³1username³2AstroNomer³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981601368³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics. This is a very biased, right-wing article,
written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent
economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very
different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist). -- WojPob 
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981601368³2keepts³2981601492³2id³21233³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³21³1username³2WojPob³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981601492³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics.  Terms like ''capitalist economy'' are clearly used in the wrong context. his is a very biased, right-wing article,
written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent
economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very
different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist).  This looks very much like a cut/paste job from a dodgy source. -- WojPob 
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981601368³2keepts³2981601512³2id³21226³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³22³1username³2WojPob³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981601512³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³31³3text³3CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics.  Terms like ''capitalist economy'' are clearly used in the wrong context. This is a very biased, right-wing article,
written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent
economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very
different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist).  This looks very much like a cut/paste job from a dodgy source. -- WojPob 
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981601368³2keepts³2981609474³2id³21226³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³23³1username³2TimShell³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981609474³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics.  Terms like ''capitalist economy'' are clearly used in the wrong context. This is a very biased, right-wing article,
written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent
economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very
different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist).  This looks very much like a cut/paste job from a dodgy source. -- WojPob 
----

When Milton Friedman wrote 'Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom', and 'Capitalism and Freedom', and 'Why Government Is the Problem', and when Friedrich Hayek wrote 'The Constitution of Liberty', and 'Law, Legislation and Liberty : The Political Order of a Free People', I think they were both indicating their willingness to involve themselves in a political discussion.
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981601368³2keepts³2981617745³2id³21149³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³24³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981617745³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics.  Terms like ''capitalist economy'' are clearly used in the wrong context. This is a very biased, right-wing article,
written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent
economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very
different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist).  This looks very much like a cut/paste job from a dodgy source. -- WojPob 
----
When Milton Friedman wrote 'Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom', and 'Capitalism and Freedom', and 'Why Government Is the Problem', and when Friedrich Hayek wrote 'The Constitution of Liberty', and 'Law, Legislation and Liberty : The Political Order of a Free People', I think they were both indicating their willingness to involve themselves in a political discussion.
----
WojPob, I suggest you simply change the article so that it's more accurate by your lights.  I am very curious to see how you would change it. -- LarrySanger
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981601368³2keepts³2981673807³2id³21001³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³25³1username³2JimboWales³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981673807³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics.  Terms like ''capitalist economy'' are clearly used in the wrong context. This is a very biased, right-wing article,
written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent
economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very
different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist).  This looks very much like a cut/paste job from a dodgy source. -- WojPob 
----
When Milton Friedman wrote 'Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom', and 'Capitalism and Freedom', and 'Why Government Is the Problem', and when Friedrich Hayek wrote 'The Constitution of Liberty', and 'Law, Legislation and Liberty : The Political Order of a Free People', I think they were both indicating their willingness to involve themselves in a political discussion.
----
WojPob, I suggest you simply change the article so that it's more accurate by your lights.  I am very curious to see how you would change it. -- LarrySanger
----
In an attempt to make the article appear to be less one-sided, I added some anti-capitalist theorists to the list of theorists.
I think that the article is mostly good as it stands right now because it doesn't advocate for or against capitalism, but merely defines the term in a way that a broad spectrum of people can agree is accurate.  I say ''broad spectrum'' because I don't think that ''everyone'' will agree.

Perhaps a revised version might acknowledge some other definitions of the term?
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981601368³2keepts³2981677950³2id³21025³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³26³1username³2AyeSpy³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981677950³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3CapitalisM? is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics.  Terms like ''capitalist economy'' are clearly used in the wrong context. This is a very biased, right-wing article,
written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent
economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very
different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist).  This looks very much like a cut/paste job from a dodgy source. -- WojPob 
----
When Milton Friedman wrote 'Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom', and 'Capitalism and Freedom', and 'Why Government Is the Problem', and when Friedrich Hayek wrote 'The Constitution of Liberty', and 'Law, Legislation and Liberty : The Political Order of a Free People', I think they were both indicating their willingness to involve themselves in a political discussion.
----
WojPob, I suggest you simply change the article so that it's more accurate by your lights.  I am very curious to see how you would change it. -- LarrySanger
----
In an attempt to make the article appear to be less one-sided, I added some anti-capitalist theorists to the list of theorists.
I think that the article is mostly good as it stands right now because it doesn't advocate for or against capitalism, but merely defines the term in a way that a broad spectrum of people can agree is accurate.  I say ''broad spectrum'' because I don't think that ''everyone'' will agree.

Perhaps a revised version might acknowledge some other definitions of the term?
----
As private ownership and private economic decision-making are the bedrock of capitalism, and not expressly mentioned in the article, I plugged that in.  Hope no one minds.
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981601368³2keepts³2981679017³2id³21084³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³27