|
|
Post by Manuela Velasquez on Jan 13, 2016 23:08:28 GMT
Free market capitalism might not be the best way to address the issue of poverty; it fronts itself as an opportunity to expand and prosper through hard work and dedication, but in many cases follows the trend of people within their own financial classes continuing on the typical financial path of that class. Starting at different levels of privilege makes it much easier for more affluent people to rise to the top with much less work, contradicting the traditional view of free market capitalism promoting ideals of a "self-made man"; rather, capitalism's "self-made man" is a compilation of your ancestor's labors and their financial statuses that led to your upbringing and opportunities.
|
|
danaw
New Member
Posts: 6 
|
Post by danaw on Jan 14, 2016 0:01:29 GMT
I agree with your point that unequal starting point in life make it easier for some people to become successful while others struggle to stay above the poverty line. I believe in fundamental capitalist theory. After the United States won its independence, the incentives of capitalism helped spur creativity and "American Ingenuity", in turn creating many technological advances. A large problem we currently face under our current economic system is the gap between the rich at the top and the poor at the bottom. I believe that the gap in and of itself isn't a problem if its distribution is under control. When upward mobility is attainable, it can provide hope and incentives for hard work and progress, lifting America as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Niki K on Jan 14, 2016 2:00:34 GMT
I can see what you mean by saying that capitalism often gives those who are wealthier an upper advantage. However, America is known as the "Land of Opportunity", and in some ways it allows people who are at the bottom of the social classes to rise up by using the opportunities available to them. Capitalism, essentially, motivates people to work harder and get access to education in order to rise up that ladder and gain a higher salary to support themselves. If we were a Communist country, then everyone would get the same amount of pay regardless of what their occupation was. This would make people unmotivated to pursue further resources and education to occupy other jobs, as everyone would be getting the same amount of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmccolloch on Jan 14, 2016 2:11:58 GMT
I understand why capitalism is appealing. If you work really hard you can gain benefits and live a prosperous life. However, if the issue is whether or not capitalism is the best solution to poverty, the ideology of capitalism contradicts that statement. Capitalism promotes self-interest, so in theory the people practicing it would have little regard for other people. While self-motivation is obviously not a bad thing, it is difficult to draw a connection between capitalism and caring about the outcome of other people, who could easily be thought of as one's competitors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Niki K on Jan 14, 2016 3:01:46 GMT
Also, not all billionaires today were born into an affluent family or lived a comfortable life (ex. Howard Schultz, Oprah, Shahid Khan etc.). They had to go through a lot to get to where they wanted to be. Capitalism motivated them to work harder, because capitalism gives everyone the freedom of pursuing their own futures and dreaming big. Those individuals who are at the top, got there because of capitalism, and they can in turn help reduce poverty by making donations from their own net worth. It is true that not all businessmen or the top 1% are generous with their money. However, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg etc. , are known for expressing their generosity to the American public. It is a matter of morals, and not necessarily the system. (The people at the top should donate their money more directly to those living in poverty like implementing programs that encourage intellectual growth/leadership/love for knowledge that will help improve the lives of those in poverty in the long run).
Despite, all this, I also agree that capitalism is not the best solution to solving poverty in this country because the gap between what CEOs make and what workers make is large (as Aarthi mentioned in a different post). I understand that people should have the right to their money, but do CEOs really need hundreds of millions of dollars, or can they help make the gap of what they make and what workers make smaller? Although capitalism does involve self-motivating incentives, it also matters on the morals of people and whether they are willing to distribute their own wealth among others who are working just as hard as them to make it.
People in poverty have the freedom to take advantage of every single opportunity that comes their way, whether that is attending a community college and then transferring to a university with financial aid, whether that is taking part of summer programs aimed for those who are economically disadvantaged, whether that is applying for that part-time job to help pay off school loans, whatever it is, people can do it if they are willing to work hard for it. That is essentially what capitalism offers, people can become whoever they want to be if they take advantage of the opportunities that America offers them and they will eventually reach their dream. Some people perceive capitalism as allowing more people to become (selfish) businessmen or CEOs, but it also allows people to be happy with their lives and their jobs, by motivating them to work for it. The freedom that America offers, allows people to pursue their own happiness, and become content with their lives.
Capitalism has both advantages and disadvantages, as although it makes the gap between the rich and poor larger, it also motivates people to work hard to get to where they want to be in order to be happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by caralinealbro on Jan 14, 2016 4:09:29 GMT
Given that all the threads in the post "Is Poverty a Shared Responsibility?" are essentially titled "Poverty is a Shared Responsibility," I think the majority of us would agree that poverty is the responsibility of all. As I see it, capitalism stresses individuality and competition towards achievement, which can definitely be good to motivate people and get them working hard. However, capitalism is not the best solution to poverty. As Elizabeth mentioned, when everyone is desperately fighting for their own success, those that start at the bottom have little chance to catch up to those who started at the top. This leaves no room for the care and support of other people who might be at a disadvantage. Since most of us seem to think that poverty is a shared responsibility, we should accept a less competitive situation. I'm not arguing for full-on socialism or anything, but the key to reducing poverty is to help others and support the disadvantaged.
|
|
|
|
Post by camillo on Jan 14, 2016 4:33:18 GMT
An example of government intervention is the bailout of GM in 2009. The USFG spent roughly $50 billion to save the company from bankruptcy. Initially this incidence seems elitist, but in reality the bailout saved 1.5 million jobs in the US. I think the question is not whether the US should take a hand in the economy, which it is already doing to some extent, but rather where it should prioritize its spending. Would these $50 billion have been better spent on increasing welfare or food stamps to help the existing poor? Or was the money better spent preserving 1.5 million jobs and preventing more people from dropping into unemployment and eventually poverty? www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430 |
|
laura
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by laura on Jan 14, 2016 5:04:37 GMT
Though it is true that capitalism promotes self motivation, not being motivated is not what stops Americans from getting out of poverty. Capitalism has created the biggest gap between the rich and the poor in the United States. The poor are being born poor and staying poor. This cycle is not in result the lack of wanting. Everyone wants money but not everyone has the opportunity to make it big when they have the priority of putting food on the table or keeping a roof over their head because they only get payed so much. People like Bill Gates, were not necessarily billionaires from birth, but were born into a stable home with successful parents. This is not the case for many Americans who are working hard focusing on staying alive rather than climbing the economic ladder. Because of this the government should be able to play a role and regulate companies to be able to distribute the countries wealth in a way where it is fair to everyone starting at a lower advantage than others. With help these people will be able to better themselves and have children who are not worried about being able to afford a better life but rather how they will reach it. For example receiving help from the government has moved my focus towards my education and future life instead of worrying about what I will eat for dinner. It is a huge weight that is pulled of the families who are striving to progress. Having a free market economy allows for the wealthy to choose what they want to help out in. This sounds good in theory but if they choose to keep all which is more than enough it makes to live off of and would be better out helping someone in need of that push to be able to strive for more.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurelpatrick on Jan 14, 2016 5:28:10 GMT
Capitalism cannot be the best method of addressing the issue of poverty- poverty is an inevitable byproduct of the free market system. Consider the factory revolution in America: while some individuals at a management level were able to create profits for themselves, many factory workers fell into poverty by accepting wages that were not capable of supporting a lifestyle above the poverty line. While the basis of some complaints leveled against immigrants and freed African-Americans was that they were "stealing" American jobs, in reality, these workers struggled in potentially dangerous working environments to bring home small sums of money. Although capitalism allows a few individuals to personify the ideal of the "self-made man," it is ineffective as a means of reducing poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik Z on Jan 14, 2016 5:49:42 GMT
The question we should be asking is how can we force the 1% to contribute to the impoverished? The easiest way is to impose heavier taxes upon them. The top 10% already paid for over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, up from 55% in 1986. Should we increase this percentage further? Well, some call that theft. In a country built by a free market economy, why would we take that which people have worked so hard to earn? If we push for higher tax rates, it may be true that the top 10% could still manage to live in their ivory towers, albeit without their fancy Cadillacs, however the same issue of "fairness" arises.
A more important detail is that this newfound "donation" will not necessarily be sent to the right people. Since when has the government been the just hand of balance? Simply throwing money at poorly organized institutes such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank, of which both take advantage of government subsidies and are recognized as no longer valuable to society. Yes, some will go to improving public education, and some more will go to supporting welfare and other social service programs, but the various other, costly institutions are simply draining.
The simple fact that strangling the rich for their money serves only to scare them off, leaving them no choice but to take their enormous wealth out of America and into another country's banks, something bad for the economy.
We should not continue the crusade on the wealthy and focus on what we can do with our current federal budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattcwirla on Jan 14, 2016 5:55:59 GMT
I completely agree with Laurel's point that poverty is essentially a byproduct of the free market system, as the capitalist way of thought employs the theory of Social Darwinism. Additionally, in response to Niki, I think most of us can agree that Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Oprah, etc. are pretty remarkable. However, the vast majority of CEO's are incredibly well educated from top universities, and often from affluent upbringings. While competition definitely makes you have to work for success, that does not negate the fact that some have to work less than others due to their position of privilege. Simply put, it is much easier to win a race when you only have to run half of the distance.
|
|
|
|
Post by meganmcdonnell on Jan 14, 2016 7:04:59 GMT
I also agree with Laurel. Capitalism ensures that there will be a small few with the economic reigns and a larger majority who will fall below the poverty line. It can create an unhealthy, competition based life style that demands productivity. Capitalism also creates a cycle, whether that be a cycle of wealth or a cycle of poverty. Matt's comment, "it is much easier town a race when you only have to run half of the distance", is incredibly accurate. I also think that capitalism finds its strength in human nature. It is human nature to feed off of competition. That’s what kept humans alive millions of years ago: competition for food, water, and survival. I think that's a big reason why socialism and communism has failed so many times, because complete equality is not what comes naturally to humans. So while there are so many downsides to capitalism, it's also somewhat hard to avoid. I completely agree with Erik's comments, though, and there are measures that should be taken to eliminate the gap between rich and poor to give equal opportunities to all Americans - gotta find that balance.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxwellheller on Jan 14, 2016 7:14:00 GMT
Capitalism is successful because it allows individuals to start ahead of others. Today, it is much easier to become successful from a wealthy upbringing than from a poor background, which proves capitalism is working. People from affluent families have the opportunity to not work as hard as others, just as people from impoverished families have the challenge to work harder than others. Some individuals start ahead of others by sheer good luck, while some start behind others by sheer bad luck. In life, some individuals die from fatal diseases at a young age, just as some live long, healthy lives. Capitalism mirrors real life, in the sense that it isn't fair. Why would we ever want a fair economic system at work in an unfair world?
|
|
|
|
Post by laurelpatrick on Jan 14, 2016 7:48:48 GMT
Another negative aspect we see under a capitalist society is the occurrence of "market failures." A market failure is the allocation of goods and services in a way which is not as efficient as it has the potential to be- in short, another conceivable outcome exists wherein an individual can be made better-off without making someone else worse-off. Spending in regards to climate change is one of the worst market failures in history: every taxpayer subsidizes oil companies and fossil fuels, and yet the fossil fuel industry is still underfunded by roughly $40 trillion, which is a cost that future generations will have to pay despite the damage that fossil fuels are doing to the Earth. Because a main cause of market failures is the spillover from either the production or consumption of a good, although other economic policies may not be immune to market failures, a more stabilized and equality-centered economy could potentially help mitigate the occurrence of market failures, which would in turn help allocate money and other resources to the poor.
|
|
|
|
Post by ascoffone on Jan 14, 2016 8:14:12 GMT
According to your logic, Maxwell, why would we even try to cure deadly diseases? The entire point of a structured society governed by laws is to overcome the basic, Darwinistic, forces that would ordinarily determine our treatment of our "competitors." Capitalism, a system in many ways, as Maxwell noted, similar to natural selection, which weeds out the weakest individuals, cannot solve the issue of poverty, a solution which would require the lifting up of those "weak" or disadvantaged members of our society.
|
|
