Problems with Capitalism
We learned this week from Stiglitz that capitalism is not always effective. He points out that other countries have to take into consideration their social, political, and institutions before they can can transition into a different system of doing things.
Some developing countries are damaged by the help of Western cultures. The price paid by developing countries are higher than the benefits: high unemployment, longer problems of social dissolution, urban violence and they ethnic conflicts in other parts of the world.
Stiglitz supports gradual globalization rather than shock therapy, because he says timing counts. "Timing and they sequencing are important." (Stiglitz p. 58) This alows time to set up the infratructure of banks, regulations, making new jobs, and entrepreneurship. Shock therapy moves quickly, and fail s to establish a good infrastructure and can have devasting effects on a country.
IMF (International Monetary Fund) does not always recommend the best financial advice and can give money to societies who do not need it. They are supposed to advise countrieson the strategies on globalizations but sometimes use  threats of withdrawing funds if the country they are working with do no do what they say. Dr. Gannon summed it up well "do what we say, not as we do."

Hypocritcal Countries

                On Monday we discussed how a new economy grows according to Ha-Joon Chang. One of these is to maximize resources and raw materials. One must limit their dependence on imports. They need a consistent currency. Markets need to be developed for goods. That way they can export and be in charge of the price. A social overhead capital is important. Infrastructure is needed for growth and modernization. There is a definite need to spend money and a government that supports the long term benefit of all of this. This all is definitely not laissez faire.

                Most importantly is protection. This brought about by tariffs. They protect the industries against outside competition. Tariffs are tax on imported goods. The purpose of these are to protect domestic industry and to produce revenue. An example of this is woolens (raw sweaters, etc.) The British had a thriving textile industry before the United States even became a nation. To buy a sweater in Great Britain, it would cost $5. In America it would cost $7.25. In order to keep domestic revenue up a tariff of 50% would be placed on Great Britain’s exports now making the sweater cost $7.50…more now so that Americans will buy the American product because it is cheaper.

                At this time tariffs were one of the most political and economic influences. Henry Clay called this the “American System.” The British wanted economic imperialism. That means no tariffs so that everyone would purchase British goods because they were cheaper. An example of this is as if our class wanted to play a football game, but we only have one football player. He then would have an unfair advantage in the game. Raising the price was a politically decisive issue, but they did help in protecting what Chang calls “Infant Industries.”

                Chang poses a question…Are the developed countries hypocrites? “Do as we say, not as we do.” To understand this, we looked at Neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism is a liberal tradition based upon Adam Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, and most recently Hayek. This is arguing for laissez faire, a small government with minimal economic preference. Adam Smith adds the Invisible Hand to this. The government need to stay out of economics and the market with no social engineering. Neo-Liberalism is against the “welfare state.” Austerity comes along in times of crisis (what should the governments do?). They called this “belt tightening to the extreme.” There are forced cuts in spending and slashes all across the board. They will give only what you need to survive and nothing more (no student loans, etc.) This has now become orthodox.

                A good analogy of this is student loans. One needs student loans to go to school in order to get a better job. Suddenly student loans are no longer allowed, but the person in charge of this decision got to where he is because of the help of student loans. Developed countries are doing this to underdeveloped countries. Mexico needs corn because it is a staple in their diet. America puts ethanol into its gas. This then doubles the cost of corn in Mexico. Therefore Mexicans have to pay double just to have corn. NAFTA had been put in place. Mexican farmers are being destroyed because of American subsidies. Developed countries have become developed by “kicking away the ladder” so no one else can get as developed as they are.

Policies for Economic Development: Recap 4/3/14

"From the 18th Century onward, the industrial success of laissez-faire Britain provided the superiority of free-market and free-trade policies." - Ha Joon Chang.

       What is really being said there is that Great Britain was the front runner in the worlds economy at this point in time. Britain had its had in everything that had to do with trading across the world. They were able to play the role of the supreme world economic power and eventually bring everyone else into the new age of "Liberal economic order says Chang. Other countries were starting to see that their old ways of "mercantilist policies" were no longer as affective and were beginning to adopt or at least make modification in order to change into a freer economic system. This seemed to work for a while until things started to go wrong with the start of the World War I.

       According to Chang, "in response to the ensuing instability of the the world economic and political system, countries once again started to erect trade barriers." By doing this I feel that it further damaged trade relations after the war was over and it took a very long time to get back to the way things were just prior to the war. In another class, we learned that war is good for business but I feel that it may be good for your country specifically but not for the greater good for the whole world. War way help bring your economy back by producing war goods materials and other goods but if you have no one to trade with on a global scale, you could very easily fall right back into where you were before it all started. How do you feel about war production verses international trade? Does it help benefit international trade by opening new trading post with other countries that are supporting you or does it  overall hurt the whole world?

       After the conclusion of World War I and World War II, there was an agreement met that helped make a significant move in the right direction in trade liberalization through the early GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariff) talks.

Recap for 3/28

This past week we discussed capitalism in relation to the Great Depression and the idea of changing neoclassical economics through Keynesian influences. Up to this point, what was known as "American capitalism" was seen as almost a solid fact of life that shouldn't be tampered with. The hit the Great Depression put on the economy changed this perspective forever. People began to doubt the system they loved and knew. Times of hardship brought some to believe that unchecked capitalist systems would continuously bring times of depression and recession, damaging the working class and poor to a severe extent.

Before the Great Depression, there was the prosperous 20's. A time when everyone was raking in the big bucks and the U.S. economy was flourishing. This all came tumbling down in 1929 when the stock market crashed and the Great Depression began. The capitalist economy that Americans loved had failed them and their belief in the system was in the balance. Appleby explains that "the Depression had exposed two great weaknesses of capitalism: its wayward oscillations between good and bad times and the vastly unequal distribution of wealth it produced" (291).  According to her claim, capitalism fluctuates between good and bad times often and the unequal distribution of wealth was causing issues with the working classes.

American leaders knew a change had to be made to capitalism in order to avoid another disaster and central planning wasn't the answer so Keynesian ideals were adopted and more government involvement over the market was introduced. Neoclassical economics had failed the American public so changes weren't the worst idea, but some were weary to a new version of capitalism.

I think it's interesting that that capitalism of the early 1900's doesn't really exist anymore because the Depression caused people to reflect upon the pros and cons of capitalism and decide what changes were necessary. This reminds me of the financial crisis of 2008. Unchecked bank and financial business practices took a wrong turn and had the potential to cripple the economy on an international scale. Global leaders and economists reflected upon the situation and current state of capitalism and had to make decisions on government involvement and the good for all. I think we're still trying to figure out how to best organize our economy. What are your thoughts on the relation between the Depression and crisis of 2008? Do you think adjustments still need to be made in order to further avoid catastrophes that capitalism may cause (according to Appleby)?

Excellent article on income inequality and global capitalist trends

You should read this piece, which discusses a new book by Piketty (a French economist) that argues 21st century capitalism is where the system's central contradiction is becoming more and more evident, leading to staggering income inequality. Some of his argues echo ones we've encountered in class. Can any of you identify some connections?

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/03/piketty-looks-at-inequality-in-six-charts.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Neoclassical Economics isn't working!

In class this week we focused on why neoclassical economics wasn’t working. It is an economic system based on exchanges. People exchange labor for wages then that money is exchanged to buy commodities. It also preached the individuals wants to maximizing profits. The idea of individualism asks many questions. Individual liberty creates the betterment for individuals but is it better everyone? When people make choices that help them become wealthy does it help the betterment of others?  For neoclassical economics to work everyone involved would need to be a rational economic actor. As Dr. Gannon asked us in class most of the time people don’t know what to do with their money. It is because we cannot predict the future. If we could predict the future then we would all make the best economic choices and be well off financially. These theories are always good on paper but do not make sense in real life. When questions about the 2008 crisis were not able to be answered by neoclassical economist the tides seemed to be turning to a Paradigm shift.

March 7 recap on challenging Neoclassical Economics

The readings for Friday offer us the author's critique on Neoclassical Economics. The author describe several guiding and mathematical principles used in Neoclassical thinking as well as a few of the shakier concepts that it is based on. In short, consumers will always seek to get the highest utility within their means, and entrepreneurs will always seek the greatest profit. According to Neoclassical Economics as long as consumers and entrepreneurs fulfill their duties in this regard social welfare will benefit. It is postulated that their is a 'bliss point' or a Pareto Optimum in which once all labor and capital is harnessed for maximum efficiency individuals living standards will be as good as they can get.

As our authors point out, Neoclassical economists take it for granted the a free market capitalist society will always work toward this 'bliss point' for granted, and that if you consider other possibilities it doesn't hold up based on the mathematical principles they've put forward. His other critique is on the methodology used in Neoclassical microeconomics which take individual human choices as being constant and uniform. Using Hedonist psychology, it is assumed that all goods have the same worth to everyone, and that all human behavior is based on maximizing utility based on that. The way that society reaches the bliss point is through 'Pareto improvements' which are changes that increase the welfare of some or all without decreasing the welfare of anyone.

Why do you think, as our author claims, that Neoclassical economics the most prevalent school of economic thought today? If we say that the bliss point is just an arrow with Neoclassical Economics being the bulls eye painted around it is there anything that could be realistically substituted that would allow these theories to still hold true?

Recap of 3/7

In this week’s class the word we most talked about was imperialism. Imperialism is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military. In class we discussed how capitalism is just like imperialism. In class we also got see all of the country’s that were taken over because of imperialism.

There is several similarities between capitalism and imperialism. A couple of examples would be that both have social injustices that go along with capitalism (rich get richer) and imperialism (invading and annexing another country).  Expansion and wealth are key in both. Competition is key because you want to get rid of all you competitors. The last example is consumerism if you want something and that weak country has it then go get it.

Leisure class- still important today

This week we discussed Thorstein Veblen’s criticism of neoclassical economists. Veblen was trying to make people aware that production was a group effort and that no one person did anything completely on their own. According to Veblen, neoclassical economists created a loophole for capitalists that allowed them to unfairly keep the profits from production, when in reality they were not doing much to deserve any of the profits. Capitalists were just one part of the process. At times they were not even responsible for overseeing the work that was going on in their corporations. Instead they hired managers to do the work they should have been doing, the work they were getting compensated for, for them.

Neoclassical economics

On Monday we watch a video on Marx's, the film was about how Marx's was significant to capitalism. This is the link if you want to check it out. http://vikingvoyage.grandview.edu:2162/PortalViewVideo.aspx?xtid=51976 

On Wednesday we talked about "neoclassical economics" which focuses on the determination of price, outputs and income in the market through supply and demand.
The neoclassical school of economics, and one of it most important branch is the Austrian school of economics; it shaped the way we debate economics and economic theories.
Jevons, Manger and Walras began their work independently but some how ended up with the same ideas. They all took a scientific approach to economics.



On Friday we watched a film on Andrew Carnegie. This is the link if you want to watch the video
http://vikingvoyage.grandview.edu:2162/PortalViewVideo.aspx?xtid=42467
We were asked to answers this question. In what ways did Andrew Carnegie embody the characteristics of late 19th century capitalism that we've read and discussed?

Recap 2/14

This week in class we talked about Karl Marx and his thoughts on Capitalism. Karl Marx was an advocate for industrial workers and was one of the first to critique capitalism.

Karl Marx's Critique...and Batman?

        This week we studied the writings and theories of Karl Marx. The first question posed was why is Karl Marx so important when studying capitalism? Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (great short video here) and his theories were the basis for Communist leaders. So why should we study it? This is because he was the first to truly criticize and find an alternative to capitalism. In studying, one needs to see both sides of the subject in order to fully understand the information. Marx takes the capitalist theories and refutes them. He then takes them to a final conclusion and identifies the major problems. He found problems because he believed in a sustained articulation of the historical process.

            Marx and Engels based their theory off of class struggle. They believed that all of history is based off of this idea; “The Motor of History.” The cycle that drives historical development goes THESIS --> ANITHESIS --> SYNTHESIS --> and back to THESIS and on. History did not start with capitalism. It began with primitive Accumulation to Feudalism to Capitalism (Industrial Capitalism) which then leads to Communism. Each transition has and will be accompanied by a revolutionary struggle. The question, though, is not if there will be a revolution, but when will it happen.

They named the two classes the “bourgeoisie” and the “proletariat.” The bourgeoisie were the capitalists and owned the means of production. The proletariat were the working class and only owned their labor power. This inequality lead to power relations. These were not natural law as Adam Smith had said it should be. This is because the people made choices that were not naturally driven. The monopolies (bourgeoisie) had more industry and therefore could destroy their opponents and competition. This then made less bourgeoisie and more proletariat. Alienation removed the workers from production, etc. All the workers then get are the wages from their labor. If you are having any trouble understanding the difference between these two classes, you should watch "The Dark Knight Rises." I've provided a very interesting, yet short article here explaining why this relates. (Do you feel in charge?)

Marx believed the bourgeoisie were paving the way for their own destruction. They would oppress and create more proletariat. This means that the proletariat would eventually have to revolt. The bourgeoisie had private property unlike that of the proletariat. This lead to the mentality of the bourgeoisie to be “all mine” (my factory, my workers, etc.). They were oppressing the workers. “How man oppresses man, oppress the many.” The question then arises, how could they get so many people to be okay with all of it? It is a completely idea when looked at through the eyes of capitalism. In capitalism some acquire wealth and some do not. Individualism has destroyed larger social connections. One can’t be surprised if there is discontent from the lower classes.

Marx did not believe that capitalism could be the final stage, while others believed that it was the peak of civilization and the fulfillment of human progress. Marx believed that the capitalistic view was not wholly accepted as the world value. This goes against what Smith, Ricardo, and others believed. Marx saw capitalism as just a stage of historical development. Just because we are here does not mean we have to stay here. He warns not to accept today’s view as universal. It is not good for all time and for all people. Not everyone is guided by the marketplace or exchange society. Marx says capitalism is what makes us selfish. If capitalism is removed, then selfishness would be removed. An analogy that was provided in class was the idea of walking on the moon. “If I can walk on Earth with no oxygen tank, etc. then I can walk on the moon in the same fashion.” Just because something works here, does not mean that it will work everywhere. This is why one can’t apply capitalism rules as a world view.

We are then left with the question why does pure communism (Marx’s theory at its core) not work? The one theory we talked about in class was human nature. We are ingrained to better ourselves. We all have some type of internal motivation and with the proper incentive we will find a way to get what we want. It goes against this to try have total equality. One can see the failure of pure communism with the Soviet Union. Lenin picked and chose which parts of Marx’s theories he wanted to use. When going back to "The Dark Knight Rises" article you can see the failure there as well. What other ways does Pure Communism not work?

The communist manifesto

On Monday we talked about karl Marxs, he created philosophical and sociological critique of capitalism. His theories have impacted our world today in a big way; he criticized capitalism,  one of his criticism was that capitalism was another fkrm of class based society,  in other words social classes were not based on bloodlines but through ownership. Capitalism had control over the lower class since most of the lower class could not get the basic necessities. He also said that as long as class distinction persist exploitation will continue.  We also talked about the communist manifesto, the bourgeoisie and the capitalist. The two classes has conflict and the reason for that was inequality,  one group had power and the other didn't,  the capitalist own the means of productions where the proletarian owned the labor power but the capitalist set the tune because they own the businesses,  we didn't have class on Wednesday and I missed class on Friday, jm sorry for that, what were some of marx theories and what were some of implications?

Recap 2/7

Recapping this week: from the growth of steel production to Social Darwinism. At the beginning of the week we talked about the American Industrial Revolution, in which steel and oil production started to boom. There was the steel race of 1870, in which people were trying to produce steel faster and give others the ability to buy it cheaper. This was called the Bessemer process, which allowed for mass steel production from molten pig iron. A huge part of the steel race was the start of the American Railroad system that was allowing people to ride from Utah to San Francisco. The use of oil also grew during this time, being used for gas, kerosene, etc..

Winners and Losers

When we left off on Monday we talked about how the American Industrial Revolution changed the economy. The US changed from a rural republic to a nation with a new urban identity. Big businesses were fueling these moves to urban cites for the American people. The new railroad system was the first big business that helped shaped the new world of America. Railroads would need a more efficient way to make steel. When Andrew Carnegie mastered how to make steel cheaper and at a fast rate he would own the monopoly of the steel industry, and would revolutionize the way businesses were run. Steel and railroads brought jobs to those moving into the city. Railroads ran on steam engines and created the need for more coal, consequently coal mining would be another business that would boom during the Industrial Revolution. It was the season of innovation and technology continued to create new ways of doing things easier and helped businesses to prosper. The government was pro-business and did little for labor reform. The winners of the industrial revolution were the owners of the big businesses and the losers were the workers. Big business seemed to own the government while most of its working population struggle for the bare necessities. Child labor was a big part of the new industrial era, and families were okay with that because sometimes the children were the only ones with jobs. Having more children gave the average family more chance of income.  The industrial Revolution was not just in the United States but also in Europe, all around the world workers were struggling to survive in this new era of industrial life.  The question is why did big business seem to own the government when the government is supposed to be for its people and not just the rich?

Friction Within Industrial Advancement

Recapping this week's readings has been a bigger picture of the differences within the working class and the capitalists. The globalization of Europe to the United States is proven to make the capitalistic society even stronger than before. The resources of the United States, and the refinement of iron is how the transportation system of the railroad made it possible to transport goods across the United States to be shipped to other parts of the world. Germany has come into play a bigger part as well, with socialistic ideas on the rise and the fate of the working class is a common concern.

Class Struggle, Then and Now

Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto tells a brief world history in class warfare. From Roman patricians and plebeians, to the (then) modern Bourgeoisie, Marx tells us of a cycle of exploitation of the lower classes by the higher ones. The difference, according to Marx, between previous class struggles and 19th century Capitalism is that the middle classes have vanished, there is only the capitalists and the proletariat. With the noble aristocracy no longer prevalent the state has become a servant of the bourgeoisie. Enabled by machines, everyone who is not part of the bourgeoisie is a poor wage earner.

" It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science,
into its paid wage labourers."

Marx tells us of the commoditization of humans, who can survive only as long as their labor increases capital for the upper class. Having been separated from the fruits of their labor, people are subject to the same laws of supply and demand previously reserved for material goods.

Communism is an ideology that ignores individuals and national boundaries, to promote the general well-being of all workers. It condemns property owners as profiting off the labor of others, and laments laborers lack of property. Marx and Engels lay out ten points "generally applicable" in most countries, the gist of which are state control over infrastructure, heavy taxation, abolition of property, and an even distribution of population to lessen the distinction between agriculture and industry.

While most people have abandoned the ideas of a total communist utopia as outlined by Marx and Engels the ideas of socialism and a state more active on the behalf of the people are still a part of political agendas and indeed practiced to varying degrees by modern nations. Likewise the notion of 'class warfare' is still a theme in literature and politics.

Marx's writings were certainly shaped by the times he lived in, but are some of his ideas still applicable today? Our modern economy looks drastically different from 19th century industrial Germany but what, if any, similarities are there? Is rhetoric like 'the one percent' akin to bourgeoisie? Are the social policies practiced in many European countries and to a lesser extent in America attributable to Marx and Communism or something different entirely? And finally how does Marx and Communism fit into the story of Capitalism?

Recap of the week 1/31

During this week of class discussing we talked about a couple of different readings Ricardo, Hunt and mark Lautzenheiser. We also watched a video about to better explain the thoughts and ideals about capitalism.

Recap for 1/31 - Ideas Matter

            This week we examined the ideas of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus, as well as the capitalist views of David Ricardo. At the end of class on Wednesday Dr. Gannon concluded by discussing that ideas matter. The ideology of capitalism emerged during a time that the world was changing and people began to question feudalism and other dominant ways of thought. People made the decision to reject traditionalist views and create their own enlightened ideas, like Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo.

Growing Pains

     For England to be able to have an industrialist economy that worked, they had to get past some growing pains, which were causing some friction between members of society. The area of concern for the readings of this week was around labor issues.

Recapping the Weeks end

We are a consumer nation, a nation that buys and sale manufactured goods and services everywhere in the world. This is because of what is also known as national economy, each nation somewhat depends on the others to do their parts for the better of the world. If that involve America buying products from China and vise versa, this is called Absolute Advantage. Smith talked about "Absolute Advantage", this is a means of spreading the holed of Mercantilism on a global scale. Trading certain goods for other goods across different nations. Each nation has its on Comparative advantages. Portugal is good and making wine, Britain is good at making beer, they could trade and help each others economic systems but wont do it because there are such high tariffs on the goods.

Brief video on Adam Smith

Here's a link to the video we watched Monday, in case you missed it or want to look at it again (GV login required).

Adopting Capitalism

      By reflecting on this week's readings, the risk taking which began with the agrarian culture to be more innovative, and putting the puzzle together to change the way people produced food had a great impact on the beginning of capitalism. They figured out they had to have larger yields of food with fewer people to produce it. The improvements in farming, was the the major area where capitalism got roots to grow and flourish into what it is today.

 

            This week we dived deeper into the roots of capitalism and how expansionism and globalization played key roles in birthing capitalism. First, there was a definite distinction made between trade and capitalism. Appleby makes a strong attempt to argue how trade and capitalism are not the same. She argues her point, of course using Britain as her example, by describing how trade existed long before capitalism came onto the scene, and yet trade did not lead to the society that capitalism creates.

The Rise of Capitalism in Europe

Thus far, we've been looking at the emergence of a global economy which began (in many ways, at least) around 1500. European voyages of exploration and conquest opened new markets for both exports and imports, to be sure, but perhaps even more importantly, these voyages fundamentally altered the relationships between Europeans and the rest of the world. There had already been trade between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, for example, but the scale, scope, and tone of that trade changed after 1500. Europeans became conquerors and colonizers; as Stearns points out, many Asian markets were "opened" to European trade only by violence.

Capitalism is?

Capitalism is an economical system, were private owners with the intentions of making profits control trade, industry, and means of production. Capitalism has many different characteristics including capital accumulation, competitive markets, and wage labor. In a capitalistic society businesses are not owned by government, which gives citizens the capability of owning and making a successful business.  

What is Capitalism?

 

 

Capitalism is the economical way of life. The concept is to make money in selling of goods to others. In capitalism anyone has the right to sell to other people, and make as much money as they want to make. The more money someone has the more opportunity you have in the society you live in. The old saying is that "money talks", which means if you have the money you can do just about anything you want to do. Without capitalism there would not have been innovative ideas of how to produce more products, and sell the products to other societies. There is downfalls to how capitalism works, and one is the amount of poverty there is in an capitalistic society. My question is about capitalism is does everyone have a equal chance to opportunities to be able to experience the American Dream.

What is Capitalism?

The word capitalism seems to get thrown around a lot these days. Many seem to be for it, and many seem to be against it. Some are taught the evils and others are taught the good of capitalism. Even the Pope had something to say about capitalism. In order to learn more about it and understand the concept, I first went to dictionary.com to get a definition:

"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth"

Capitalism is very much about big business and it's control. Automatically this can set people off, but it can be a good thing if these private individuals and corporations are willing to have their production, distribution, and exchange of wealth in a healthy and giving manner. One great book I started reading years ago that is in defense of capitalism is Arguing with Idiots by Glenn Beck.

What is Capitalism?

Capitalism has to do with trade and production of materials. One of the main goals of capitalism in to make a profit, which is a  common for any business or company. Companies get to determine which products are traded and with which country they will trade with. They also get to determine the prices in which the product or material will be traded for, which usually is set high enough that they will profit from the purchase. It can deal with either private businesses or larger companies.

What is Capitalism?

It is here we find the separation of classes between those who can provide the labor and those who have the means to pay them. We see the growing divisions in today's society between the middle class, being over taxed to pay for the poor, while the wealthy continue to pad their pockets. Capitalism, in it's pure form, with very limited abilities to meddle and only to monitor, can have a very good hand in economics.

The Begining of what Capitalism Means to ME

CAPITALISM:

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

 

Now that we know the definition of it what does it mean? In today's world the real definition of capitalism is "I will do whatever it take to make sure that my stock, my company, and my bank account will continue to grow until I am one of the most powerful people around. Major corporations are more about themselves instead of putting that money back into the economy and helping everyone else prosper. Some of you may say that this statement is one that may come across slightly socialistic BUT it is quite the opposite. I believe that making money is the cornerstone of today's society but once we have people in our own country who have to decide between meals for their children or transpiration to and from work too make money to support their kids, where others throw away millions on silly things such as multiple cars and boats simply because they can; that is where I see a problem.

Very Basic Meaning of Capitalism

Capitalism is a particular system on how trade is run in a country. It allows for individual people, or corporations, to own businesses privately, instead of businesses and trade being under the control of state powers. Capitalism allows for people to have more individual freedom and to not be so limited by governmental control. It is also known as a free enterprise, obviously referring to the freedom given to individuals to be able own and run businesses.

What is capitalism?
Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profits, rather than by the states.

Welcome!

Welcome to the HIST 380 course blog for Spring, 2014!

Throughout the semester, we'll be building this blog as a class, so you'll need to make sure that you're ready to contribute. To that end, I will be sending you an email inviting you to join this blog as an "Author." You'll need to follow the instructions in that email in order to receive full posting and commenting privileges. Take care of this ASAP!
Thanks, and I look forward to a good semester and a great blog!