|
|
Post by jolson03 on Jan 15, 2016 3:51:53 GMT
How can capitalism even be thought of as a solution to poverty? Or even as a way to address it? Capitalism as we know it now is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It's how it works. What at first was an economic system built for motivating citizens to work and become successful has now become a rigged game based around contacts and starting positions. For most of us blessed with a home that is financially sound, a school system intended to drive us to seek education and learn, a clear path to a college degree set to create opportunities in the work force, we have a starting position nearly guaranteeing security in life. With work and dedication we can grow to higher levels of success with little problem or struggle. But for the people who can't receive a college education, the people born into a home that lacks the finances to create opportunities, there is very little room to become successful. And for both situations, it continues on through the family, generation to generation, with no way to break the cycle. This system of capitalism does not present a way to solve poverty, it creates more of it. The capitalism that has given the top 1% of population the equivalent of 40 cents of every $1 of american assets. The capitalism that justifies Vox Media placing the Walton brothers (Walmart) swimming in a pool of money (an animation, but still www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xa9T2OMzmw) because they make more than the bottom 40% (125,500,000) combined. The wealth gap will continue to grow if we give people advantages and disadvantages from birth and expect them to play on an "equal" playing field. However, the ideal capitalist system, rewarding the people who work and find success, is important to maintain our democratic society. Extreme socialist or communist governments in Russia and China have proved that when the economy is not in the hands of the people, it tends to become a power struggle and only leads to chaos and destruction. So, instead of giving complete control of the economy to the government, I suggest a more efficient and beneficial system of "safety nets" and social programs administered by the government. This ensures that it is harder to fall into poverty if a person is struggling, but doesn't get rid of the competition and innovation that shaped the U.S. That is the way we address poverty, and potentially solve it. |
|
|
|
Post by theangieyang on Jan 15, 2016 4:16:27 GMT
I completely agree with Josh in that capitalism cannot be the solution for poverty. Capitalism does encourage being innovative, creative, and working hard so in turn capitalism does benefit the economy as a whole greatly, but what capitalism does not take into consideration is the distribution of that wealth. What ends up happening is that the rich continue to climb their ladder of gold while the poor sink deeper and deeper into poverty and debt. Although capitalism can be seen as a main contributor to the current problem with poverty in the United States, without some kind of capitalism the economy would not be able to grow at the great rate it has been growing especially with new forms of technology, medicine, ect. So like Josh stated, the best way to address poverty is to have the government administer programs and systems that act as "safety nets" to make it harder for those struggling to fall into poverty. These can be anything from welfare, food stamps, health insurance, and housing projects to provide cheaper or even free necessitates for life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Strehlow on Jan 15, 2016 4:44:11 GMT
Angie, a lot of what you've mentioned as something the government could implement the poor are things they many already have/are on, such as food stamps, welfare, or the Affordable Care Act. However, many of these things only provide the bare minimum, if enough at all, that a family below the poverty line can have access to. In addition, giving those in poverty all these things does not change their financial situation; they are still in poverty despite the meager food and money obtained from food stamps and welfare. It's important to address that families in lower income areas also tend to have more children due to an inability or even lack of knowledge of the importance of birth control supplements or forms of protection, and there are many both in and out of our government who fight vehemently to make sure that organizations like Planned Parenthood are defunded and/or shut down, making it unrealistic for them to give out birth control for free in danger of falling into bankruptcy. As a family has more children, the need for food and money only becomes more drastic, and the 'safety nets' discussed here only can do so much to aid those in need of such necessities.
As long as the minimum wage continues to be independent of adjustment for inflation or median housing costs in an area, and large corporations like Walmart (The owning family of which is the richest family in the world with a combined net worth of 150 billion dollars, and the three heirs the three richest people in their home states of Arkansas, Texas, and Wyoming) refuse to treat their employees like human beings who require access to healthcare at the very least, those in poverty will never be able to succeed or climb the social ladder under capitalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by theangieyang on Jan 15, 2016 5:04:53 GMT
Those issues just completely went past me Ben! But I totally agree with you in the fact that what is available now is still not enough and that issues like education and basic knowledge of things like birth control are an issue needed to be addressed by more than just the government. Big businesses are a very large contributor to politics, and a good amount of politicians are against organizations like Planned Parenthood who ultimately aid in helping decrease poverty by providing both affordable healthcare as well as knowledge on protection and prevention. I completely agree with you on the fact that safety nets, although they do help with the necessities and bare minimum for maintaining life, can only do so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by jvollrath on Jan 15, 2016 5:06:22 GMT
The idea of "safety nets" is very interesting and looks very promising. Like Ben said, many of the things listed such as food stamps or medicine, do exist but I think they could expand even more to become above the "bare minimum". This system solves the problem of not knowing what your monetary donations are going towards (such as not knowing if a homeless person on the street will use your money for food or for drugs), which may then motivate more people to donate and help out the poorer groups of society.
|
|
|
|
Post by colegillespie on Jan 15, 2016 5:16:29 GMT
I think both Ben and Josh bring up good points. Under a capitalist economy, those socially or economically disadvantaged have many more challenges to face compared to those who start well off in life. However, the rich don't seem to want to help the poor. A certain balance must be maintained between government involvement and freedom. As many people have pointed out, in order for democracy to flourish, an incentive must be provided for hard work. However, since the "1%" have most of the wealth, a more fair distribution would benefit most people. What do you think of income caps or a maximum wage based on wealth? This way, the government could more evenly distribute the wealth among its citizens and make sure everyone has a basic standard of living.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbyknapp on Jan 15, 2016 5:53:14 GMT
I really like your ideas Cole. I think a maximum wage based on wealth, although it probably would not go over well with the upper class, would at least save some companies money so they could hopefully spend it on other things such as donating to shelters or funding programs. The government would then be able to manage the economic gap a little better and try and close it so there is less of an unequal distribution of wealth in this country. I also thought Joanna's point was really interesting about how sometimes its hard for wealthy, or even average, people to give to beggars on the street because it is difficult to know where exactly the money is going. Or if beggars do have the right intentions, they might not have the right education to know how or what to do with their money, and such a thought of hopelessness could drive them to something not beneficial.
|
|
|
|
Post by katiemoffitt on Jan 15, 2016 6:27:02 GMT
Josh, I really like your argument that current capitalism is in no position to free up social mobility or tackle the problem of poverty. The ideals of different economic schools of thought are appealing each and of its own, however, put into practice, these systems often fail to uphold past ideals and transform a seemingly flawless theory into a backwards but deeply established economic system. We've seen this with communism and socialism: rather than keeping a population at a certain acceptable standard of living and being supported by the community's efforts to work to keep the system afloat, people have been forced to live in dire and desperate poverty with no possibility for advancement. We have seen this with capitalism: our current economic system keeps the wealthy and the poor separated by such a wealth gap that it won't even fit on a visible scale. We need to try to retrace our steps to return to that ideal capitalist economy upholding equality and equal opportunity through "safety nets," better and more available health care, accessible higher education (either through affirmative action or lowering community college tuition) and for that matter starting at the root of the problem with elementary and basic education, increasing the minimum wage, and imposing regulations on corporations and tycoons who keep the money stagnant
|
|
