|
|
Post by marcellovial on Jan 15, 2016 3:14:33 GMT
I agree with Harper that capitalism favors those who are already successful. America is still the Land of Opportunity, however the opportunity does vary for people in different economic situations. The structure of the economy provides more opportunity for those with substantial wealth. It should then fall on those with wealth to provide opportunities for the poor. Capitalism promotes a very self-involved mindset, fueled by social darwinism. Capitalism has the potential to address the issue of poverty better than any other economical system, but in order to do so, it must first bypass the natural urge to feed that mindset. There is a difference between greed and conviction, both can drive people to success, but conviction can unify a nation, while greed can only divide it. Everyone is guaranteed the right to the pursuit of happiness, so for poverty to be properly addressed, access to that pursuit must be made equal. Whether or not a person then achieves happiness is their business.
|
|
|
|
Post by harperw on Jan 15, 2016 3:22:20 GMT
Damn, Marcello. 10/10. Become a yogi.
|
|
|
|
Post by htaylor on Jan 15, 2016 3:30:54 GMT
In agreement with Manuela and others also disfavoring capitalism, I would just like to add on to previous opinions and reasoning. How can an economic system that promotes individual wealth and continues the cycle of poverty be said to help eliminate poverty? A free market economy rewards individual success and doesn't focus on the overall good of society. Thence, a free market economy can't really help those from impoverished backgrounds if the system itself perpetuates the level of wealth one is born with to continue throughout his/her life.
|
|
|
|
Post by theangieyang on Jan 15, 2016 5:21:03 GMT
Although a free market will never be the cure to poverty, but instead increase poverty with the rich becoming richer and the poor falling deeper and deeper into poverty, capitalism does create incentives for the population to be more innovative creating greater technology, medicine, and knowledge, whether it be for bettering society or even just for making money. But like many have previously stated capitalism cannot be used to addressing poverty because to address poverty the efforts of the government and society are both needed to benefit the impoverished while capitalism directly goes against this with its methodology being based only on your abilities as an individual to help yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by katiemoffitt on Jan 15, 2016 5:35:45 GMT
I agree with Marcello that capitalism and the free market system are the lesser of two evils and while it strongly favors those who have been born into wealth, opportunity, and support and offers little possibility to accomplish the myth of the Self Made Man, no economic system works as efficiently in practice as it does in theory. But with the capitalist ideology and with some government intervention, the possibility of redistribution of wealth remains without the need to destroy competition, innovation, incentives, and accountability.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarissam on Jan 15, 2016 7:25:28 GMT
I agree with Haley and others thats Capitalism while it has some benefits ultimately does not help with issues such as poverty. Clearly it's not helping to end poverty as there continues to be an increasing divide in the distribution of wealth. In truth the more money a person has the more you can make such as creating more companies or taking riskier stock options, etc. Sometimes no matter how motivated, and how hard you work, lack of funds that others have does not allow a business to thrive, and become a rags to riches story. Solely relying on companies or people who have higher incomes who stated companies in order to provide jobs and opportunities for others, forget that, while it may not apply to all, companies typically want to do whats best for them and not helping others. For example huge fast food chains mostly pay minimum wage which is known to not be adequate enough to provide for a family or living expenses especially in the are we live in. Of course like with any form of government nothing is perfect, and there are always exceptions such as the rags to riches stories, generally capitalism doesn't necessarily make it easy or possible for everyone to achieve the wealth and or comfort levels that other have.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasscopazzi on Jan 15, 2016 7:30:18 GMT
Camillo, your argument raises many interesting questions. I believe that the government made the right choice in bailing out General Motors. When the government bails out large companies they do it to save jobs in the United States. Large Corporations provide the jobs for most of the people in the United States. If General Motors had fallen in 2009 unemployment wold have risen noticeably as a result. This is a direct conflict to the ideas when capitalism was created. It was quite an ironic event. The founders of capitalism specifically stated the government was not to help companies and yet after capitalism had taken off and wholly accepted by the United States, we do not practice traditional capitalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianli on Jan 15, 2016 20:17:48 GMT
I think "Boo Capitalism" is a bit too extreme. While the free-market economy might not be ideal for alleviating the issue of poverty, it does help enforce that progress will occur. In a free-market economy, competition forces companies to create better products, which in turn creates evolution. To effectively address the problem of poverty, wealth would need to be redistributed. At that point the "Boo Capitalism" moniker would equate to "Go Communism". Communism, in theory, makes everyone "equal". Wouldn't communism solve the problem of poverty?
(not my own opinion, just theoretical)
|
|
oxi
New Member
Posts: 4 
|
Post by oxi on Jan 16, 2016 15:23:33 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. Do remember that free market capitalism (the main system used between 1800 and 1950 in western Europe and North America) has shown itself be rather effective in the elimination of poverty as shown by this long term world GDP graph  |
|
