Michael-5 said:
I agree with you there, but Capitalism is also flawed because of the excess accumulation of wealth too. Just so you know, my opinion on Capitalism is the same as Churchills view on Democracy. It's not perfect, but until a better system comes up, this is the best we have. Also, in all honesty, I think anyone can make themselves into something. Anyone can become a doctor if they are willing it sacrifice 10 years of their lives in school. Anyway can go to university and get a loan (In Canada our school fees are also much much cheaper). So in comparision to socialism, yea It's unlikely I'll become a multi-millionaire, but if I work half decently and spend my money intelligently, I can be fairly well off. I mean people are richer then they think, so many people spend 20% off credit card interest, why? That's money just being thrown away. A lot of people have children at a young age, why? You can't afford it..... Same with spending, people buy big houses with big morgages.... I in large think people born in NA/EU who grow up poor, do it largely because of either how they were raised (with money meaning very little) or their value as people (meaning poor people are largely less educated and less capable of working in higher income fields). |
How is the " accumulation of wealth" a problem and who determines when it is "excess"? In fact, I view it as a good thing. People are more affluent (all people, the rich and the poor) than they were 100 years ago, and people 100 years ago were more affluent than people 200 years ago. Poverty has decreased from 80% of the world's population to only 20% of the world's population, almost entirely erased in first world countries. These are all good things, and they are all because greater efficiency in production caused by free-markets. Things that were scarce 200 years ago, are nowhere near scarce today. That is the only way egalitarianism can happen, if scarcity is reduced, and the only way scarcity can be reduced is from production, and it just so happens that production is most efficienty (naturally) performed through a system that is not equal, but that's rightly so because there is even scarcity in people who can perform certain functions that are necessary to production. An egalitarian distribution means a less productive society, and consequently an overall worse off society. I'd rather have income inequality if it means that the poor live better than in a society much more equal, with a worse off poor.
The United States might be the most inequal first-world country, but poor still live just as good lives as the poor of other more equal countries, if not better.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/
