|
|
Post by Ian Lange on Jan 14, 2016 20:58:03 GMT
Free market capitalism, in theory, should work great. As Adam Smith said, "Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage, naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society". In other words, individuals will only look after themselves;however, their personal interest will, for the most part, align with that of the society. This may have worked well in 18th century Britain, but we do not live there or then and, given that our society and economy are markedly different, we cannot apply the same model to our own country. Further, his ideology has almost nothing to do with alleviating poverty; it is meant to increase the wealth of the overall society. Given that Adam Smith was writing in a time in which it was a given that most people would be dirt poor, it is clear that his ideology is aimed at the wealthy. Capitalism as it was originally conceived is not a viable system for addressing poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahelisofon on Jan 14, 2016 21:08:54 GMT
I agree with you, Ian. To a certain extent, capitalism is fueled by self interest. Thus, as stated in The Atlantic's article "Only Government Intervention Can Stop Corrupt Capitalism", capitalism revolves around,"in important part, by "making the numbers." There are ubiquitous temptations and pressures to behave badly. Employees at all levels may feel that their salaries, bonuses, promotions -- and even their job security -- depend on falsifying accounts, cutting corners, colluding with rivals, and generally ignoring law and ethics". Participants of capitalism are more likely to commit acts of fraud and other detrimental actions to society as that is what they believe will carry them in life. This mindset is not beneficial to society because those involved can be easily harmed as the individual motivated by self interest is doing anything in his/her power to rise up in social/economic rank at the expense of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by erikroise on Jan 14, 2016 23:37:40 GMT
I also agree with Ian. In theory, capitalism should create a fair society that promotes hard work and ingenuity. However, this system has become unbalanced and sometimes corrupt. For this reason, legislation is necessary to level the playing field. Therefore, government regulation should not be viewed as antagonistic towards capitalism, but instead congenial, attempting only to insure that the system works as it was originally intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by fionalokey on Jan 14, 2016 23:40:58 GMT
Going off of what Hannah said, corporations exploit workers and often don't grant free healthcare or other medicare. Many corporations have been connected to shady deals, and more often than not money earned does not trickle down. During our discussion, I noticed the various connections of government interference and socialism. The government can get involved in ways that will bring positive outcomes to poor workers without creating a system of socialism. Moreover, many workers working for the big companies like Walmart often come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and have not received an education higher than a GED, if that. By allowing the government to go in and force some companies to provide workers with access to employee benefits and raise minimum wages, workers living on the brink of poverty will be able to lead more successful and purposeful lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by jvollrath on Jan 15, 2016 1:05:07 GMT
This is a very interesting connection, Fiona, and I agree with the idea that maybe the answer is not capitalism or communism but instead something in between.One where people are still motivated and driven yet also aided and helped along the way. One major reform that does need to be made is the issue of jobs with good wages and benefits (something I really had not appreciated). The fact that Walmart doesn't pay a living wage or benefits counteracts the efforts of the government and service organizations do to try and help get people jobs (with the assumption that these jobs can support a person or family).
|
|
|
|
Post by jordankimbo on Jan 15, 2016 4:22:28 GMT
Right on Ian. While Capitalism used to be a great way to encourage people to better themselves through hard work, we are finding that success has less to do with "rags to riches", and more to do with making sure the rich continue to be rich. Further more, the people who continue the line of the rich are usually born into it, and inherit it without doing much work. So how can we say that people are entirely self-made? (Not disparaging those who are, just saying most aren't) So then, the idea that anyone can make it on their own becomes disingenuous; of course those people made it, most were born into their positions.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolesalz on Jan 15, 2016 9:02:04 GMT
Going off of what Fiona and Joanna said, our society today, although mainly capitalistic it is not purely that, it also contains some aspects of socialism. I believe the most efficient way of addressing the issue of poverty is to find that perfect "in between" that Joanna discussed of socialism and capitalism. This should constitute of a government that still provides for those impoverished while at the same time promoting the ideals of a "self-made man" or more so, a competitive society. If our society can find a perfect balance of government interference and a capitalist/ free market, than i believe that the gap between the wealthy and the poor will significantly decrease.
|
|
