Back and forth is a post in which an orignal argument is made, and a conversation (however short) stems from it. Then, I make my comments on the matter, and welcome the community to add their thoughts and comments.
The matter at hand today: The disparity of wealth in the US. It is estimated that the top 20% wealth wise in the US have up to 80-90% of the money in the US, leaving 80% of the people with relatively smaller funds.
To learn more about this issue, click here.
Dubuque is becoming a bigger dot on the map, or at least noticed a little more. Almost every month, Dubuque is being recognized by organizations in the United States and around the world for its sustainability efforts or economic development accomplishments.
We have one of the best leadership teams around. Our mayor, city manager and their economic development teams have made Dubuque the envy of many cities around the country. They have nourished contacts in Iowa and Washington, D.C., to bring Dubuque the many benefits we all enjoy.
Congratulations should be given to the leadership of Catholic sisters of our city and country. They are currently on a nine-state bus tour to bring attention to something they feel deeply about. They are concerned about the ramifications of the Republican budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
They, as I, believe the poor and elderly would be hit the hardest, rather than those with more financial resources. These sisters are putting their faith into action.
A few facts Republican leaders wish you didn't know. The 400 richest Americans have more wealth than 155 million Americans. The United States currently has the largest inequality of wealth of any industrialized nation in the world.
I could continue; you get the idea.
Capitalism by its very nature creates disparities in wealth, but when the disparities become so great, it is the voters' and governments' responsibility to limit the disparity.
.svg/800px-Chart_of_US_Top_1%25_Income_Share_(1913-2008).svg.png)
Response 1 from a reader of the TH
We have not had true capitalism in America for more than 100 years. We've had fascism...government control of business. When the government gets involved with regulations, price and wage controls, tax incentives, subsidies and bailouts of big banks and rich corporations...that is NOT free market capitalism. America grew rapidly in its first 100 years because the founders knew INDIVIDUALS working in their own self interest would do much better than command and control of the economy by government egg heads. When the government favors the rich, elite bankers and massive, rich, greedy corporations the little guy gets stomped. Get the government out of the way and let the little guy with the great idea rise to the top. THAT is free market capitalism and economic freedom. It's the government keep the little guy down...NOT capitalism.
It seems clear to me that even in ideal conditions the free market theory increases income and wealth disparity. It is the very nature of capital that stands behind the principle that the possession of wealth leads to greater income, without any additional labor. Moreover, the larger chunk of capital an investor controls, the higher rate of return he or she can expect to receive. While it is true that there is risk in investing, the level of risk does not equal to level of expected returns--if that were true, we could expect to see investors breaking even in the long run. This concept is called economic rent--income by virtue of ownership of capital and nothing more (just like rent in real-estate means income by virtue of ownership of land).
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this basic mechanism, or that owners of capital aren't entitled to derive profit from their holdings, but it does mean that in the aggregate wealth will be concentrated more and more as time goes on.
I would be interested to hear a pure free-market capitalist explain the market mechanism that prevents this from occurring, if there is one.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My Thoughts
"While I am in no way an expert, you need not be an expert to have some type of opinion on a matter."
-Logan Drake
In most cases, inequality is good. It drives others to try to be as successful as someone else they see. So there is nothing wrong with some people being more rich than others.
People argue that many people could become so poor that they wouldn't be able to provide for their family.
If this happens, sure, the Government can help them. But not by giving them enough money to have HDTV, or fast food. They get the bare minimum. Food and water. It sucks for them, yes, but sometimes, life sucks. That seems cold, but actually its founded in logic, not evilness.
For more about how this system could practically work, check out this other opinion piece.
If this happens, sure, the Government can help them. But not by giving them enough money to have HDTV, or fast food. They get the bare minimum. Food and water. It sucks for them, yes, but sometimes, life sucks. That seems cold, but actually its founded in logic, not evilness.
For more about how this system could practically work, check out this other opinion piece.
The original poster says "Capitalism by its very nature creates disparities in wealth, but when the disparities become so great, it is the voters' and governments' responsibility to limit the disparity." I do not agree with this. It isn't the government's job to make sure everyone has the same amount of money.
It's the government's job to make sure everyone is safe, and to provide services like roadways and mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this matter? Be sure to sound off in the comments. Your voice will be heard, I assure you.
(Not a techie? Here's a guide on How to Comment)
No comments:
Post a Comment