Capitalism

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is it acceptable, under even the most lenient of ethical standards, to allow the upper class live in upmost luxury while millions people all over the globe continue to die of malnutrition?





Coming from an upper middle class family, I have always led a pretty easy and pampered life. Recently however I have starting having second thoughts on whether I or anyone else has the right to live such a life, while others are unable to sustain themselves. Under the economic system of capitalism the less fortunate are more or less exploited by the privileged, resulting in a large economic status gap. This injustice continues in the current administration, as the rich are being granted further privileges, and as a result the weight is thrusted upon the lower and middle classes.

Can any of us possibly justify this grievance whilst retaining good moral convictions?

I much favor socialism over our current system, though admittedly, a pure social order typically fails in a greedy self-centered culture such as our own. I would like to see, at the very least, more socialistic practices in America's free market. Perhaps a taxing of the upper class and a redistribution of the wealth would be the first step to a fairer structure. Ideally, we would place the entire world under a united social structure, granting at the very least the bare necessities to all, but that may just be another unattainable utopian ideal of mine.

You would think human beings, a so called "civilized race" might find a way to cooperate towards the greater good, rather than compete for life. Surely intelligent life forms such as ourselves may find a way to put ourselves above petty 'survival of the fittest' philosophies. There is something for all to gain in a revised economic structure. And yet, we continue to fight.



Capitalism is said to invite prosperity. In reality, the only people that truly prosper are those that receive the luck of the draw. What kind of democracy is that?

[Scrotum]

The Persnickety Platypus (nice name btw), as a European, which are a bunch of countries mostly having Socialism, and hence, lack of poverty, i would say that the American version of "Capitalism" (oligarch really) is a "bad" thing.

But, certain Socialistic tendencies are ovviously also bad. A good mix like the Scandinavian countries have (Iceland, Norway Sweden, which are also the "best" to live in according to any reasnoable standard) have a very good mix of Capitalism and Communism (Thats Socialism) which works out pretty well for them. Whiles United States on the other hand let millions (i would guess around 25-30% of the american population?) live in poverty and missery. Sure, they are to blame, but in the whole, its bad for the world (country, but i think about myself as a person of the WORLD, not country).

[Jose]

My, my, my, Scro. What a silly view. Capitalism is designed by and for the folks who run it. What's a few poor people? The Capitalistic view is that it's their own fault they're poor. They made their bed, now let 'em lie in it. [note sarcasm, as opposed to an accurate representation of my views--please!]

CNN last night had some interviewer asking whether we should waste our time giving the Katrina victims more and more and more help, with a projected cost equal to or more than the Iraq war, or whether we should just give each of 'em a humongous check for $20,000, and tell 'em to get on with rebuilding their lives. So let's see here...you send a bunch of people back to a devastated area with no infrastructure left, and expect 'em to be able to build a house and a job with 20K. Or maybe you expect 'em to move to Chicago and buy a house with 20K and no job. Right. Passionate Conservatism at its best.

There were a few years there where it looked like we might be able to develop a blend of capitalism and "care for the common good." There were public health regulations that reined in the worst environmental excesses of big business, and economic regulations that kept competition and economic diversity alive, and even programs that looked like they might help improve life for those who were less fortunate. Then things changed. It turned out to be remarkably easy to dismantle all of this. What's weird is that it was done in the name of Christian Values.

[Dilettante]

What brand of capitalism and what brand of socialism are we talking about? As far as I know, the US is not a laissez-faire capitalist country (some blame the excessive bureaucracy for the delay in assisting Katrina victims) and in most of Europe the state does not own the means of production. Marxist socialism only exists in Cuba and noth Korea, where people go hungry. Perhaps what people mean by "socialism" is a more developed welfare state than in the US.

[lifeisboring]

Is it acceptable, under even the most lenient of ethical standards, to allow the upper class live in upmost luxury while millions people all over the globe continue to die of malnutrition?

Not to be cruel or anything, but the upper class people earned their money, or just have good luck (ex. inheritence). So I guess it's acceptable, or think of it this way, how can you not accept it?

But of course, if the rich did something to someone to make them poor, it's a different story.