Yes, it's too broad.  You need to read a bit further in to see the problem...
And then things get more detailed here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Types_of_capitalism

While I do agree that capitalism describes an "economic system" the very use of that term implies a structured plan, presumedly by human planners, as opposed to a natural & emergent order that develops on it's own if not interfered with by governments or other third parties.

I read it, I question it's accuracy.  I did a google search for other articles on this event, and among those that I could find, no others actually said that she fired 6 shots.  All of them said that she hit him in the face and neck 5 times, and a few mentioned that she had emptied the revolver but still buffaloed the guy by telling him that if he got up she'd shoot again, before running to a neighbor's house with her kids.  I find it very likely that it was a 38 special, but not likely that it was a six shooter.  I have zero evidence, mind you, but experience regarding how often early reporting gets details wrong makes me believe that the writer of this article interpreted "hit five times, empty revolver" to mean that she missed once.  How many reporters do you think have experience with a revolver, and how many only think of wild west movies?  A 38 special in six shots is rare, because they have to be the frame size of a service revolver.  While reducing the capacity by one reduces both weight and frame size significantly, making the 38 special a crediblely compact & concealable weapon.  Which is pretty much how they are used, and thus how manufactures make them.  While I wouldn't doubt that full size frame revolvers are still manufactured, perhaps for "cowboy shooting" competitions, the majority that exist are old handguns from the days that such revolvers were the standard police issue sidearm.  Their numbers are significantly outweighed by the number of 5 shot compact revolvers.  I don't even know if I'd trust such an old handgun to not blow up in my hand, considering the significant advancements in +P powder tech.  The 38 special was originally a black powder round, and has gone through a number of 'revisions' over the past 100+ years of it's existence.

Could she have used a 6 shot 38?  Yes.  I just don't consider that combination likely.

While true, taken alone, that statement does not prove his premise; that monopolies are an equilibrium state of capitalism.  While you provide one reason why, another is the issue of corporations themselves.  Corporations, as they currently exist, are not natural organizations within the context of capitalism ( economic definition) while they probably are within the context of Capitalism (political ideology).  Corporations are, by their very definitions, legal fictions of a nation-state; and thus cannot begin to exist in the absence of a government.  Although the disappearance of the national government may not be fatal to a corporation, due to the probability that any large and well funded corporation could reasonablely function in the place of government within it's own sphere of influence.  Corporations are, in effect, the children of the state that begot them, and may not require the care of the state after a certain maturity and development.

Yet, corporations that operate within the same industry cannot peacefully coexist in the absence of the parental state, so in the case of the fall of that parental state, corporations can be expected to behave badly towards each other and their peers' resources.  Much like the brothers of a recently departed king.  Companies that are wholly owned, however, function as an extention of that owner's own will; representing him both in business and reputation.  While a CEO can shrug off accusations of criminal activity under his charge, because of the distribution of responsibility that the corporate structure cultivates; the whole owner is truly responsible for the wrongdoing of his employees while operating in his employ.  This is not a small difference.

Certainly, but nor is a government a pre-requisite.  It's not inevitable either.  I think that we need to stop and agree on a definition for what capitalism is, for the purposes of this discussion.  As far as I can tell, I am the only person in this tread to point out that more than one popular definition exists.  Also, almost everyone's own understanding of the term varies, even if it generally agrees with one or the other common definition.  Are we talking about the ideological or economic definition of capitalism?

you're going to have to post this one in the electrum thread.

Property rights are encourged by capitalism because efficiencies in markets favor strong property rights within those markets.  It's no secret that governments across human history are practially influenced by the wealthiest among them, and whenever capitalism has been allowed to dominate, the wealthy include those who became wealthy using capitalist principles, whether they understood them as such or not.  While the individial capitalist might favor a monopoly power, his peers resist that for their own ends.  This balance of forces favors the legal establishment and enforcement of property rights.


Scarcity is not a result of property rights.  Scarcity is a result of reality.  I really don't have a method of getting you there from where you are here.  Again, it's provablely true that capitalism exists even in societies that forbid it, and actively work to suppress it.  Thus property rights cannot be a pre-requisite.


Well, I can't prove a negative; but since there is no such thing as a natural and stable monopoly across the recorded history of mankind, I'd wager it's safe to say that she is incorrect on this point. 


Not without a government granted advantage.  Copyright is, by definition, a tempoary monopoly on the reproduction of artworks enforced by government statutes.  Absent the use, or threat of use, of government force; no artist could command a monopoly on similar works, nor on modern machine copies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

That's a hard one to answer, because as a political ideology, capitalism is fairly young, even though elements of it have been rising and falling from favor for thousands of years.  The same can be said of socialism as a coherent ideology.

We would have to be able to type each nation that has ever "collapsed" and be able to determine if they were, practically speaking, more capitalist or more socialist at the point of breakdown.  I doubt that there is an objective method of doing this.

Wow, you really missed the point.

And this one is useful as well, as the main characters are engaging in capitalism at the smallest scale.

http://www.desertislandgame.com/

This is a wonderful resource for anyone trying to improve themselves in this topic.  As a sidenote, she takes donations for support via bitcoin.

http://praxgirl.com/2011/06/10/episode-1-the-introduction/

Be warned though, she and her crew have been doing this for a couple of years now, and have quite a few episodes in the can.  Not only can catching up take some serious time, she doesn't wait for the slow kids if they fall off the back of the bus.

I would contend that formalized property rights are a result of capitalism at work, not a pre-requisite.  It's provablely true that capitalism exists even in places for which it is, directly or indirectly, forbidden.  If the society at large does not recognize the property rights of a capitalist, then he will find a workaround to that limitation.  Thus, strong property rights could not be a requirement.

Considering that there are a number of competing economic theories even today, and in many ways they contradict each other, I don't consider the above statement to be a given.  If you wish to keep it, you're going to have to make that case based upon whatever version of Economics you speak of.


And what is this premise based upon?  There is no evidence to suggest this is true, even temporarily.

I aslo qualified that by limiting that effect to those over 35.  Are you over 35?  If so, I may have to push up my model.

It wouldn't matter.  We aren't even speaking the same language.  To prove that point, just try and define capitalism in one sentence. 

Remember my post the other day, in another thread, wherein I laid bare the reality that most people who argue on obscure Internet forums are actually not capable of changing their minds, regardless of what evidence is presented?

Based on both your most recent conversations here, and your experience in general, would you say my assessment is generally correct or generally incorrect?

Oh, the irony!  The cognative dissonance must be bewildering.

That's not at all what happened.  Microsoft effectively won that fight, and the anti-trust portion of the case was completely dropped.

And then GNU/Linux and MacOSX proceeded to eat their lunch.

And by any objective definition of the term, MS was never a real monopoly, only a temporary market dominator.

I've got a former soviet weapon as well. 

Guys, stop misquoting each other.  Both the article, and I, have pointed out that she used five shots.  The article implies, probably incorrectly, that the revolver was a six shooter.  Odds are high that it was either a 5 shot revolver, or another caliber.  The six round 38 special is a rare animal for a variety of technical reasons, and as far as I am aware, none have been mass produced in over 50 years.  You can get a 22lr revovler in 5, 6 & 8 round versions; and larger caliber revolvers (45?) in rather heavy & large 6 round versions, but a 6 round 38 special cannot be a compact weapon, and as such is uncommon.