Not nearly as much as it promotes envy and jealousy from those who are either too stupid or apathetic to achieve themselves.
I am a firm believer that anybody in America (or the UK), regardless of their background, can rise as high as talent and determination will take them. Generally, they only thing holding people back in a free market is themselves.
We are lucky to live in a society where the sky is never the limit.
Does Capitalism promote and encourage Greed?
Dark Demonic™ ★ The Original SodaHead Guru ★
2010/03/31 01:23:17
Top Opinion
-
No, Capitalism is a great thing, because...
























Why do think the equal distribution of wealth will help society? It is exactly the UNequal distribution of wealth that made the United States succeed resulting in a higher standard of living for everybody.
For a society to succeed there needs to be a good equilibrium. If a country were a plate and one size rises when the people get richer, the other side must sink lower and lower in order for that to happen. I don't know about you, but I'd rather find a better way for society to exist than by one side only be able to succeed by stepping on the heads of those from the opposite side.
While one rich and wealthy businessman gets more and more money, by not paying good wages, by not paying good health or dental insurance and by charging too much for whatever they're selling, the people at the bottom, like the workers or the customers are more likely to face hardship and a constant struggle just to make ends meet.
"For a society to succeed there needs to be a good equilibrium."
ABSOLUTELY! And you know how that works in nature? Some gazelles are strong and they outrun the lion and some gazelles are weak and the get devoured. That's equilibrium. Now what you want to do is to strengthen the weak gazelle and weaken the strong gazelle so all the gazelles are equal. What does that solve? Absolutely NOTHING! Does that strengthen the herd of gazelles? No. Is it fair to the strong gazelle? No. Is it fair to the weak gazelle?
Not to the rest of the herd it isn't.
You don't help the poor by punishing the rich. Rich people give you a job. I've yet to get a job from a poor person. Rich people also buy things. That moves the economy along.
Well?
I believe in equal opportunity. You believe in equal outcome. That's Bull! I heard that if they took all the money from the rich and redistributed to the poor, within two generations most of the money would be back in the hands of the original owners. Why? It's because of what they do. When you force equality of outcome, you are pushing a tyrannical state. If that's the society you want to live in, move to Cuba if you find that so appealing.
You don't think there is a possibility for a middle ground here? A place where rich people can enjoy their money, without having to put the people on lower incomes into debt with mortgages, loans, credit cards, higher purchases? Rich people take advantage of people on lower incomes who didn't have the best education and that's wrong. That's the equivalent of taking candy from a baby, because the baby knows no better.
And no, that is not the equivalent of taking candy from a baby. It would be the equivalent of taking candy from someone your own age. If you are that uneducated that the other person takes your candy, you deserve to lose it!
Other people are not responsible for your shortcomings.
"Rich people don't force you to have a mortgage you can't handle."
Maybe they don't put guns to heads, but they sure do put the pressure on with their salesman, psychological advertising and manipulation.
I was a salesman and my job was to put people into debt so that I could receive commission, but in all the time I had that job would you like to how many times I got my commission? Once and that was because a customer asked me for it and wasn't interested in the alternatives. I didn't need that extra money, luckily and I couldn't justify taking advantage of people who didn't understand things the way I did.
The reason I didn't want to put people in debt, is because I grew up in a family that had them. I watched my parents struggle to make ends meet, because they wanted their children to be happy and well provided for. Both my parents worked and they worked hard, but at the end of the month, they could barely afford to pay the bills.
The artificial heart, for example (and the only one I looked up) wouldn't have been so if not for university work. U of Utah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Capitalism actually places limitations on greed, because people who are free to choose will choose not to buy from those who exhibit greed. In a free-market system, greed actually gets penalized and those who provide greater VALUE in their products and services are rewarded.
And capitalism affords everyone the opportunity to participate in prosperity. Not everyone takes that opportunity, because there is risk and hard work involved, but the opportunities exist that do not exist under other economic systems.
Capitalism does promote greed, yes, because it promotes economic inequality and independent survivalism. However, I don't think greed is necessarily a bad thing.
Keep in mind that greed does not go away with the absence of capitalism. Were ancient people living in caves completely happy and communal, or did they bash each other's heads in for food and shelter? And this was without "capitalism" as we know it.
There was quite a lot of greed in socialist and communist countries, maybe even more than in capitalist. Think about this - if you live in a dreary place like North Korea, your only means of advancement is to join the Communist Party and be as ruthless as possible to rise in the ranks. And top party members are NOT egalitarian, rather they are quite greedy. Communist party bosses eat caviar, drink champagne, and smoke cigars while the rank-and-file peons starve in the street.
Milton Friedman -
Greed exists anywhere - not just among capitalists
.
"Captalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately owned; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries."
"There is no consensus on the definition of captialism, nor how it should be used as an analytical category. There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time,
geography, politics and culture. Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism.. Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economists, anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define captialism, however there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services
for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism."
Origins of Socialism: "The English word socialism (1839) derives from the French social...
"Captalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately owned; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries."
"There is no consensus on the definition of captialism, nor how it should be used as an analytical category. There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time,
geography, politics and culture. Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism.. Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economists, anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define captialism, however there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services
for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism."
Origins of Socialism: "The English word socialism (1839) derives from the French socialisme (1832), the mainstream introduction of which usage is attributed, in France, to Pierre Leroux, and to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud; and in Britain to Robert Owen in 1827, father of the cooperative movemnt. Although socialist models and ideas espousing common ownership have existed since antiquity with the classical Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, the modern concept of socialism evolved in response to the development of industrial capitalism. Early socialism was seen as an extension of classical liberalism by extending liberty and rights to the industrial economic aspect of life, so that these values were compatible with the then-emerging industrial society."
"The first advocates of socialism favoured social levelling in order to create a meritocratic or technocratic society based upon individual talent. Count Henri de Saint-Smon is regarded as the first individual to coin the term socialism. Simon was fascinated by the enormous potential of science and technology and advocated a socialist society that would eliminate the disorderly aspects of capitalism and would be based upon equal opportunities. He advocated the creation of a society in which each person was ranked according to his or her capacities and rewarded according to his or her work. The key focus of Simon's socialism was on administrative efficiency and industrialism, and a belief that science was the key to progress."
little mark
I am a firm believer that anybody in America (or the UK), regardless of their background, can rise as high as talent and determination will take them. Generally, they only thing holding people back in a free market is themselves.
We are lucky to live in a society where the sky is never the limit.
It is NOT ok to be average
It is NOT ok to be lazy
It is NOT ok to be without goals
and it is NOT ok to sit around waiting for the government to bail your ass out.
If you want to be successful, that requires hard work and perseverance, not sitting around bitching about how the world is out to get you and feeling sorry for yourself.