Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 8

Stocks, 10% cheaper

This week, the Spanish stock market, like many others, lost 10%. I know that the price is obviously a question of market offer and demand, however, how can the market believe that a company is 10% less valuable in just one week? 193.153.125.105 (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How can the gold value be 150% higher in just some years? Indeed, the value of gold is, for me, almost 0, although it's price is certainly not. The point here is that it is not about value, but price. The companies have the same value (more or less), but the market is less optimistic that the money paid today could be get back tomorrow. Therefore, 10% less. Quest09 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because "the market" does not have any intelligence. An individual investor may purchase a stock because he believes that the stock value will rise, and sell a stock because he believes that the stock value will go down. The absolute value of a company, however, is only but one of the tools that an investor will use to decide on what value to pay for a stock. Investors use a whole slew of metrics to decide when to buy and sell, and at what prices, and many of those metrics have nothing at all to do with the value of the company in question. --Jayron32 00:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The market suddenly thinks that it was wrong to value these stocks at that level. The reason is that, one week ago, they thought these company would enjoy soon a recovering economy within which to do business. It has now decided that there will be no recovery this year, therefore these companies' businesses will not make as much money, and they will not be able to pay as much dividends to their shareholders. So shareholders are selling and trying to find an investment opportunity somewhere else where they can get better return for their money. --Lgriot (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See P/E ratio and fair value. The reverse question is "How can the market possibly believe that a stock is worth 2000 times its earnings?" or better "How can the market believe the value of a stock increases over time for a company that has yet to turn a profit?" The answer may be irrational exuberance. By way of comparison, Linkedin Corporation, ticker symbol LKND has a P/E ratio of 2068.96 whereas Exxon Mobil corporation, ticker XOM, has a P/E ratio of 9.60. You may also check out the criticisms section of the rational choice theory article. Gx872op (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(note), someone should adjust the LinkedIn article as the name of the company is LinkedIn Corporation, not LinkedIn.[1] Gx872op (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:UCN and come back and ask us questions if you find it confusing. --Jayron32 17:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Headquarters of Westmont Hospitality Group

I found the article for Westmont Hospitality Group but can't tell where the headquarters for the entire company are. One secondary source says the HQ is in Canada, and another says it's in Houston... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo! Finance states it "has co-headquarters in Houston and Toronto". Bloomberg says just Houston. Gulf Coast Business Review describes it as "Houston-based". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And on top of that:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6140031/10-deals-that-mattered-in.html says it is Canada

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2005/05/30/story3.html says it is Houston

So what should I do since there is a bit of source conflict going on?

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to the information on LinkedIn, which is typically supplied by the company itself, the headquarters is in Toronto. However, if you do a reverse postal code lookup for its postal code, you find that it is actually in Mississauga, a Toronto suburb. Bloomberg Businessweek, a highly reputable journalistic source, confirms this headquarters. The sources that list the company's headquarters as Houston are all US publications. The company is likely to maintain a US "co-headquarters" and even to cite that office as its headquarters to people in the United States because of US sensitivities about foreign ownership, especially when it comes to a flagship hotel in a major city. However, it seems clear that the real headquarters is in Mississauga. Marco polo (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I clicked on your Bloomberg link citing Houston as the headquarters and found that the entity headquartered in Houston is "Westmont Development, Inc.", not "Westmont Hospitality Group". As the company's website indicates, Westmont Hospitality Group has several different functional units, one of which handles development. The name of the corporation is Westmont Hospitality Group. Therefore, Westmont Development, Inc., based in Houston, is pretty clearly a subsidiary. Marco polo (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! So Houston has a subsidiary, and Mississauga has the main company. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

container size change

Is container size change as well as price change included as a measurement used to determine inflation? --DeeperQA (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify: Do you mean volume per price? E.g. for $5 you used to be able to get 1 oz of candy, and now the package only has .8 oz, for the same price? --Mr.98 (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that is what he is talking about; and I would say that clearly that represents price inflation. For some examples I see around the United States, the "half gallon" used to be a standard size for lots of items, like ice cream and orange juice. About 10 years ago, ice cream companies started selling ice cream in containers shapped like the old half-gallon container, but with a smaller amount. Now that container sells 1.75 quarts (12.5% less) than the container that used to fill the same market role. Likewise, some companies have recently (within the past year or so) started selling orange juice in 59 ounce containers shaped exactly like the old 64 ounce (half gallon) size. This is a sneaky form of price inflaction, since consumers won't necessarily look at the size of the container closely; they grab the "half gallon" of ice cream from the same shelf they always have; and don't necessarily notice that what was a half gallon yesterday is now a 7/16 gallon today. --Jayron32 13:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Candy bars are the classic example of a commodity that changes size rather than price. Acroterion (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the basket of goods used to measure inflation will specify the quantity of each product that is included, so it won't be fooled by companies changing the size of their containers. However, if the change in the size of the container changes the amount people consume (eg. if people continue to buy one tub of ice cream a week, even though the tub is now smaller), then the basket may be adjusted to take into account the new consumption (inflation baskets are regularly adjusted to make sure they are still representative of what people actually buy). --Tango (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, if I eat a cup of ice cream after dinner every night, I would have to buy proportionally more ice cream containers in a given year, so I'm pretty sure it DOES matter. The average consumer may not notice that they bought, say, two more tubs of ice cream this year than last, but such an effect SHOULD be taken into account in calculations of price inflation. --Jayron32 16:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but you don't carefully measure out your ice cream portions, do you? If you're accustomed to eyeballing approximately 1/7th of a tub every day, you'll just wind up eating a little less ice cream every day. Pais (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Jayron meant a standard cup or scoop. I suppose some people do divide up the tub, but, in either case, the calculation of inflation is correctly adjusted. Tango meant that the balance of the basket is adjusted to reflect buying habits, but the actual calculation probably uses price per 100 ml (standard in Europe, though the USA might use a different unit). Dbfirs 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he meant the amount of ice cream you eat would remain constant, so you would have to buy more than 1 tub a week. I think it's more likely you would not start buying more than 1 tub week, but would rather start eating slightly less ice cream every day (or would just go without ice cream on the last day before shopping day each week). Either way, it's inflation of course, because if Jayron's right you're spending more money to get the same amount, and if I'm right you're spending the same amount of money to get less ice cream. Pais (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't judge how much ice cream I take out of the container, I judge it by how much I put in the bowl; and at 1.75 quarts I am probably losing 1-2 bowls per quart, which WILL result in me buying more ice cream. With orange juice, it is more pronounced: I drink pretty much the same sized glass of juice every day for breakfast, so if they start shorting my orange juice container I will start running out faster. With "single use" items like candy bars, the effect may not show up (i.e. you still buy and eat ONE candy bar even if todays bar is 0.1 ounces smaller than yesterday's) but for stuff where you take a portion out of the container, it will likely show up slowly in the average purchasing of the customers. --Jayron32 17:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could call 1/2 a cup a bowl, but alas to me, that is just a taste. Googlemeister (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Any even more intractable problem is liquid detergent, shampoo, liquid soap, etc., where they can change the concentration without the consumer knowing, since, at least in the US, there's no requirement to list the amount of active ingredients, only the total amount of all ingredients, including water. A similar problem occurs with foods containing "filler", like rice. As long as your "sweet and sour pork with rice" contains one chunk of pork, they aren't lying (although they might have to call it "rice with sweet and sour pork"). StuRat (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Another dirty trick is that they've started making shampoo bottles with domed tops or knobs on the tops so that you can't easily stand them upside down to get the last bits of shampoo out. See [2] and [3] and [4]. I find this particularly obnoxious, as they obviously are trying to get you to throw away good shampoo so you'll have to buy it more often. For the record, my wife buys this stuff, because if I had a choice I'd boycott the brands that do this. --Jayron32 04:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I pour in hot water to dissolve the last bit stuck on the bottom, that wouldn't work on me. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just lean it up against the wall of the shower stall and brace it with the soap to keep it from falling down. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Politely declining flattery

Hi. What is the most polite way, in English, decline flattery or just a compliment that one feels one does not merit, even if it is not deliberate flattery (eg the person was just trying to be nice). For example, if someone told me 'You're very smart', I would feel like I was being arrogant or egocentrical to just say 'Thank you!' What is the most polite way to respond in this case? Have a nice day :)

Saying "Thank you" is the most polite way to respond to a compliment. If someone tells you they think you're smart, it would be rude to contradict them. If you disagree, keep it to yourself. Pais (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If the compliment comes as a response to a specific event where the recipient has just come off as smart, talented, strong, or agile, I don't think it's rude to say something like, "Nah, it was a lucky guess" or "...a lucky shot" or "I just got lucky that time." Just don't belabor the point. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"You're too kind" is somewhat self-effacing without being rude IMO. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

People are allowed to have any opinions and think any thoughts they like, and nobody requires any thanks just for thinking stuff. Saying "Thank you" thanks them for taking the effort to complement compliment you, that's all. It does not necessarily mean you agree with them about you being smart or whatever, and it does not involve any arrogance on your part. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

OMG, time to save the diff. Never thought I'd see the day Jack of all people misspelled a word! ;-) Pais (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I take that as a compliment. So, thank you.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also a complement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.125.105 (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

How so? To what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To your post. Complement: something that fills up, completes, or makes perfect. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. In that case, thanks to Pais for the complement as well as the compliment. Did I ever tell you how much you complete me?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The complimentary hors d'oeuvres complemented my tie when I spilled them. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I get this problem a lot. I say "It was really nothing" and look modest. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Uncharted territory?

Have there been any times in the past when inflation was at around 2.5% per year or less, yet the economy was not in a slump? Or not about to go into a slump in two or three or so years?

I'm wondering if the theorectical economic heaven of virtually no inflation and a strongly growing economy is anything that's ever existed in reality, or has only been theorectically predicted? Recent events suggest that zero inflation is in reality a dangerous economic singularity point. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Singularity point" has no meaning in economics, so that part of your question can't be addressed. From 1997 to 2000, IPD inflation was below 2 GDP growth was above 4%. Wikiant (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's like saying "'Iceberg' has no meaning in economics" when we're all on the Titanic. Only three years?! Surely you were taught what a metaphor analogy is at school. Edit: apology, I should have added analogy rather than metaphor. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You asked if the combination ever existed, not a list of all years in which it existed. "Iceberg" has a clear definition. The only definition I know for "singularity point" is from physics and I'm not seeing the connection between that definition and anything in economics. Wikiant (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

With attitudes like that, its easy to see why we're in such a mess. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want honest answers to questions, 92.24.191.250, it helps not to speak in hyperbolic metaphors. The term "singularity point" has no meaning in economics, as already mentioned. Yeah, we get that you are trying to political point about the state of the economy but Wikipedia isn't the place to make those points or draw people into debates. If you have a question where we can link a Wikipedia article for you, let us know. If you are looking for a place to do what you appear to want to do here, there are blogs and forums in the rest of the internet. --Jayron32 23:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And this was not a personal attack, 92.24.191.250. You appear to be wishing to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and this clearly is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Please do not remove my comments again, as you did here.--Jayron32 23:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you're going to come back and ask for the list of all years, here it is. Years since 1947 in which real GDP growth was at least 3% and inflation was at most 3%: 1950, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1959, 1962-1966, 1985-1987, 1992, 1994, 1996-2000, 2004. Wikiant (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So at most it could only be substained for four years. What about when inflation was no more than 2.5%? What about the second part of my question? 92.24.191.250 (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No. That's like flipping a coin 20 times, getting a maximum of 4 heads in a row and then concluding that 4 is the most heads you can get in a row. It is the most you *did get*, not the most you *can get*. If you reduce the maximum inflation to 2.5%, you get the following: 1950, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1959, 1962-1965, 1986, 1992, 1994, 1996-2000. What is the second part of your question? Wikiant (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

When was very low inflation not followed by a slump? If it just results in a slump in a few years, then its useless. 92.28.254.151 (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm looking at the years 1947 to 2010. I split real GDP growth for those years into two groups: (1) years in which inflation in the *prior* year was 2.5% or less, and (2) years in which inflation in the prior year was over 2.5%. Twenty-eight years fall into group 1 and thirty-three years fall into group 2. The average GDP growth in group 1 is 3.9% and the average growth in group 2 is 2.6% (and these are statistically different). This suggests that low inflation is not only *not* followed by a slump but that it is followed by above average growth. Note that you get the same results if you compare GDP growth to inflation 2 years prior, 3 years prior, and 4 years prior. Wikiant (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, but would not the statistics discriminate more if you put them into bands of say less than 2.5%, and more than 10%? Currently an inflation rate move of as little as 0.2 from 2.4 to 2.6 flips it into an entirely dfferent category. Where can I find the stats myself please, as I would like to examine them. I'd be inclined to plot them on what I think is called a phase graph first of all. 92.28.244.21 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you face two problems: (1) why choose one band limit over another, (2) the more you tighten down on the bands the fewer years you'll have in each of the two groupings. As the number of years in each grouping falls, it becomes ever more likely that whatever results you find are simply due to random chance. For the data, a good source is www.freelunch.com. You need to register, but the data is free. You're looking for IPD (under Prices) and real GDP figures. Wikiant (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that currency inflation is a bad thing. Currency inflation just means that currency is a bad investment—it depreciates gradually over time, so you're better off converting it into something else (i.e., spending it) relatively soon after you get it. That keeps the economy moving, and that's why a positive (but not too large) rate of inflation is associated with economic growth. If you deposit your earnings in a bank, the bank does the investment for you. Your account balance may be stored in a database somewhere in units of US dollars, but the sum of all of those balances is far larger than the amount of US currency the bank actually has at a given time. The only problem with inflation is when you price things as some fixed multiple of a currency base unit and then have to keep raising the multiplier. Consumers don't like it when you "raise prices", even though you're really just countering a gradual price drop. (Likewise, congresscritters don't like raising the minimum wage, etc.) But that's not an argument against inflation so much as an argument for tying prices to some index that doesn't depreciate over time (i.e., that "keeps pace with inflation"). -- BenRG (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The OP appears to be from the UK, so I suspect that s/he has hundreds more years to look at for the possible answer than these US-based answers. Look at the much more distant past, when money was actually based on something: economies often grew without debasement of the currency or without an increase in the supply of the currency. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, when you go back that far, economies organized very differently than today. Currency was certainly important, but earlier economies based on mercantilism and manorialism had very different concepts as to the source and disposition of wealth. And debasement of currency is as old as currency itself, the Romans were known to regularly devalue their currencies. So please, get off of the "down with U.S.-centrism" horse. --Jayron32 04:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And then there was The Great Deflation in the late 19th century when productivity gains were huge and the economy grew in most years while inflation was negative for an extended period of time.--Zoppp (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am asking from a UK perspective, where the politicians have imposed an inflation target of 2.5% on the Bank Of England (or was it 2%? Cannot remember). I'm also interested in similar conditions in the US. The events of now and recent years in the UK suggests to me that low inflation is not the Shangri La that politicians would like to think, but dangerous because it slips so easily into or even causes recession. Being politicians, they will resist the loss of face that comes from admitting they were wrong, so they will sacrifice the UK economy to their vanity by not raising inflation to re-start and maintain growth. I don't understand what BenRG means by "currency inflation" - I'm just refering to inflatiopn. 92.28.254.151 (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The inflation target is 2% (see [5]). Secondly, if inflation causes economic growth shouldn't stagflation be impossible? Gabbe (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To counter that I could ask if low inflation does not cause recessions, then shouldnt we not have them? 92.28.244.21 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Because correlation does not imply causation? Gabbe (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why recessions should not occur. One cause of recessions seems to be human emotion. People sometimes see things as more extreme then reality, so what happens is that sometimes people become over-optimistic about something, like the value of their house. When enough people feel that way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, but most of the extra value that was created was based only on perspective, not on something tangible. When something happens that causes enough people to lose that optimism, the price drops, people become over-pessimistic and the self-fulfilling prophecy goes the other direction. When such swings are large enough, you have a general recession. Granted there are other factors, but you can not separate human perspective and emotion from the economy, so the economy does not always behave exactly as one might think based on things like the inflation rate. Googlemeister (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The technological component should not be ignored. Thanks to the Internet, we have Wikipedia. But due to Wikipedia, some people at Encyclopedia Britannica no longer have a job. Due to Amazon, brick-and-mortar bookstores have fewer customers. The list goes on. There's nothing wrong about the Internet, but it might be a while for the people who have been made redundant by it to find skills needed for other jobs. Technological improvement is beneficial in the long run, but in the short run it can sometimes cause a bit of a slump. See "Real business cycle theory". Gabbe (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Page 280 of The Golden Compass (aka Northern Lights)

The pictures at the beginning of each chapter in Philip Pullman's book are pretty easy to figure out, but this one[6] stumps me. Are they supposed to be witches' daemons on an empty tree branch? What's the light around the branch? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a branch of a tree in a puddle, probably in a forest somewhere. It reminds me of Puddle (M. C. Escher), which might have been the artist's inspiration. Its unlikely that the author designed the things himself, the publisher probably had the artwork done. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the "cloud pine" branches that the witches ride on. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Karl Marx - last laugh?

Do the plummenting stock markets and the shameful riots in London and elsewhere correspond to what Marx predicted about the collapse of capitalism? 92.24.191.250 (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

At least, not yet... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it somewhat funny is that every time some economic crisis erupts some former/neo communists or anarchists begin to appear and gleefully tell us that capitalism and the System have failed and are bankrupt. Their problems are that Communism is dead and buried and that most "Anarchists" don't have guts to emmigrate to Somalia, a truly anarchic country.

Capitalism never claimed to be perfect. What usually fails is government supervision and oversight (usually starved of funds) to ensure that corruption and incompetence don't screw up the system creating a new crisis. These crisis' will come and they will pass, making a lot of damage and filling the pockets of the truly lucky and very smart. Capitalism endures and there is NOTHING ELSE (that I know of).

Everybody works because he wants to get paid (or gets something in return). Carrot and stick, Supply and demand, private property. Those are the basics of economy. There are no credible alternative economic theories to replace those. Flamarande (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Everybody works". Except when the economy doesn't. Then some of them don't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said: Capitalism isn't perfect and unemployement is arguably its biggest flaw (among others). Never was and probably never will be. Communism countries hadn't unemployment but then they had other more serious flaws. Flamarande (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Marx could be right about the collapse of Capitalism, and be wrong about the advantages of Communism ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote a couple of books which have been read, studied, (mis)used, twisted and abused by ruthless, power-hungry and merciless dictators who supported their rule with the banner of Communism. Capitalism isn't going to collapse or replaced. It has endured worse crisis' than this one. The same cannot be said of peace and democracy. Flamarande (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Somalia isn't an anarchy. The Islamic Courts Union is a theocracy, Puntland is a rather imperfect democracy, and Somaliland mixes a tribal system with limited democracy. Get your facts right, and stop ranting. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't constitute a crisis in the reproduction of capitalism in any of the senses that I'm aware that Marx and Engels used. If we consider 1848 as an example year, much like 1968, it was a year of sudden uprising quickly crushed. 2011 through the North African and Arabian political movements could be considered to be related to the year of the nations; but, as Marx and Engels found out, widespread revolution on a nationalist basis doesn't indicate that capitalism is in crisis. This could be a period when a series of long term waves of economic growth synchronise creating a series of fundamental crises, as in 1880-1919 as a series of escalating crises. I do not see the level of self-controlled workers organisation at work which corresponds to the 1880-1919 period. Nor do I see a "rate of profit" argument given the incorporation of externalities (enclosure of carbon, China's continuing enclosures of working class rights), and through new productive techniques which change the captialisation problem temporarily (the recent computerisation boom, much like the railroad boom, can defer rate of profit issues for a significant period). So if we take the long term Capital perspective, this isn't a crisis of capitalism. Finally there could be a political crisis of capitalism, as in 1917-1919 when workers soviets and shop stewards councils threatened the capacity of capitalist states to govern. The idea that 2011 involves a direct assault by armed democratic organised workers on the capitalist state is ludicrous. 2011 is a periodic year of contestation, where a few instinctively organised nationalist movements, or workers movements (Greece), can push capital a little way. It isn't a year of generalised crisis like 1917-19. By the way, it is shitty newspaper editors, rather than Marxists or Anarchists, who pull Marx out of the cupboard in a year like this. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"The plummenting stock markets and the shameful riots in London" have nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism in its natural/pure form never existed and does not exist anywhere on Earth. What we call "capitalism" is actually individual rights applied to economic sphere. The very term "capitalism" was created by opponents of individual freedom. Opposing capitalism is denying that an individual has any right. --79df (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's just the No True Scotsman fallacy. You can use that to deny the faults of any position. APL (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to be argumentative, but since you posted a supposed riposte to my post above, I have to remind you that capitalism, as defined by Adam Smith, is a "system of natural liberty". We human beings are separated from other animals by our ability to trade, so trade in part of human nature. So the freedom to trade is fundamental of freedom. You cannot expect liberty without the existence of capitalism or the freedom to trade. Human civilization is not hunter-gatherer, human civilization is based on trade, and trade and associated activities are collectively called capitalism. You are free to oppose capitalism, but then you have to chose a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, you cannot oppose capitalism and support civilization at the same time. --79df (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Before the advent of agriculture, our ancestors lived a hunter-gather lifestyle. They hunted animals and gathered fruits, ate those things as long as they felt hungry, and then left the rest to rot. There was nothing called surplus in a hunter-gather world. This was the time what Marx called primitive communism. After the advent of agriculture, human beings learned to store food, which they used for trade. This is how surplus originated. Surplus created incentives and profit-motive, which gradually resulted in modern industrial civilization and modern capitalism. So a system alternative to capitalism existed on Earth, but that was when there was no surplus, before the dawn of civilization. There is no alternative to capitalism in human civilization, because the foundation of civilization is surplus and trade. --79df (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: Since surplus is the foundation of human civilization, income inequality is a natural outcome of civilization, there is nothing morally wrong with it. Those who gather more surplus in a competitive market (through the use of quality service and satisfying consumer needs) generate more income, those who don't generate less income. Thus income inequality is not a "defect" of capitalism, it is the characteristic of human civilization, and separates civilization from hunter-gatherer societies. When you oppose income inequality, you are not opposing capitalism, actually you are going against human civilization itself. In primitive hunter-gatherer society, there is no income inequality because there is no surplus. It is natural outcome of civilization to gain wealth by satisfying consumer demand through effective supply in a competitive market (as done by Richard Branson). What is morally wrong is to forcefully take others' property and become rich in a non-market procedure, it is contrary to civilization (as done by Vladimir Lenin or government bureaucrats). --79df (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the claim that primitive societies lacked inequality, nor surpluses for that matter (which are not required for inequality). There's plenty of evidence for inequality in the animal world (it's often highlighted in nature shows). Clan connections matter when it is time for the hunters to parcel out the rewards, and accepting those rewards may involve reaffirmation of lower social status. Food could be stored as pemmican and the like; land could be held as territory. Before there were pyramids and Easter Island statues there were still ritual costumes, scarifications, beads and so forth. But none of these things mean that modern society is forced to accept inequality; after all rape, infanticide, and other violence are related traditions going back to pre-human times which have since been rejected. Wnt (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, don't use false analogy. "Rape, infanticide, and other violence" are violation of an individual's natural right (the right not be aggressed or coerced), income inequality is not (because it does not violate an individual's right not be aggressed or coerced). So "Rape, infanticide, and other violence" belong to one category, income inequality belongs to a completely different category. Because of the harm principle, "Rape, infanticide, and other violence" should not be accepted. Second of all, WTF are you saying, hunter-gather societies are not egalitarian? Hunter gatherer societies are egalitarian in nature and lack class division. So if you don't like entrepreneurs and risk-takers living "luxuriously", and others living ordinary life, the only option you have left is to adopt hunter-gather lifestyle. You have one other "option", albeit unethical, i.e. to violate those risk-takers' natural right (the right not be aggressed or coerced), and subject them to gigataxation, and using that tax-money to become "rich" in a non-market procedure, or simply loot their property, as did by the Bolsheviks. --79df (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article (JSTOR link) by James Woodburn which states, "Greater equality of wealth, of power and of prestige has been achieved in certain hunting and gathering societies than in any other human societies. These societies, which have economies based on immediate rather than delayed return, are assertively egalitarian. Equality is achieved through direct, individual access to resources" and "only the hunting and gathering way of life permits so great an emphasis on equality". There may be difference in possession of resources among members of a hunter-gather society, but it is not income inequality, a concept applied in the context of economies that are part of civilization. --79df (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from Marshall Sahlins's Stone Age Economics where he accepts poverty is natural outcome of civilization ("Poverty is a social status, the invention of civilisation and has grown with civilisation"). In hunter-gather societies, there are no rich-poor divide. And an article Egalitarianism Among Hunters and Gatherers discussed Bushman egalitarianism, that states these primitive people have a strong sense of economic equality. --79df (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wish that Aaron Swartz had succeeded in distributing this.[7] Apparently the hunter gatherers of the Pacific Northwest had slaves. Sacagawea is also described as a slave, though perhaps with some vagueness of definition. [8] Now as for "false analogies", does anyone really believe the poor are not "aggressed or coerced"? I suppose that the janitor pays his taxes while the billionaire pays nothing as a matter of personal choice? Wnt (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Paleo-Indians were classical hunter-gatherers. Native Americans were horticultural people, not classical (full-time) hunter-gatherers. They learned cultivation of certain crops. Native Americans descended from full-time/pure hunter-gathers and opted for hunting and gathering in case of shortage of cultivated food. After contact with Europeans, they became familiar with domesticated horses and firearms, and some of them opted for full-time hunting and gathering with the help of firearms, as it was easy compared to cultivation of crops. [9] So they were artificial/modified/evolved "hunter-gathers", not classical hunter-gather. In today's world, say for example, if for any reason the city of Los Angeles becomes isolated from the rest of the world, and the people of that city take guns and start hunting animals due to shortage of food supply, will they be called hunter-gathers? No. Even if they are called hunter-gathers, they will be classified has situational "hunter-gatherers" who opt for hunting and gathering due to lack of their primary mode of food production. The same applies to the American Indians. American Indians had completely different culture from the classical (full-time) hunter gatherers. --79df (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW hunting with firearms, as did by American Indians, is not characteristic of a pure hunter-gatherer world, because you need an industrial civilization to manufacture those firearms. --79df (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you know what you are doing and have easy access to iron ore and gunpowder making materials, you don't need an industrial civilization to make primitive firearms any more then you need industry to make a nice longbow. Of course, if I had to make one or the other from scratch, a longbow would probably be superior to that level of firearm. Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Gunpowder was invented in the 9th century, and firearms in the 12th century, long after the Neolithic Revolution. So gunpowder and firearm are products of human civilization. To access iron ore, you need to know Mining, and mining is characteristic of civilization. You may not need ASIMO or ISS to manufacture a gun, but you need civilization to manufacture a firearm, no matter how rudimentary that firearm is. --79df (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Any caveman, had he pre-existing knowledge, could get materials to make gunpowder. True civilization invented gunpowder, but strictly speaking, is not needed to make it once the knowledge exists. Now you could argue that the knowledge is a product of civilization and I would not argue that, but the civilization could be lost and the knowledge maintained. Just because there is no evidence that pre-civilization humanity built firearms does not mean they were incapable of doing so in theory (not that I think they did). Also, mining is not needed to get iron if the guy is lucky enough to find a meteorite (and at least one early group did use one or more meteorites as tool materials). Googlemeister (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Access to firearm will result in attempts of territorial domination by different bands of "hunter-gatherers", in theory. This may escalate into war. This will prompt any band of "hunter-gatherer" to acquire as much firearm as possible. Possibility of war will prompt the more physically able members and those with higher battle skills to be be valued more within their group, because they will be able to best defend their territory or capture other territories. They will get more respect, and will be valued more. This will result in class division. Since pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers did not have access to firearms, you cannot compare their culture with the post-Neolithic/"modern" armed "hunter-gatherers" such as the American Indian. --79df (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about people before land ownership, not before the invention of the club. (I don't see how that is socially much different from the gun) But even before tool use, one person could oppress another by force. I don't know, but I imagine that public rape was a method of establishing a social pecking order in such times much as it is in the modern prison system. Wnt (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sahlins "zen road to affluence" doesn't really jive with human nature as I have seen it. Granted I don't spend much time outside Western Civilization, but human nature is human nature. In any case, I fail to see how a purely hunter-gatherer society could keep from over-reproducing and depletion of animals and plants to eat unless they are dying young or have some kind of problems reproducing. Over-population would lead to mass starvation and human-human conflict, so I don't think everything was all bunnies and flowers before agriculture. Googlemeister (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally, hunter-gatherers didn't have access to modern medicine, so infant mortality was high, and life expectancy even for people who made it to adulthood was probably far lower than it is for us today. In addition, 12,000 years ago when no one had agriculture, the Earth's population was much smaller, so there was plenty of room for a tribe to split up if it was starting to get larger than what the local ecosystem could support. For the few remaining hunter-gatherer societies today, on the other hand, that isn't an option; nevertheless those few societies are more at risk of dying off than at risk of overpopulation. Pais (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is what I'm saying. Capitalism is the natural outcome of progress of civilization. With a large population, and dependency on modern technologies such as medicine, biomedical equipments, modern transportation, modern communications system, you can't escape capitalism. When you will get sick, you have buy medicines, to communicate you have to use mobile phone, to use wikipedia you have to use a computer, all are manufactured by capitalists. --79df (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"All are manufactured by capitalists." Er, No. The capitalists (under)pay the workers to manufacture things... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The USSR made transportation systems and medicine. Are you saying they were also capitalist? Googlemeister (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

To make quality product, you need competitive market. USSR did not have competitive market. Although they made those things, the quality of their products gradually became inferior. See Criticisms_of_socialism#Slow_or_stagnant_technological_advance. In a competitive market there is an incentive-mechanism that rewards businesses that satisfy consumer demand, and discipline businesses that fail to do so. Due to lack of competitive market, the state-monopolies of USSR produced inferior products, failed to meet consumer demand, and technological advance stagnated. --79df (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(to AndyTheGrump) Don't use Marxist rhetoric that lacks logic and defies reality. Everyone invests labor in manufacturing process - scientists, engineers, managers, and manual laborers. Each of them get paid according to their productivity, magnitude of their contribution, and the magnitude of risk they take. When a car is manufactured, scientists and engineers provide the most important labor, they design and plan the car without which a car will remain only in our imagination; they take major risk because any fault in the design will be a disaster, this is why they are paid more. Managers supervise the entire production process to help ensure proper production and proper quality; they take major risk because any fault in production process will be their responsibility, this is why they are paid more. Manual laborers assemble the parts under the guidance and supervision of engineers. Without that guidance, they cannot do anything. They take the lowest risk. The magnitude of contribution of an individual scientist/engineer/manager is far greater than the magnitude of contribution of an individual manual laborer, this is why a manual laborer gets the lowest salary. In this process, the people who have the most vital contribution, without whom there will be no basic infrastructure to manufacture a car, are the capitalists. They take the maximum risk and makes the most important contribution. This is why they get most of the profit. With advancement of robotics technology, one day all manual work will be done by robots (So Marxists should view robotics scientists like Joseph Engelberger as greatest threat to the proletariat!!!).

The salary of all these workers, be in the managerial level or a manual worker, is determined by supply and demand in the market. When there is no demand of a product, the workers associated with it lose jobs, when there is more demand, more workers are hired. This is how any economy within the framework of human civilization works. Capitalists don't have money tree in their home that they will pay workers whatever they want, capitalists are dependent on consumers for their income, i.e. they are dependent on the market. So if the income of capitalists is determined by market, why the income of the workers will be determined by the non-market? No one can escape the market. If a worker feels the salary he is receiving is low, he is free leave that job and search for a new job. Since the property (for example a factory) belongs to a capitalist, being the property owner they have the natural right to determine what they will pay to the people they are hiring for their work done. Any third party intervention is violation of that natural right. What a capitalist cannot do, (s)he cannot forcefully bring some people in their property and force them to work for him/her (as was the custom under feudalism, as did by Joseph Stalin, or as done in proletarian heavens like North Korea). Being the property owner, a capitalist have the natural and moral right to pay lower than market or above than market salary to a worker (s)he is hiring, the natural and moral right to fire a worker from their private business if they believe the contribution of that worker is inconsistent with market demand or anything else, similarly it is the natural and moral right of the worker to leave that job and join a new one. Just as a capitalist cannot force a worker to do his/her job (it will be violation of the worker's natural right not be aggressed or coerced), a worker can bargain, negotiate, but cannot force a capitalist to pay more (it will be violation of the capitalist's natural right not be aggressed or coerced). Everyone has the right not be aggressed or coerced, both capitalists and workers. --79df (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironically people who criticize capitalism themselves seek wealth. Multimillionaire Noam Chomsky criticizes capitalism by publishing his books through capitalists and then earning profits. Michael Moore has become multimillionaire in a capitalist system by slandering capitalism! Actually there are two types of people - one type of people who imagine capitalism is ultimately good, and other type of people who imagine capitalism is responsible for all evils. Businesses (particularly mass media and publishing businesses) and celebrities, who's profit is dependent on their consumers' worldview, have found these two types of niche markets. Some businesses try to target the first niche market, other businesses try to target the second niche market. But whether they depict capitalism in a positive or negative light, they all want to be rich. All arguments against capitalism is based on vested interests - labor unions, environmentalists, government bureaucrats, pro-regulation businesspeople - they all want cultural, political and economic capital bypassing the market. People like Michael Moore try to cash in on ordinary people's envy. Chomsky and Moore want to gain cultural capital (which will later produce economic capital) by presenting themselves as "rebels" against "capitalist oppression". Source of their wealth is the second type of people. People like Glenn Beck want to gain cultural capital and subsequent economic capital by presenting themselves as rebels against socialist oppression/Obamunism. Source of their wealth is the first type of people. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro found a shortcut, a non-market way to become rich by presenting capitalism as evil. Ordinary people have vested interest - they want to gain more wealth and service without giving labor, this is why they demand more and more "free" everything. Politicians, "intellectuals" oppose businesspeople when they view their economic capital as a threat to their existence, businesspeople oppose free market when they find it is easy to harm competitors with the help of government intervention. They all have dominating instinct, they want to dominate others. Capitalism is the process of peacefully gaining wealth while strictly respecting everyone's natural right, the right not be aggressed or coerced. Those who want otherwise oppose capitalism, no matter if they are rich or poor. To answer the OP's question, whether Marx is profitable in the market or not, he can't be right because being inseparable with human civilization, capitalism can't collapse. Whether you cash in on capitalistic mentality or anti-capitalistic mentality - you can't escape capitalism because trade and capitalism are foundations of civilization. So after establishing a publishing company, you can analyze the market demand and determine which is more profitable to publish - The Wealth of Nations or Communist Manifesto; but ultimately you are seeking profit. Meanwhile in this battle between capitalistic and anti-capitalistic mentality, civilization and capitalism goes on in their own way. --79df (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are so convinced of the enduring solidity of capitalism, why do you feel the need to write long rambling screeds in its defence, 79df? Oh, and look up non sequitur in a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Which part of my post you believe is non sequitur? --79df (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL. --79df (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The big problem I have with those who portray the market as a law of nature is: who decides what is defined as property subject to the market? There are lots of things which have been variously defined as public rights or private goods: the right to sell pretzels on the sidewalk, the right to write a parody of a song with the same music, the right to set up a radio broadcast station, the right to walk on the beach, the right to not be a slave, the right to copy a successful business model, the right to use a software algorithm. For that matter, even land ownership was quite different in the Old and New Testaments - see Luke 6 and related commentary on that site; people were free to walk into grain fields and eat without the owner's permission. It makes it hard to take credibly those who say that capitalism is what it must be and couldn't be any different, until the next time they propose something (like carbon emissions rights). The more things are defined as property, the more inferior the poor are to the rich from the moment of birth. But while I won't claim to have endured Das Kapital, I don't recall ever reading any mention that Communism considered this wide range of definitions either. Wnt (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You have problem viewing market as a law of nature. The same can be applied to society or the state. How do you assume the state as a law of nature? What gives the state the moral authority to monitor economic activity? --79df (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)