|
|
Post by Ian Lange on Jan 15, 2016 2:23:27 GMT
To say that capitalism represents the best interests of society as a whole is more than a little misleading. Capitalism is beneficial to the rich, who are often the figureheads of society, but while their evident prosperity might reflect well on a national community, the relation between the well-being of the rich and that of the greater population is surface level. Like Dana said, "the priorities of the wealthy don't coincide with what is best for the average person, or the environment". One could argue that capitalism allows (or even forces) companies to act in the best interest of the consumer, but as gentrification occurs within the market, large producers have less and less motivation to keep prices reasonable. Therefore, capitalism doesn't really help the whole society, just the most visible segment of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by harperw on Jan 15, 2016 2:35:03 GMT
@ Haley, I agree wholeheartedly with your initial point, however I wouldn't use our society today as the pinnacle of perfect capitalism. America isn't exactly the perfect and honest free market that capitalism is meant to be, but I do think it's important to analyze the effectiveness of economic structures not only in theory. Centralized economic systems, while making the country equal, don't leave room for personal gains. Though in capitalism it's unlikely that you'll rise through the economic classes to the top, it's absolutely impossible to rise in a controlled system.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolecsn on Jan 15, 2016 2:37:55 GMT
It seems like a good idea (the distribution of the wealthy's money) but will the wealthy really want to share their own profits? Would they really oblige to giving the poor their own money so that they could rise up. If there really are generous rich people, then that's great, but would they agree with the distribution of their own money?
|
|
|
|
Post by jennifergormish on Jan 15, 2016 2:51:19 GMT
Many wealthy people use their wealth and power to influence campaigns, and the person they choose to support will be campaigning for the values and programs that ultimately serve the desires of that individual, so the candidates backed by the wealthy are less likely to be interested in helping the poor. Therefore the interests of the wealthy individual will not align with the whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by theangieyang on Jan 15, 2016 3:32:41 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. I agree with Manuela in that relying on the wealthy of the society to fix and improve the problems in society forces us to assume that the wealthy will give back to their employees or to society. This assumption cannot just be made, we cannot just assume that all the wealthy of the world will give back to the improverished population within their society (because greed is a thing) and making this assumption gives even more power to the wealthy population of a society because it creates a dependency on the wealthy from the rest of the population as well as a dependency from the government on the wealthy population to "fix" the problem of poverty. While putting the issue of poverty on the government allows for the issue of poverty on the government allows for more direct needs to be met. It eliminates the waiting and guessing game created when soley dependant on one individual to share their personal wealth (which they can also choose to put into whatever they want whether it benefits the whole community or just a select few). With the government in charge of eliminating the issue of poverty, a less bias and more fair distribution of wealth and resources can occur and it would create both a fair and reliable source of competing poverty. |
|
|
|
Post by connor on Jan 15, 2016 4:33:28 GMT
I would strongly disagree with this statement capitalism when viewed on a purely results based spectrum only ever serves the needs of the few. The United States is an example a free flowing capitalist society from its creation. If one were to view a chart of the development of the wealth gap in the United States, one would be viewing an exponentially growing gap between the rich and the poor and a decrease of the rich and an increase of the poor. Therefore capitalism when just viewing its results clearly does not cater to the many but the few.
|
|
|
|
Post by connor on Jan 15, 2016 4:33:56 GMT
I would strongly disagree with this statement capitalism when viewed on a purely results based spectrum only ever serves the needs of the few. The United States is an example a free flowing capitalist society from its creation. If one were to view a chart of the development of the wealth gap in the United States, one would be viewing an exponentially growing gap between the rich and the poor and a decrease of the rich and an increase of the poor. Therefore capitalism when just viewing its results clearly does not cater to the many but the few.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianli on Jan 16, 2016 1:11:31 GMT
I agree with Griffin in that many wealthy people are also good people who want to use their wealth to help society. The most well known example is Andrew Carnegie, who donated extensively to the fine arts. In his name are music halls, museums, and even colleges. Many modern billionaires are also following in his footsteps. For example, Bill Gates and his foundation have reached out and helped less fortunate places like Africa. Mark Zuckerberg also declared that he is donating almost all of his money to good causes.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryanfisherle on Jan 16, 2016 3:29:58 GMT
Capitalism is not aimed to reward greed. Capitalism is aimed toward competition, determination and overall innovation. It rewards people who are constantly changing the way they do things to fit the standard of the modern times. Unfortunately yes, there are some who live off trust funds or do nothing with their money, but you cannot generalize a group of people like that. Elon Musk, for example, made money off of a company early on, and has used that money to innovate, create new technologies, further the condition of the human race. He has pioneered clean energy research. He has revitalized the space race. Also consider Zuckerberg. He is donating 99% of his wealth over time. We will have less poverty when we open more doors for those in poverty. That means better education, Free healthcare (god forbid the government make sure people can afford to be healthy *sarcasm*) and more ways ti learn highly specialized skills.
|
|
