“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.

Trending Today
Craig Newmark

Craig Newmark

Associate Professor of Economics, North Carolina State Univ.

Related Articles

1

Smoking Gun on EPA’s Anti-Capitalist Agenda

In the unlikely event anyone still doubts the Environmental Protection Agency has a collectivist economic agenda and is completely out

14

Chicago: Two Anti-American Conferences Held on Independence Day

While patriotic Chicagoans attended parades, BBQs and otherwise celebrated our Independence Day holiday — and while Democrats stayed home and

18

Do SEIU Members Know Their Union Consorts With America’s Enemies?

This is one thing that always flummoxes me. Over the last few decades American labor unions have increasingly become adjuncts,