|
|
Post by kirbyknapp on Jan 15, 2016 5:39:49 GMT
True capitalism is probably the worst way to address the issue of poverty. In a true capitalist society, similar to the Industrial Revolution with a few wealthy factory owners and bankers and a large, unskilled labor force, there are only a small number of businessmen that are extremely wealthy while the other 90% is stuck scrambling to pay rent and support families with low paying jobs - all without government assistance. The government should intervene in society and try to address the problem of poverty because otherwise the problem will continue to escalate as the wealth margin grows wider and wider. As witnessed in the 1800s with different railroad companies, if someone has a monopoly on something and there is no government interference, they have complete control over what prices they can charge their customers (who are usually not as well-off) which depletes them of their money. Capitalism is essentially like a ruthless "survival of the fittest" concept and if you make one slip up, you lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by jennifergormish on Jan 15, 2016 6:10:05 GMT
I would say that the statement 'if you make one slip up, you lose' is accurate for those with a lower income. Those born into wealthy families that support them are financially stable enough to afford further business ventures if they should fail one. I think that has been one of the failings of capitalism; the rich remain rich, while very few people manage to escape poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by anapark on Jan 15, 2016 6:14:38 GMT
I liked the way Kirby described capitalism as a “ruthless survival of the fittest.” I do agree that true capitalism is a rough way to go about the issue of poverty as the wealthy just keep getting wealthier. The large imbalance in wealth distribution can be seen in the video posted on the website where the top 1% have so much that they need their own column and the bottom 20% just barely have a presence on the graph while some of those even lower do not even show up on the graph. Aid by the government is needed in order to prevent the higher classes from controlling too much wealth of the nation. However, because capitalism creates jobs, there still might be way to have some capitalism and government intervention help diminish poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by davosp on Jan 15, 2016 6:16:19 GMT
I really wonder though- would it have been possible to rise up in a true capitalist society?
Based on everything in Kirby's original post, nothing stopped people from developing their own businesses, or even education it seems. People who knew things had power, but I can't really say I know how difficult it would have been to obtain that knowledge.
The whole "no regulations" thing back then was a mistake. That's clear enough to see, but if everyone had to fend for their own, the process of "rising up" would become riskier. Taking a loan from a bank and starting new with that debt made the reward potentially huge, but so was the risk. It doesn't seem like it moving would be impossible, just extremely difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolesalz on Jan 15, 2016 7:33:28 GMT
Although i agree that a capitalist society may not be the best way to address poverty in America, there is still an issue with government intervention in society. The government will struggle with deciding who should be given support or deemed too poor to provide for themselves. This will also further the social divide between the wealthy and poor, as the wealthy feel it is unjust for the government to take away there hardworking money and give it those who have not worked hard enough to earn it for themselves (although i may not be in accordance with these beliefs, it is a strong sentiment that many in the 1% have raised to the government). This frustration towards the government will lower the incentive of the wealthy class to work hard causing the quality of work to decrease. Nonetheless, i still believe that poverty must be addressed in the government, however we must find a solution or more a compromise as the best way to resolve the issue without angering the poor or the wealthy.
|
|
