Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
You think I should be more tedious?

I won't argue that I could be easier to understand. That's definitely true. Communication through text is a skill I feel I lack. There is probably a way that I could spend less time clarifying my statements. But I think the opposite of (C). It's because of how deeply I've considered these concepts that I feel free to call capitalism and markets the same thing. Granted, that is very confusing to others and doing so is a mistake on my part.
I mean you should be more tedious when choosing between these particular words to ensure that you use them in such a way that is in line with the definitions your audience assumes. Or choose to not use them when they will confuse the audience.

If you really believe that these concepts are identical, then I suggest to choose a word which best conveys that meaning and to use it consistently. I accept the onus of figuring out your intention, if you are consistent.


For me, Capitalism is not "the" market. These are very different things which are not even on the same conceptual plane.

Capitalism is one type of economic strategy. Socialism and communism are competing examples of economic strategies (or whatever terminology). These are strategies, or ideals, which are asserted to guide a network of wealth distribution.

The world market is the agglomeration of all wealth distribution networks, and is itself a single network. Likewise, all the subnets which compose it act independently to the extent that they have self-rule.I don't know at what point it's super-macro economics to consider the world economy as a single entity or sub-micro... as pertains to my questions of local pockets.

My point is that the idealogy which drives a human endeavor is not the human endeavor. Furthermore, I feel that it is dangerous and subtle to conflate the two.