“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.

Craig Newmark

Associate Professor of Economics, North Carolina State Univ.

Related Articles

108

Dues Paid to Union Fat Cats Could Have Funded 265,447 Workers For A Year

Leftists and union supporters love to point to the salaries of corporate bosses and claim them an excess in order

7

Video… NFIB Asks the Question: Democracy or Dictatorship in Wisconsin?

Leftist Unionistas can’t tell the difference between a “dictatorship” and the American electoral system. Sponsored by the NFIB The Voice

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

comments

Share This

Share this post with your friends!