“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.

Also see...

Craig Newmark

Craig Newmark

Associate Professor of Economics, North Carolina State Univ.

Related Articles

1

Humanities Classes Falling Out of Favor is Higher Education’s Own Fault

FacebookTwitterEmail In The New York Times Tamar Lewin laments the slow death of the humanities in our system of higher

12

Obama’s So-Called ‘Fix’ to Obamacare is Unconstitutional

FacebookTwitterEmail On Thursday, President Obama held a press conference and made the unilateral decision to reverse his previous Obamacare rules

18

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

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

Share This

Share this post with your friends!