The below is from a FB post:
Rather than an 'ism', I credit the build-up to all the individual human actions which worked together (intentionally, or unintentionally) for the common good of the Nation. Try not to think of 'nationalism', or 'state-ism' here - either adds too much reification into the thought process.
In simple terms, Capitalism is defined as an economic environment comprising basically of two sets of people, owners and workers. An essential feature of this kind of economic system is private ownership. The owner has full control of the means of production and profits are due to him. Production is determined by the free market, as well as the prices for goods and services, plus distribution. A free market is one that is not regulated by government, but rather driven by demand and supply. The free market theory contends that an ideal free market is where entities are exchanged voluntarily after a seller and buyer mutually agree on a price, without any intervention from external influences. Capitalism and Free market economy are somewhat entwined as one is an integral part of the other. However, in their true definitions they differ. While capitalism refers more to the production of wealth, the term free market dwells more on the exchange of wealth in various methods. Capital is an essential basic element for both capitalism and free market economies. However, free competition is not an essential element of capitalism but of ‘free markets’. This is because in capitalism, capital owners have a lot of dominance over the means of production and as such may yield unfair influence. It is basic knowledge that land, labor and capital were largely considered to be the classic elements of production but with the growth of the industrial age, the importance of capital became a big determining factor in production because industrial capital gave increased productivity. It was thus feared that inevitably, capital owners would become so powerful that they would be able to profit from the unfair exchange terms they impose. Free markets do not define capitalism, although they are an essential part of it. Because there’s minimal or no influence at all in a free market economy, capital is employed to optimal use. Whereas in capitalism, the free market will determine the price. The concentration of capital and means of production in a handful of individuals or companies distorts the supply side of the free market model. In a time when government was much more limited than now, Congress passed several laws to help promote competition by outlawing unfair methods of competition: The Sherman Act, the nation's oldest antitrust law, was passed in 1890 making it illegal for Capital owners who should in theory be competitors to make secret agreements with each other that would limit competition, thus creating higher prices. Apparently, capitalism was not providing the theoretical competition which was expected of the Free Market model, eh?
Summary: Free market is mainly concerned with wealth exchange while capitalism leans more on wealth creation. Free markets are a key component of capitalism although they do not fully define what capitalism is. A free market is driven by ‘demand and supply’ leading to free competition without interference while in capitalism, CAPITAL OWNERS CAN VICIOUSLY CONTROL THE TERMS OF TRADE, thus contradicting what might have happened in a pure individual human action scenario.
Who can discern a difference here?
This guy can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdrBeBwHenk
Here's a follow-on for Shohn Trjck who liked the above - “Capitalism,” or rather “capitalisme,” first appeared as a term used to describe a political-economic system of production in French radical literature of the mid-19th century; prior to that, the term was simply used to refer to the line of work that capitalists were in—that is, making money by lending money at interest, by investing in other people’s businesses, or by personally owning capital and hiring labor to work it. The original uses of the term had nothing in particular to do with free markets in the factors of production. Louis Blanc, in Organisation du Travail, defined “capitalisme” as “the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others,” and when Proudhon, who was in favor of free markets, wrote of “capitalisme” in La Guerre et la Paix, he defined it as an “Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour.”
Etymology
Borrowing from French capitalisme (“the condition of one who is rich”); equivalent to capital + -ism. First used in English by novelist William Thackeray in 1854.
Perhaps you should introduce "Dispute Resolution" after the emergence of "Currency". Under "Banking (Deposits)" you introduce "mercantilism". This is a problem because mercantilism is done on behalf of the state, which hasn't yet emerged. Perhaps you meant "merchandising"? Definition - "Mercantilism, economic theory and practice common in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century that promoted governmental regulation of a nation's economy for the purpose of augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers. It was the economic counterpart of political absolutism." Important point: It was unbalanced mercantilism that spurred the American Revolutionaries into declaring Independence from Britain who were reaping wealth from America to finance their imperialistic aspirations. You might benefit from reading this: http://radgeek.com/gt/2011/10/Markets-Not-Capitalism-2011-Chartier-and-Johnson.pdf
The capitalism described above does not occur in a vacuum and must be preceded by a voluntary free market which creates the capital and the wealth. "Capital" in its purest form is the result of larger and larger scales of success in voluntary transactions. The above takes its definition as if it were in converse to communism. It borders on a definition of "crony capitalism". Friedman and Mises and Hayek would vehemently disagree.
This is a difficult topic to discuss. In essence, it's a description problem. I think the good professor showed that there is a significant distinction between two things which are definitely not pure in the theoretical sense. I disagree with him regarding the substitution of markets for capitalism. He has posted his opinion on a high-tech internet which is born from centuries of risk-taking capitalists who have incrementally advanced science and technology! But I will allow that I think that the markets are somewhat less corruptible than the world of capital (the temptation is smaller). But the devil is in the details. We all know that (some) monopolies have been suppressed by government (so they say). I worked for a huge multinational company that operated what may be called reverse-monopoly. It's all about power & $$$. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
I'm pleased, because this view that "the capitalism described above does not occur in a vacuum . . ." compliments my original post claim: "Rather than an 'ism', I credit the build-up to all the individual human actions which worked together (intentionally, or unintentionally) for the common good of the Nation." Ism's are mere reifications.