----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Patrick Gunning <[log in to unmask]> made a valid objection 
to my approach: 
 
> Mircea, it seems to me that you are using two different meanings of the 
term "capital." 
> 
> > My personal belief is that 'capitalism' described well the developed 
world economy in 19th century to just about 1950; _capital_ was the main 
scarce factor of growth and it justified profits. 
> 
> Here, capital is a factor of production. 
> 
> > 'Market economy' describes better the current state of the world: 
capital can be obtained plentifully through a well-developed market; but the 
scarce factor to make it work are favorable _markets_, i.e. intense consumer 
desires and/or cheap, organized resources (technology, labor, nature). 
> 
> Here, capital appears to be money. Of course money can be used to buy 
machines, tools, buildings, etc. but it can also be used to buy technology, 
labor, and rights to "natural" resources. 
 
    In both cases, I intend to use 'capital' both in the sense of long-use 
assets and the money needed to buy them. In the 'deferred consumption' by 
'roundabout ways to produce' theory of capital, the decision to abstain from 
consumption to save is paralelled by the decision to invest the money 
(socially recognized signs of value) in new capital. Ultimately it's 
changing the purpose of use of resources: old capital, labor, natural etc. 
to make new capital instead of consumption goods. And I include durable 
consumption goods (a stock of TV sets etc.) under capital - as a means to 
substitute other current consumption goods (a flow of newspapers). 
 
    Perhaps I have used 'market economy' in an improperly extended 
sense, not realising the very strong connotations the expression already 
had. Then my proposed notion for the modern economies should be 
_marketing economy_. 
 
    I believe the transition from basic 'capitalism' to 'marketing economy' 
 was still around 1950-1960, when the first large fortunes were made by 
better marketing instead of better production, aided by mass-media such as 
radio and TV. When did Procter&Gamble make its major advances in earnings, 
profits etc ? 
 
    Another big difference is that 'capitalism' describes an economy 
sufficiently far away from its 'saturation level' of production. That is, 
it has too little capital given the current technological level. 
    A 'marketing economy' is closer to the saturation level, and advances 
are possible mainly through technological progress and social change which 
makes this technology adopted. Marketing is a commercial means to push these 
social changes. 
 
    It's the difference between the r-phase and K-phase of development in 
population biology (e.g. after a fire: fast-growing weeds, then more 
efficient trees, until they reach a 'climax' height, barely able to sustain 
itself). A simple logistical growth model can explain this. 
 
    The analogy stops because 'technological improvement' of trees by 
evolution is much, much slower than human technological progress. 
 
Thank you for thinking on this, 
Mircea-Valer Pauca 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]