Talk:Capital accumulation

This article is simply wrong

In economics capital accumulation is an aggregate increase of "capital stock" (where stock is employed tangible assets as opposed to shares of stock of paper money). The term may be used to refer to an the entire economy. The term may also refer to individual instances of capital stock or capital goods within a firm or as owned by a person or a government. But in such cases it still refers to an expansion in the total amount of productive capacity (perhaps including knowledge (human capital)) within the particular context being addressed.

This article as currently written leans far too much toward "financial capital" as opposed to actual capital goods. And it is being called "Marxist" for that reason. to wit: "Definition of Capital on Marxists.org" .The Trucker (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

glad I'm not the only one who thought this! capital in economics or classical economics refers to manmade factors of production. like factories, or even a taxi cab, or a farmer's hoe. you have the famous triad of land, labour, and capital, with land actually meaning natural resources. capital accumulation is the process by which capital increases over time, for example by savings being channeled via investment into additional capital or by revenue being reinvested in additional capital for the firm.

but yah the vast majority of this article is trash, because apparently the others do not understand the meaning of capital in economics.

and then you have the section like : Demand-led growth models

where all of a sudden they start using the economic definition of capital Meistro1 (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

also capital accumulation is an economic process, it has no "aim". Meistro1 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

let me propose an alternative opening

Definition :

In economics, capital refers to any man made factor of production. The earliest forms of capital were prehistoric and perhaps even predating homo sapiens themselves. When homo erectus fashioned crude hand axes for chopping wood or other productive endeavours, capital entered the world.

The classic triad in economics is land, labour, and capital. Here land refers to any sort of natural resources and labour is the expenditure of effort by individuals. Since antiquity, man has been innovating and employing additional forms of technology to increase the efficiency of his labour. This accumulation of capital, along side technological development has led to a steady increase in production and thus continually higher standards of living as well as higher levels of savings and investment.

With the industrial revolution and the massive increase in production associated with the factory system, capital accumulation began to increase exponentially. This translated into a massive increase in workers wages and greatly improved working conditions over the course of many long, hard decades or even centuries in the English case. Industrialization started with England in the mid 18th century, but did not really get under way in American manufacturing until the late 19th century. Meistro1 (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Image

@Avatar317: Written by those involved in the protest: How is this moral or benefitting the common good? Have we not learned yet that economic systems which promote self wealth accumulation at all costs, without regards to the well-being of workers and the earth, have caused the very predicament we are now in? Why are we so willing to trust solutions from institutions that contributed to the problem?, 1. Des Vallee (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It then later goes on to opposition on capital accumulation and what the protests intended to do. Des Vallee (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's an OPINION piece by ONE person, NOT a journalist DESCRIBING the protest. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: The source is not an someone's random opinion, it's a reliable source (Lutheran World Federation), from a reliable author. Regardless you are right that it is still an opinion piece. With that in mind there is better images such as this one, which has a direct reference to wealth inequality between the 99% and 1% and has a hyperlink in the form of "We are the 99%," therefore I feel that image could be used in the effects section. Thoughts? Des Vallee (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I still don't feel that the Chicago janitors image is helpful either; the words and idea of "Capital accumulation" are never mentioned or displayed in that image.

Something to understand is that Wealth Inequality (We are the 99%) is DIFFERENT from Capital Accumulation. CA is a central concept to Capitalism, but it doesn't inherently mean that those who accumulate wealth will have to have extreme levels of wealth. Anyone who has retirement savings and invests it is participating in CA, including lots of union members with pensions. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The effects of wealth accumulation towards wealth inequality is the specific focus on that section, and so the image would be part of that. The image doesn't need to be an overall perfect descriptor of the article because not the lede image. Des Vallee (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)