“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

4

Emanuel’s ‘Chicago Values’ Includes Supporting Gay-Hating, Jew-Hating Louis Farrakhan

Yesterday we reported that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said that the Christian values of Chick-Fil-A are not “Chicago values.” So,

0

Competition or Cartel Control? An Entrepreneur’s Fight for Fairness

How government uses its powers to regulate and license to act as a cartel for established businesses and to exclude

6

Secret Ballot Protection Wins Big in Four States

Is card check dead? Not completely, but if the recent votes on various state ballot initiatives of four states is