulations to their ends. 1000 politicians don't cost. Capitalism was around in the days of hunter gather.
What we have now is capitalism. Pure and simple. If you don't like it, then be more critical of capitalism. Do you understand what capital is? Clearly you do not, because the idea that a society without capital, was practicing capitalism, is laughably stupid. Try to say something which actually treats with the reality of the situation. You can argue when something that could be described as capitalism first arose, but what is undeniable was that it was not in a society without capital. Some people will argue for earlier, but the 19th century is a good place to mark the shift coming to fruition. A time when the relation to capital, as opposed to the relation to land and nature, defined economic activity and productive activity(again as opposed to land related activities), became the main source of wealth accumulation. The roots of such a reality predate the 19th century, but the 19th century is when you see that sort of reality coming to truly dominate in many places.
I basically agree with you, but I also believe that fundamental necessities that people must have need regulation. Especially the necessities that have no market competition to control prices, for example, electricity, natural gas and oil and gas. People MUST have those commodities and there is no competition. Most areas of the country you have no choice of electric companies and we all know the gas pump is the wild wild west with absolutely no constraints. Capitolism is a good thing, unbridled capitolism is only good for a few.
No. The market is a good thing. Capitalism is just a restriction on the effectiveness of the market, with class limitation destroying choice and harvesting coercive relations
Really? Did every member of the tribe make their own cloths, their own tools, collect all the food they needed? Or, did the tribe benefit when each found their comparative advantage? If I spend time to find the right obsidian to make spear tips, to collect the wood that makes the best spear shafts, to develop tools that speeds spear construction, I have created capital. When I trade spears for other items, within my tribe, or with other tribes we encounter, I am a capitalist. Better spears improve productivity. Division of labor improved productivity. Capitalism is nothing new.
What does benefiting off of comparative advantage have to do with anything? When has trading defined capitalism? Honestly, what are you talking about? I know Wikipedia is far from perfect, but this could give you some semblance of a clue of what you are talking about. No intelligent definition of capitalism in history, has ever included pre-modern societies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism
Let me be clear about what I meant, capitolism is good but capitolism with no restraints is no good in areas that are necessities for people and lack competition
Capitalism 'with no constraints' is inherently unstable and therefore ignored. The problem is that you have no means to quantify what you mean by constraints. Referring to necessities, for example, is a difficult business. Poverty analysis shows necessities are fluid and change as an economy evolves
I there was no comparative advantage, would there be capitalism? Where do I define trade as capitalism? Wouldn't I be a capitalist if I were to buy raw obsidian, and shape it into spear heads and sell it on Ebay? What if I purchased a lathe to turn wood into spear handles, isn't the lathe "capital equipment"? It isn't the dollar volume of business that defines capitalism, it is the expectation of reward from the investment of time and materials. The ability to produce more than you consume. Wikipedia is talking about capitalism on the national level - I am talking about capitalism on the tribal level. Do they called capitalism something else, now that it is on the global level?
Comparative advantage isn't capitalism specific. Its just about opportunity costs after all. Its also not required for trade gains, as shown by intra-industry trade
Already answered. Intra-industry trade shows that comparative advantage isn't required. However, you've merely continued with your error where you make general remark over exchange theory and bogusly use that to define capitalism
What is your point in pretending that you don't see my point? The dishonesty of some posters here automatically disqualifies them. Of course, I'm not pretending I don't know your motivation. You are hoping that other posters fall for your fake confusion and will be tricked into thinking that "necessary but not valuable" is a nutty idea without reading my example of how it applies.
Comparative advantage explains inter-industry trade. Intra is reliant on aspects such as economies of scale and product differentiation
Product differentiation isn't a comparative advantage? Even when inter-industry trade involves items identical in all ways (WalMart buys the same WalMart branded product from multiple suppliers), it is because the selling company has the advantage of cost, capacity, lead time, market share by contract, etc. But, that is at the other extreme. My point is even in hunter gatherer tribes, evolution selected for capitalism.
What hogwash. The talented actor has an inate skill that provides a comparative advantage over someone that is severly stage shy. But, lets humor you. In this tribe of hunter gathers, one member is strong, but slow and uncoordinated. Not suited for hunting, but, well suited for finding, and carrying large amounts of obsidian and straight tree branches. How long before the tribe discovers the opportunity cost for him to collect materials and build spears is much better than being a hunter?
