Capitalism or capitalist economy is referred to as the economic system

where the factors of production such as capital goods, labour, natural

resources, and entrepreneurship are controlled and regulated by private
businesses.

Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own

and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set
prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society.

In a capitalist economy, the production of all the goods and services is

dependent on the demand and supply in the market that is also known as
a market economy. It is different from the central planning system that is
also known as a command economy or a planned economy.

The main characteristic of a capitalist economy is the motive of earning

profit. The capitalist economy is also characterised by the presence of free
markets and lack of participation by the government in regulating the
business.

 Capitalism has many unique features, some of which include a two-

class system, private ownership, a profit motive, minimal government
intervention, and competition.

The origin of capitalism can be traced back to 18th century England that
was undergoing the industrial revolution at that time. As there is no
government intervention in this type of economy, it is also known as a
free market economy.

 Germany is one of the world's great capitalist countries. The

defining characteristics of a capitalist society are the ownership
of private property, wages, capital accumulation, and a
competitive marketplace.
 Japan is the only example of collective capitalism in practical
form. It stems from the economic and social restructuring of
Japan following World War II. Japan currently has the world's
3rd largest economy by Purchasing Power Parity and the 2nd
largest by market exchange rates.
 The three pillars of democratic capitalism include economic
incentives through free markets, fiscal responsibility, and a
liberal moral-cultural system that encourages pluralism. So, the
 US is often seen as having a democratic capitalist,
political,economy system.

Characteristics of Japanese capitalism

Traditional economic theory advocates that free competition is a source of sound economic
development, maximum social welfare, innovation and equitable prices. Industrialised
nations are always in the position of trying to balance free competition and prevent
monopolies.

Globalisation is both a result and a force of modernisation and

capitalist expansion, entailing the integration of all economic activity
(local, national, and regional) into a 'global' market place: that is, a
market place that transcends geo-political borders and is not
subject to regulation by nation states.

In addition, from the 80s globalisation caused a decrease of prices for

resource input due to the seismic shift in market orientation towards
information based products as well as the application of information
technology to the production process. Therefore this is a bad news for
those peripheral countries as the majority of their exports are primary
commodities.

In few words, globalisation seems to be more gainful to the advanced

countries and it is totally ineffective to solve the main problems of the third
world countries. It is obvious that globalisation and liberalisation are
incapable to solve the main problems of the developing nations such as
poverty, increasing unemployment and underemployment, inflation, human
deprivation, hunger, social tensions and civil wars, disruptions of millions of
people and so on. Back in the days especially in the 80s and in the 90s
these issues were associated to crisis and environmental degradation
caused by human beings, which have also been today’s main issues of
peripheral countries.

However, natural resources are often seen as one of the major problems of
inequality in developing countries. Having said that, if we have a closer look
at the effects of globalisation in developing countries it is noticeable
(especially in the 70s and 80s) that inequality in some regions of the global
south has decreased, but consequently it has increased in the global North,
reason being is that globalisation made it easier for unskilled labour in poor
countries to migrate without any problem, to developed countries. For
instance the USA has witnessed a widening of wage inequality due to this
phenomena. Unfortunately, according to Williamson (2000) it wasn’t the
same case for Latin America and East Asia as they experienced an
increase and not decline of wage inequality. Even though economic theory
suggest that a greater openness to the world trade in developing countries
will reduce inequality.

In conclusion, globalisation reduces the need of the government’s

intervention in the economy, and the nations become more dependent on
each other. This interdependency may be beneficial in a particular way to
the advanced countries as they have a strong capitalist system, that is very
unlikely to collapse any moment soon. Globalisation doesn’t seem to be
significantly effective for the developing nations due to the fact that it
doesn’t solve the fundamental economic challenges their facing. Even
thought the Third World countries can’t avoid the negative economic
impacts the globalisation may cause. Therefore the only solution is to
minimize the cost of globalisation, in order to avoid a lot of damages. It is
also important to remember that globalisation also gives some
opportunities to the developing countries, therefore it would be wise to take
advantage of that.

About Capitalism
As such, these organizations tend to prioritize maintaining wealth,
so they only pay those who have employment with them or those
who have high wealth. This leads to certain nations having higher
rates of poverty and joblessness, which negatively impacts their
economy, environment and population.

Laissez-faire is an approach of hands-off who cares what happens, while

regulated capitalism is the effect of internal regulation of companies or
economies not directly controlled by legal mandate, ie…market forces like
supply and demand and strategic choice by boards of directors.

The results of this study indicate that, among advanced capitalist democracies, a laissez-faire
economic orientation produces a diminished quality of life, measured as an increase in social
costs. While each of the countries included in this project adheres to market principles, those
that seek to regulate economic activity for the sake of social objectives are less susceptible to
maladies resulting from market failure, such as poor health, low literacy, and high crime.
These findings lend credence to the arguments of the scholarly tradition critical of laissez-
faire capitalism, including authors such as Marx and Polanyi, and cast serious doubts on the
minimal-government assertions of neo-liberal advocates. At the very least, it is clear that
efficiency can mean different things, so that economic efficiency and social efficiency may
have two very different connotations. More to the point, a statistically significant negative
relationship between social costs and economic freedom would have validated the claims of
the proponents of neo-liberalism. Through its creation of economic winners and losers,
laissez-faire capitalism enhances the well-being of some, while leaving others behind
economically and socially. Returning to the distinction between wealth creation and wealth
distribution, neo-liberal advocates might scale back their argument by pointing out that
laissez-faire capitalism better society by increasing the size of the overall economic pie.
However, per capita indicators such as GDP may obscure the harsh effect that an unequal
distribution of that economic pie has on peoples’ lives, and there is little or no evidence that
the laissez-faire capitalist economies of the Liberal model perform significantly better than
the more regulated capitalist economies of the Social Democrat and Christian Democratic
models. As such, the neo-liberal ideology faces the danger of becoming little more than a
selfish and transparent justification for greed, privilege, and inequality. From a policy
standpoint, the results of this study imply a simple conclusion. It is not to suggest that market
economies should be eliminated in favor of planned economies, but the evidence produced in
this study does make it clear that, among prosperous and stable countries, governments
certainly have an important role to play in managing economic objectives within the context
of a larger societal perspective. For example, if George Bush (2000) really wants to ‘‘leave
no child behind,’’ privatizing the education system would seem not to be the answer, and
would in fact seem to be one way of insuring that some children will surely get left behind.
The answer would seem to be increasing the role of the federal government in funding public
education so that students in poor districts receive the same quality of education as those in
wealthy communities, rather than dismantling the public system in favor of privatization. If
one is serious about ridding one’s society of poverty, illiteracy, poor health, and crime, active
government programs are much more likely to be effective than an overreliance on market
solutions. In fact, these results indicate that market-based solutions to these problems are only
likely to make them worse. Though somewhat tangential and highly disputed, the effects of
globalization add a note of urgency to the continuing debate over liberalization, regulation,
and welfare programs. In essence, increasing economic interdependence hits modern societies
with a ‘‘double-whammy.’’ First, due to the increase in international business opportunities,
workers in advanced capitalist democracies are more likely than ever to be adversely affected
by market forces. Abundant cheap labor in developing countries draws manufacturing
operations away from developed states, fundamentally altering the nature of domestic labor
markets. At the same time, there is a noticeable trend toward a reduction or ‘‘retrenchment’’
in the types of social services which might aid those workers (see the edited volumes by
Kitschelt et al. 1999, or Pierson 2001). There are a couple of major (and related) explanations
for this decrease in welfare programs. On one hand, as Ruggie (1994) notes, the ‘‘embedded
liberal compromise’’ (p. 508) between states and citizens that resulted in extensive Keynesian
welfare programs was always expected to be limited in duration. Therefore, those taxpayers
whose contributions largely fund such projects are becoming increasingly hostile to them. On
the other hand, globalization itself may reduce the ability of states to provide social programs,
even if they’re ideologically inclined to do so (Strange 1996). According to this logic,
corporations have the ability to play governments against each other as they search for the
most business-friendly environment. In an effort to attract businesses, national governments
therefore may face pressures to engage in a ‘‘race to the bottom,’’ by reducing or eliminating
the corporate taxes that largely fund welfare services. To a lesser extent, the relationship
between governments and wealthy individuals follows the same pattern. The net result is that,
at a time when welfare services may be needed more than ever (due to the dislocation caused
by integration), states may be less willing and/or able to provide them. If this line of
reasoning is correct (and it is still an open issue), what does this trend portend for capitalist
democracies? In our efforts to achieve a true ‘‘science’’ of social interaction, an important
component of our work is the ability to predict (MacRae 1986). With this notion in mind, the
true value of this project lies in its ability to anticipate a future trend. Since social costs are
related to economic openness as the results generated herein confirm, then as the forces of
globalization (nurtured by U.S. hegemony) push other advanced capitalist democracies
toward economic liberalization, we should expect social costs of the type analyzed here to
rise in those countries. For example, European Union harmonization rules may force Social
Democratic members to scale back their traditionally generous government programs. The
results of this study suggest we should see a resulting rise in social costs should such policy
cutbacks be enacted. Future research resulting from this project should thus focus on 1)
tracking changes in social costs over time as states employ policy options which seek to
either disencumber or manage market forces and 2) measuring the effectiveness of various
methods of managing the market for the sake of social efficiency through their impact on
social costs. Given that there are different ways to implement capitalism and democracy, as
this small and homogenous sample of 18 states clearly shows, the major conclusion that can
be drawn from this study is that there is a heavy price to pay for excessive economic
liberalization. It is often said that it is possible to have too much of a good thing, and such is
the case with laissez-faire economic principles.

Conscious capitalism is an approach to business that seeks to

align profit-making activities with a greater sense of purpose and
social responsibility. It emphasizes the idea that businesses
should serve the interests of all stakeholders, including
employees, customers, suppliers, communities and the
environment, rather than solely focusing on maximizing the
shareholders’ value and rewarding the bosses of the world.

The concept of conscious capitalism was popularized by John

Mackey, co-founder of Whole Foods Market, and Raj Sisodia, a
business professor, who co-authored the bestselling
book Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of
Business. They sought to redefine capitalism by incorporating a
greater emphasis on purpose, stakeholder orientation and social
responsibility.

Capitalism and health are not synonymous. Numerous health care

advances and innovations have stemmed from the financial incentives
that a capitalistic society fosters, but individuals and communities
achieving optimal health is not always tied to a financial gain. The impact
of capitalism-derived financial tools such as social bonds to address social
drivers of health (SDH) therefore needs to be carefully scrutinized, not
only for the potential benefits but also for the potential unintended
consequences. Ensuring that as much of the social investment as possible
is directed by communities experiencing gaps in health and opportunity
will be crucial. Ultimately, failure to find ways to share both the health and
financial benefits of SDH bonds or other market-derived interventions
risks perpetuating underlying wealth inequities between communities and
deepening the structural issues that cause SDH disparities in the first
place.

Capitalism In Education
This capitalist principle fails short when implementing it in any
educational environment. The American education system in both
primary and secondary schools focuses on students' ability to memorize
facts that in most cases is not applicable to their future career choices.
Rather, memorization is seen as a measuring tool for higher education,
and those that memorized a good deal are rewarded the most.
Consequently, for these students seeking higher education, this created
a tremendous amount of competition for colleges across the country that
offer better education and opportunities for their students. In this
environment that highlights competition between students over
collaboration just like the market economy has a significant long-lasting
impact on a student's life and future career.

Relegating the future and ability of a student solely based on numbers

such as grades and test scores hinders innovation and creativity as it
impedes collaboration and group working for the better good. However,
it does not stop there in fact there is more damage is done for pinning
students with each other and picking the very few that have perfect exam
scores. This side effect ranges from anxiety to stress-related
psychological disorders that have a consequential effect on student’s
health in the long run.

Conclusion
It's undeniably that capitalism is at the core of the United States
economy and prosperity. Recognizing the fact that capitalism and a
capitalist economy encourage competition amongst different sectors
and parts of society which leads to innovation is certainly undoubtable.
However, when it comes to education at any level this module fails
miserably as it creates a competitive setting that students are measured
by how well and how much information they can memorize. This surely
discourages collaboration and group work which is very essential in the
development of students both personally and academically. Therefore
implementing intense competition in academia does not do good for
anyone especially for students.