“An Audacious Promise: The Moral Case for Capitalism”
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.
When liberals look at the poor, first and foremost, they see people who will vote for them in exchange for goodies. This gives liberals a perverse incentive to keep as...Read More
Associate Professor of Economics, North Carolina State Univ.
Every time we turn around these days President Obama is touting the idea that the “future” of America lies in
“So we have come to a time for choosing,” warned Ronald Reagan in his famous speech nominating Barry Goldwater for
The Boston Globe is reporting that wait times are growing for citizens of Massachusetts to get in to see their