“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.

Craig Newmark

Craig Newmark

Associate Professor of Economics, North Carolina State Univ.

Related Articles

Obama’s Disastrous Visit to India

President Barack Obama’s now concluding trip to India seems to have turned out to be a failed or at the

15

Will The Treasury Dept. Turn the U.S. Into A New Weinmar Republic?

Germany in the 1920′s did not “invent” Hyperinflation, they just made it famous. Hyperinflation was first systematically:  documented in Germany.

456

Union Astroturf Pretends Like Tea Partiers to Attack GOP

The Hill has an interesting, if not a bit slanted, report about the faux grassroots efforts of unions and left-wing

4 comments

Write a comment
No Comments Yet! You can be first to comment this post!

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*