“An Audacious Promise: The Moral Case for Capitalism”


James R. Otteson:

Even if we do not all get rich at the same rate, we all still get richer. To see the importance of this point, ask yourself: If you could solve only one social ill–either inequality or poverty–which would it be? Or suppose that the only way to address poverty would be to allow inequality: Would you allow it? This seems a no-brainer: poverty is a far larger factor in human misery than is inequality. If we could have steadily fewer people suffering from grinding poverty, is that not something to wish for, even if it comes with inequality? This appears to be the position in which we find ourselves. The only way we have discovered to raise people out of poverty is the institutions of capitalism, and those institutions allow inequality. Keeping people in poverty seems too high a price to pay in the service of equality. One is tempted to say that only a person who has never experienced poverty could think differently.

Also see,

Craig Newmark

Craig Newmark

Associate Professor of Economics, North Carolina State Univ.

Related Articles

5

Union Boss: Yeah We’ll Talk, But Go Our Way or You’re a ‘Human Rights Violator’

As President Obama clucks his tongue at America for “pointing fingers” and “assigning blame” in our political debate, and as

22

Employee Levels Fall But New York’s Fringe Benefits and Pensions Costs Soar

Pensions are the single biggest problem that every state, county and city in the Union face and New York City

58

Newt’s Tuesday Blogger Conference Call

I just finished with a blogger conference call held by Speaker Gingrich in which he tried to further explain where