“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

4

Romney, Newt, Bachtorum, Ron Puntsman: Who Cares?

Like nearly every conservative in America today I am unimpressed by the current crop of GOP nominees for president and

2

Even NY Times Doubtful About California Boondoggles

You know a government project is headed for disaster when even the New York Times becomes skeptical about it. In

40

Old Media Gets Rolled on Hoax Story

The Associated Press was very excited to learn that General Electric was going to return its $3.2 billion tax refund