|
philosophy -> RE: Mind blowing speech in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America (2/10/2010 2:55:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius
I didn't realize the purpose of capitalism was to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, I thought that was part of the consequences. Those with the desire, talent and willingness will amass wealth. I could be wrong.
...i don't think capitalism has a purpose. It's just an idea, not an entity. However, the consequence of unfettered capitalism is, sure as shit, the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
Now, you go on to suggest that desire, talent and willingness will amass wealth. Thing is, in that idealised pure capitalist society, there have to be losers in order for there to be winners. Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that all the members of that society have all three of those qualities in equal measure. They wont all amass wealth equally, over time the wealth will concentrate in the hands of fewer and fewer people. That's because wealth distorts the exercise of those qualities. Let's say that in this idealised society there are just five people. Person number one wins the first round of economic activity, they are lucky and their deals come out on top. They now have more wealth going into round two than the other four people. Therefore they need to exercise less desire, talent and willingness to break even than the other four. The other four have to show more desire, talent and willingness than person one to achieve the same result. A few iterations later and the four who lost the first round have absolutely no chance to beat person number one, the amount of wealth they have simply can not compete with the amount of wealth number one has. It's no longer about desire, talent and willingness. It's now about having access to the tools to exercise it.
This is why capitalism is often referred to as unfair. A better word would unjust. Someone from a very poor background has much less chance to leverage their desire, talent and willingness into wealth, than someone from an advantaged background. There is the odd exception, but they really are exceptions. Without some sort of mitigating factor, capitalism over time is inherently unjust. However, equality of opportunity can be more nearly achieved if capitalism is tempered with an amount of socialism....if the state puts a thumb on the scales in order to let the desire, talent and willingness of those who start with less have a chance.
However, without capitalism there can be a problem with motivation. So it's important to find a blance between the two. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive doctrines, if the desired end result is for all the people to be the best that they can be.
|
|
|
|
