|
|
Post by griffink on Jan 13, 2016 23:11:14 GMT
Some might think that the wealthy are often malicious individuals, or at least those who don't care about the general welfare of common people. But in truth it is in the best interest of the wealthy to improve the condition of the general population; for instance, if the population were too poor to afford luxury products, such companies as Apple would not have a market for their products. So, in that way it often benefits the rich to improve the condition of the poor, rather than just hoard money at the expense of the people.
|
|
danaw
New Member
Posts: 6 
|
Post by danaw on Jan 14, 2016 0:10:06 GMT
One potential problem with this philosophy is, sometimes, the priorities of the wealthy don't coincide with what is best for the average person, or the environment. Once political action committees, now super PACs received its current name because of the large amounts of money that lobbying groups and billionaires can funnel into political candidates that will support their interests. When interest don't align, it seems as though the wealthy are able to unfairly influence elections and important decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Niki K on Jan 14, 2016 2:24:28 GMT
Capitalism has the power of helping those in poverty, as many immigrants who migrate to America for a better life, often do so in order to improve their financial situations. These immigrants are often motivated by the opportunities which America offers. People who have experienced poverty, either immigrants or people who live in America, know that there is a hope for them to advance their lives to combat their poverty if they take use of the resources around them. Capitalism allows people to pursue and build their own futures, regardless of their background. While it is true that some people have an upper advantage in our capitalist society if they were born into an affluent family, that by itself is not enough to stop others from becoming successful if they are willing to work hard and gain the knowledge necessary for them to advance in the workforce.
|
|
|
|
Post by aarthipopat on Jan 14, 2016 3:18:22 GMT
While there are some cases in which people achieve success despite an impoverished or disadvantaged beginning, those "self-made men" are hard to come by in today's capitalist economy. Affluent people can become wildly successful because of their initial financial advantage (like Donald Trump, who used the "small loan of a million dollars" he got from his father to significantly expand his wealth). However, those who are born into poverty don't have the financial means to start their own businesses, and instead must find work at other companies. The wage distribution within the companies that immigrants and impoverished people find themselves at is skewed in the favor of the people in positions of power, like CEOs and high-ranking managers, making it harder for impoverished people to rise in economic status. According to the article "Is Capitalism Moral," CEOs make wages that are 350 times greater than workers' wages. The capitalist economy tends to favor people who are in positions of power, and many of these people come from wealthy backgrounds and have had access to valuable resources that enabled them to bypass menial jobs and to rise quickly within corporations. They continue to rise because of the skewed wealth distribution within companies, while people who work "lower" jobs within companies see a disproportionately small financial gain. Thus, largely because of this skewed wage distribution, the rich keep getting richer, while the poor remain in poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Manuela Velasquez on Jan 14, 2016 3:56:09 GMT
I think that in relying on the extremely affluent individuals of our society to "improve the condition of the general population" (via griffin's initial post), we offer too much power to individuals with no solidified moral obligations to the community. We can argue that wealthy business owners and such will have motivation to maintain their market for their products, which could improve the conditions of the poor (if only for egocentric and profitable reasons), but how stable is relying on this method for alleviating poverty? The government is, obviously, directly tied to the community and what the citizens of America want and need. With the same power that successful capitalists have with their wealth to support the impoverished, the government instead could provide this support; frankly, in a more secure manner, with perhaps less personally biased intentions. I'm appreciative of the philanthropists in our capitalistic society for helping to keep the less fortunate afloat, however rather than to try to see the bright side of their sporadic generosity, it's more important to seek a steady and just approach to distributing wealth to the people.
|
|
|
|
Post by griffink on Jan 14, 2016 4:46:59 GMT
I agree with what you're saying Manuela; I think that there needs to be a balance struck between capitalist and socialist values, for the sake of increasing quality of life for everyone. My main point, however, is to say that while many people view capitalism as dangerous, perhaps even evil, and that through it certain individuals will amass great amounts of wealth without regard to the condition of those below them, in actuality, while the disparity between rich and poor has increased, as a result of capitalism, overall quality of life has also increased. That said, at some point the amount of wealth certain people have is truly excessive, regardless of their intentions, and there are some people whose goal in life is to amass money without regard for consequences, and especially the heirs of people who have built fortunes will not necessarily have the same perspective as their parent who worked hard to earn their wealth, and in these cases the government is necessary to intervene and distribute some of the wealth in a way that more benefits society.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaellandolfi on Jan 14, 2016 4:54:30 GMT
I think that Aarthi is exaggerating the differences between the CEOs of companies and the general workers. Although most CEOs probably did have affluent parents that assisted them in achieving their current job they still would had to work for it. Any CEO is most likely a college graduate who has worked to achieve their standing. Even though it was easier for them to pay for college or they did start above an entry level job they still would have had to earn their position. Very rarely if ever is someone immediately put into a CEO position without any previous experience. Also, in response to the fact that CEO's wages are 350x that of a worker, I believe that is a part of capitalism that as you work up the ladder of a company your wage increases. I do agree that 350x is probably too much and could be reduced to more evenly distribute the wealth but if the CEO earned the same as a worker there would be no competition, which is a vital piece of capitalism.
|
|
laura
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by laura on Jan 14, 2016 5:38:48 GMT
Many immigrants who arrive the United States are looking for a better life for their next generation. This is important to understand because many of these immigrants arive in impoverished areas working hard to get their kids a better life. Because of this many of these immigrants a non capitalist economy is important because without regulation and some help from the government, their children are least likely to succeed and more likely to fall into the cycle of poverty which is hard to escape from without any help. I agree with Aarthi points on the major advantage that of wealthy class and because of this I believe it must not only acknowledged but taken care of. Big companies like Apple mentioned above may not have the poor's best interest in mind as long as the product is sold. These companies have found ways like payment plans to be able to sell their product to anyone including people who are or are close to being impoverished. Just as Aarthi pointed out the rich get richer while the poor remain the same as long as there is no regulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurelpatrick on Jan 14, 2016 5:46:30 GMT
A significant portion of the population is stuck in poverty in a free market economy, either because of initial hardships they began to experience at birth or the lack of the work ethic that facilitates success in a competition-driven capitalist society. However, we have to remember that for all its faults, capitalism generates so much wealth that the poor still possess greater amounts of the nation's capital than has been possible in America's past or in other societies with different economic policies. While those living in poverty in America are by no means well-off, they are still less poor than they would have been in the past, prior to a heavily capitalist society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Manuela Velasquez on Jan 14, 2016 5:53:18 GMT
@ Griffin definitely; capitalism certainly has its flaws, however I agree that it can be somewhat undeservingly condemned, despite available evidence of its potential benefits; capitalism has, admittedly, increased the overall quality of life which shouldn't be overlooked. Conclusively I think we're on the same page about the rationality of government intervention in cases of financial gluttony (for lack of a more eloquent description), in that it's just kind of ridiculous for so few individuals to be so effortlessly wealthy in comparison to the abundance of people in the struggling lower class.
|
|
|
|
Post by allanbeilin on Jan 14, 2016 6:13:07 GMT
I do not think that capitalist interests align with the good of the whole. Capitalism in an economic system which stimulates the individual to pursue wealth above all else. HOWEVER, I believe that this a positive aspect in that the RESULTS of the capitalist system benefit society as a whole, rather than the interests of the average capitalist-an important distinction to make. Capitalism is essentially the only economic system in which true economic growth is possible. This is true because people are motivated by their own material self-interest and know that they are working for material gain. In an economic environment, monetary incentive is infinitely more effective than a notion of equality or community solidarity. America's economic growth throughout its history on such a large-scale was only possible because of capitalism, which brought out the ingenuity and determination in the American citizen. And whether we like to admit or not, if America had not been largely capitalist throughout its history, our quality of life would be significantly lower than it is today, the average citizen would be significantly poorer, and America would certainly not be the superpower and world leader that it is today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik Z on Jan 14, 2016 6:18:33 GMT
Capitalism has the power of helping those in poverty, as many immigrants who migrate to America for a better life, often do so in order to improve their financial situations. These immigrants are often motivated by the opportunities which America offers. People who have experienced poverty, either immigrants or people who live in America, know that there is a hope for them to advance their lives to combat their poverty if they take use of the resources around them. Capitalism allows people to pursue and build their own futures, regardless of their background. While it is true that some people have an upper advantage in our capitalist society if they were born into an affluent family, that by itself is not enough to stop others from becoming successful if they are willing to work hard and gain the knowledge necessary for them to advance in the workforce. There is a lot more to "becoming successful" than just going out there and getting a job, and working hard/gaining "necessary knowledge" does not ensure such success. This common fallacy that "hard work = financial success" has been one which many are held by, as it has had some truth in the past and future. Heck, even parents promote this idea as it has shown to lead to success. But financial success, especially if one is from an impoverished family, does not follow this law. For too long have people gone head strong into the minimum wage battle, hoping for a magical promotion. Chances are the poor will stay poor, no matter how hard they work. The few, inspiring stories of the "self-made man" which have been relevant since the 19th century have seem to overshadow that of the "self-defeating man", a dynamic prevalent in today's America. |
|
|
|
Post by alissamcnerney on Jan 14, 2016 8:35:54 GMT
I agree with Allan that the results of capitalism have benefited the impoverished by raising the overall quality of life, but capitalism is not a solution to the poverty crisis. I am not arguing that capitalism should be abandoned, but restrictions should be put in place by the government to regulate this economic system. Capitalism is a system motivated by self interest, so it lacks accountability towards the impoverished people to help to improve their quality of life, whereas in a democratic government, at least some form of accountability is present since people votes for their leaders. We must now turn towards government intervention because it is evident that capitalism alone has not been effective in solving the issue of poverty, since there are millions of people still living in poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by katedenend on Jan 14, 2016 17:35:12 GMT
A significant portion of the population is stuck in poverty in a free market economy, either because of initial hardships they began to experience at birth or the lack of the work ethic that facilitates success in a competition-driven capitalist society. However, we have to remember that for all its faults, capitalism generates so much wealth that the poor still possess greater amounts of the nation's capital than has been possible in America's past or in other societies with different economic policies. While those living in poverty in America are by no means well-off, they are still less poor than they would have been in the past, prior to a heavily capitalist society. I agree with Laurel and I like how she stated that capitalism does generate major wealth that should not be over looked because it is important to remember the benefits of capitalism when assessing the short comings. Overall, capitalism has proven to be one of the best economic systems even with the problems that exist today. Morally, it is important to help those who are not well off and changing government regulation can help decrease the gap between the rich and poor, but caps on how much a wealthy person can gain or wealth redistribution are not effective methods and end up harming rather than hurting in various ways. Capitalism has many benefits that seem to often be over looked. |
|
|
|
Post by htaylor on Jan 15, 2016 1:49:13 GMT
Capitalism is aimed to reward greed and wealth among INDIVIDUAL people. To say capitalism aligns with society's best interest as a whole is simply incorrect. If it were truly the best interest of the wealthy to improve the condition of the general public, we would not have such a small minority of the population controlling an immense amount of wealth (the 1%). As a capitalist society, if your statements were true, we would not have such a problem of poverty in the nation and would have a better distribution of wealth.
|
|
