TOPIC: Economics
Use Adam Smith, the general concepts of the Enlightenment and current events to support your ideas.
Questions:
-Is Capitalism the best economic model for the world?
-Would Adam Smith approve of some of the recent practices of Wall Street and major corporations?
- Did the current recession begin because Hobbes was right and people are selfish by nature, with the banks and lenders preying on hopeful/uneducated buyers?
-How should or economy be fixed? How should our government continue to deal with the "fiscal cliff", the debt ceiling, etc? Pure capitalism, no intervention, crash and burn? OR should the government intervene in a semi or completely socialist fashion?
-Obamacare: our healthcare system is broken in many ways. Apply these concepts to Obamacare and debate how to fix our healthcare crisis.
You are required to post and must directly engage another student. I am grading based on quality and amount of interaction, so post away! Engage with your fellow AP Worlders and debate! Use as much evidence from the readings and any other research to back your claims!
GO!
REMEMBER: WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE! NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! ANY INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WILL BE DOCUMENTED AND PUNISHED.
ALSO: IF YOUR IDENTITY IS NOT COMPLETELY EVIDENT IN YOUR SCREEN NAME, YOU WON'T GET CREDIT!
ONE LAST THING: Don't write essays nor address every questions in one post. Spread it out and make your posts short enough that people will actually read them and address them. Remember to use the reply function!
In response to the fourth question, a completely laissez-faire economic policy is certainly not preferable. Of course regulations must exist against monopolies and banking, but reducing poverty with programs isn’t half bad either, especially when most of the poor people are trapped in the cycle of poverty, lacking the necessary capital or education to get out. Adam Smith even supported government intervention under causes like these. A theoretical complete laissez-faire government would have to be violating the social contract because it would be giving no economic benefits in return for our submission to capitalist enterprises. Capitalism has its merits, but left unfettered it’ll degenerate into a behemoth of greed where nothing exists but material worth. One must concede that government intervention is necessary on some level, especially to keep monopolies from controlling everything, and once that concession is made we are apparently in the realm of “semi socialism.” Government intervention must be mediated as well because social programs are popular, but too many can lead to a lazy society and a deficit that won’t be balanced during the next boom. I myself am a fan of the Keynesian model, lowering taxes and creating programs during a depression and then raising taxes and cutting programs during a boom to mitigate the boom-bust cycle of laissez-faire, but it has never really been completely followed in American history due to people not wanting to cut programs. My point is you need balance because extremism on both ends has faults; I want a Buddhist economic policy.
ReplyDeleteThough I would agree with you about the monopoly restricting, Dan, I would have to disagree about using the Keynesian model- at least with how we use it. We do make programs to pump money back into the economy during a depression, but we never actually cut the programs after we get out of the depression period. We do not raise the taxes again either- what president would be elected saying they will raise everyone's taxes? Instead, we let it all keep flooding more money into the economy causing a large, artificial bubble of inflation. I prefer the school of thought Mr. Greenockle taught his students, the Austrian School of economics. Leave it all alone because when that bubble we made bigger pops, it'll be far worse than if we went with the smaller punches that come with leaving the economy be.
DeleteI agree with Dan, and the Keynesian model. Capitalism and laissez-faire certainly has its merits, and people like profit. Government intervention is an excellent way to make sure that people aren’t exploiting resources and that everything is fair. When there is an economic crisis, I think that creating social programs helps a lot of people and the economy as a whole. But, like Dan said, these programs are never cut. They also get changed over time to become easier. To be eligible for welfare, you used to have to be working in some sort of job. Now, when you don’t have to be looking for one at all, there is no incentive for people to look for work and earn money. Without that, the economy can’t get off its feet. I think that the government should help to a certain point, but they also need to keep people accountable for themselves in order to get the economy running again.
DeleteI agree with Dan and Lauren and I support semi government intervention in the economy. I think that government intervention is necessary to jumpstart the economy in times of depression by creating welfare programs but I believe there needs to be a balance in the amount of government intervention. People begin depending on these welfare programs and like Lauren said they stop working because these programs support them. I feel that government should create these programs during depression but they should remove them or limit them to the lower class once the nation is out of depression. This would ensure that people begin working and wouldn’t need to depend on the government. Although it would leave many unhappy people, it would be beneficial because the government cannot keep taxing the rich to make these programs and people should be accountable for getting jobs. A classical laissez-faire economy mostly benefits the rich because it lowers taxes for them. However this isn’t fair to the poor people. I believe there needs to be a balance between the classical laissez-faire and Keynesian economic styles with semi government intervention.
DeleteI agree with Dan and think that the Keynesian model or something like it is the best model, albeit not perfect. The recent economic problems were not created at the bottom but at the top. Although the programs are hard to get rid of, they only became necessary because so many people lost their jobs and experienced other problems during the recession. These problems were caused by our economics being too laissez faire and the rich taking advantage of the system. While the programs and government intervention may be damaging, they are necessary in the future to prevent another recession from happening. Government intervention is necessary to keep the economy fair and running. Brandon, I disagree when you say the bubble that we create will be bigger than just leaving the economy alone because the last time the economy was virtually left alone the great depression happened. Every subsequent time there have been other problems including the recent depression. Although the programs are hard to get rid of, at least they are helping get the economy back on track instead of directly causing it to crash.
DeleteIn general, I think Dan has made some very good points. However, one of the most important things we can think about as a society is to improve the lives of those less fortunate. In general, Adam Smith does not believe that government should make one of its priorities of supporting the down-trodden. I strongly disagree with Brandon, who contends that one of the problems with government intervention is that when the economy improves they don’t stop spending. Recently, there has been a large debate in the popular media regarding the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty. When looking at the statistics, the amount of people below the poverty line today is virtually unchanged from 1964 when Johnson started the Great Society. So, I disagree with Brandon on how he thinks that the government fails to stop spending when we don’t need it, because there will always be people that need it and I don’t think we should cut off all government spending during times of economic booms. In general, I agree with the Keynesian model for economics and I think that’s how we should approach fixing the economy.
DeleteI agree with Brandon. Politicians have one thing on their minds: re-election, and therefore cannot be trusted to follow the Keynesian model completely. Policies involving raising taxes and cutting programs, like Dan said, will not happen if current political trends continue. The best option we have is to adopt the Austrian School of thought, instead of leaving our fragile economy in the hands of a few, untrustworthy politicians.
DeleteWhile it is true that politicians may sometimes take advantage and twist the economy for their own personal economic or political gain, we have to trust them to make the best decision for the majority of America during their period in office. If this decision is felt by the American people to be unsuitable, we simply elect someone else the following election. In order to avoid these mistakes, every American citizen should strive to learn their political and economic philosophies so they can know what they believe in and who they should vote for. Instead of blaming the politicians for making these bad decisions, we should ensure that the American people are educated so they can pick the best person for the job. Personally, I believe in the Keynesian method for many of the reasons stated above, but primarily because it gives most Americans the upper hand. Granted, this may not start out as a good method for the rich, but given the time to work effectively, it should majorly balance out the social classes of America, giving those stuck in the cycle off poverty the chance to be given opportunities to rise up and make a better life for themselves and their families.
DeleteI think Capitalism is the best economic model to be practiced. As discussed in the Wealth of Nations, a nation would not thrive to its fullest potential with out capitalism. A free market is more successful opposed to central government planning and interaction. A free market allows for a whole new aspect of self interest which further profits a nation's success. Marketers will then pursue what interests them and what they excel at the most. Then, as everyone contributes to the economy the best they can, the nation will continue to flourish instead of being dictated by the government.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism is the best suit for the world because self interests drive the economy.
I agree with you Rachel, because on top of everything about self-interest, I believe an economy cannot truly grow without pure laissez-faire practices. An economy must be able to bounce back without any assistance from the government. This is extremely relevant to today's economic recession. If the government attempts to bail out the economy, it will only be brought back to the condition it was in prior to the recession, and will be more likely to fall back down. On the other hand, if the economy is allowed to sort itself out, it will emerge stronger than before
DeleteI agree that self interests can drive an economy; however an economy left without any type of regulation will become out of control. Unnaturally inflated costs will ensue because of the greed or "self interests" of most people. In a perfect world, Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" will work and people will see others in need and aid them due to natural human sympathy. However, in this day in age, it seems that everyone just thinks of their own needs and thus the theory will not work unless people think more globally rather than locally. Thus, I think that Capitalism is not the best economic model.
DeleteI am not sure if I agree with you Brendan. Yes, I do believe that ideally the economy should be able to bounce back without assistance. However, what happens when it doesn’t? If the government (or some other force) does not step in to correct the economy, the world could suffer the consequences. On the other hand, it seems as though when the government has stepped in, people see it as unfair (bank bailouts, etc.). Although this type of action might originally be seen as fixative and even necessary, it can end up upsetting much of society. I’m not sure if having a large institution, such as the government, restore the economy is worth having a discontented, and even angry, people.
DeleteI agree with Rachel in that when capitalism is working well, the self interest generated is extremely beneficial to all sources involved, whether it is the government or the seller. Capitalism allows for the government/country to become stronger and the individual to gain profits, so both benefit and the individual stays motivated to continue gaining profits. While the process continues working, the empowerment of the individual ensures that Capitalism is the best world policy. However, when Capitalism begins to fail, as it has during the recession, some type of governmental action is needed. Brendan, I agree that the economy should be (ideally) left alone to sort itself out. But when there are going to be years and years of inflation, unemployment and economic distress unless there is intervention, I don’t see where a completely Laissez-Faire attitude would be beneficial. What would the cost be of a Laissez-Faire attitude? What would years of economic distress mean for small businesses and families? If the cost of letting an economy fix itself is going to be too great, I think that the government should intervene, even if it’s just a little, in order to get the economy back on the right track.
DeleteI think capitalism is the best economic model possible because as Rachel said a free market is more successful. I also completely agree with Brendan about government intervention. I think it is best if the government is completely laissez faire and does not get involved with trying to correct the economy. In a capitalist market, the economy, although it might take long, will eventually correct itself. If a government has to give money out to help out specific industries, it only brings the government more debt, which is the last thing we need.
DeleteI disagree with anyone that has said pure laissez faire is the best economic system. Looking at the past 100 years, it is obvious in American history the flaws of pure capitalism. The Stock Market Crash of 1929 is the best example of how rampant businesses can become corrupted, thus leading to an economic downfall. The consequences of Classical economics can be seen again in the Stock Market crash of 1987, and then again that of 2008. These multiple occurrences of laissez faire governments obviously showcases the immense downfalls of this type of economic system. Without regulation, things will always go out of control.
DeleteIn addition, as we learned (or you should have learned), classical economics is based on 3 assumptions. One major assumption is that these large businesses will invest their extra profits back into their business. However, as stated previously, capitalism is also based in self interest. Why would someone with so much money invest all of it back into a business? Why wouldn't they keep some or most of that money if they are so self interested? This paradox is a constant flaw in classical economics. Furthermore, another assumption is that these large corporations will hire the middle and lower class. With the price of physical labor, the existence of off shoring, and the growing presence of robotic and mechanical labor, the idea of hiring demanding middle and lower class labor is counter productive to the business. Only incentives by the government for manual labor has kept people working. However, in complete laissez faire economics, government interference is not only frowned upon, but also prohibited. Thus, these inherent flaws in the classical mode of economics proves why it is not an ideal or possible economic system in today's society.
DeleteEveryone has made valid points, but in addition to my previous ones, a free market allows resources to be used most efficiently as well as encouraging growth and prosperity. I would argue that Capitalism does break the need to depend on state government for support, but everyone has made valid points about complete laissez-faire being possible in an ideal world, which obviously we do not live in. Taking a look at modern day America is good evidence against it.
DeleteI don’t necessary believe that capitalism can fix a nation and provide the best economic model for the world. Capitalism has many holes in it which stray from its original intentions. A big part of this is, like Matt saide, the lack of incentive. The only goal of a large corporation is to grow and sustain their wealth, not to work towards a better economy for their competitors. Middle class workers are being beat out by cheap laborers, hindering their ability to join the capitalistic movement and businesses. Since the poor laborers lack the support and resources to rise into the competition of the large corporations, the companies face little struggle and instead grow larger. This cycle only benefits the wealthy. Although the original intentions of a completely laissez faire government sound good in theory, it is impossible to keep the government and the economy as two separate bodies, because they coincide so often. When first considering capitalism, one must also look at the government influence. People advocate for little government interference, yet during a time of failure, like the recession, they look towards the government and national funds to participate. Capitalism can work as a successful economic system, as seem in the American businesses, but the extremities of capitalism may be harmful.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI completely agree with Matt and Jen. Capitalism can only be the best economic model if it accounts for the three assumptions. The assumptions are that tax cuts expand businesses, the lower and middle classes take wages and buy products from these businesses, and that these businesses expand overseas. However, as Matt said, there is no guarantee that all three of these assumptions will be met. Since classical economics is based on a trickle down economic policy, when one of these assumptions is not met, it will destroy the entire economy. I believe that it will be extremely difficult for this economic system to exist because it is unlikely that all three assumptions will be satisfied. Hence, I think that a pure capitalist economy will not be the best for the world. That being said, I believe that an all Keynesian economic system will not be the best economic system. This would give the government too much control and it will make the lower classes completely dependent on the government welfare programs.
DeleteThis is really a very difficult argument to have. Theoretically and philosophically, capitalism does provide the most sound economic basis for a country to thrive. Self-interest drives decision which drives competition and that is partly why America has become the preeminent creator of the most innovative things of the 20th and 21th century. However, on the other side of the coin, GREED drives the economy in a capitalist society. When the economic playing field becomes too unbalanced, people get angry, and when people get angry, societies crumble. Nearly every capitalist society in history has imploded due to the colossal wealth gap. Let's talk the Roman Empire for example. When the gap between slaves and the aristocracy became to large, the empire crumbled. Who's to say America is not next? Unfortunately, the world has yet to find, and probably never will find, and economic system that balances the self-interest needed to drive an economy with a wealth gap that remains moderate.
DeleteI agree with Rachel that capitalism is the best economic system a nation can practice. Capitalism gives a nation the ability to increase wealth and encourages citizens to increase personal wealth. In theory it gives people who want money, an equal ability make that money than other citizens of the same country. However, capitalism as practiced today in America, for example, is flawed and not completely laissez-faire. It is tough to say if capitalism can be executed perfectly making all members of society wealthy and happy because no country has the perfect economy. Although global superpowers such as the US, Britain, and Germany create significantly higher standards of living, not all members are happy with their opportunity or current situation. That being said, the citizens of capitalist societies still enjoy more economic and personal freedom than the up-and-coming socialist republic that is China.
DeleteIn some situations, I think lassiez-faire is necessary, however I do believe that some government intervention is necessary. I think it is idealistic to believe that the economy is resilient enough to pull its self out of a crisis. The government should watch over economic activity and intervene when necessary. Government regulations are needed to prevent the economy from extreme movements. I agree with Jen that capitalism has many holes in it, and I think it is the government’s duty to help fill those voids. History has shown us that capitalism, while not perfect, is the most viable system over the long term to support wealth and develop it.
DeleteI also agree with Rachel. I think that Capitalism is an excellent economic policy and structure for our society. First off, the Capitalist model is based off of a free market. Here, everyone is able to pursue their own desires and is truly motivated by their own self-interest. In our society, I would say that most people operate by their own self-interest and do things simply because they want to. In this model, people are also able to express their own desires and dislikes. So, because Capitalism gives people the ability to act by their own free will, it is appropriate for our society. However, I will say, that although this model might cater to most people’s inherent natures, that problems do arise: monopolies, stock market crashes, deficits, recessions, etc. So, although this model caters to our society’s needs, it should definitely be monitored.
DeleteI agree with Rachel that self-interest drives the economy. However, I agree more with Julia. I also think a completely free market is dangerous. I think that the government should have some interference in the economy for the sake of regulating it. I disagree with Brendan. Sometimes it is necessary for the government to bail out the economy. Ideally, an economy should be resilient enough to bounce back on its own, but realistically, it’s not very feasible. I’m not saying that Capitalism is bad, but I just think that people care more about themselves more than others. Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments” highlights how people should look away from themselves and towards others in need due to sympathy. In Capitalism, people aren’t like that. It’s more of a “kill or be killed” situation where if one company slows down, competitors will crush it. In a way, I think that too much self-interest became a factor causing the current recession. Granted, there are other reasons, but I think that self-interest is a major driving factor when everything is simplified. Therefore, complete capitalism is not the best economic policy.
DeleteI agree with Adam. Although capitalism may seem like an ideal economic system, it is really dangerous. Self-interested may drive the economy but a lot of greed comes with self-interest. With greed comes corruption, and that leads to a dramatic social unbalance. I think that government intervention is necessary, but to a certain extent. As Jen said, large companies only focus on growth and success. When people focus only on self-profit, large companies can grow and eliminate competition, which is another basis of capitalism. I don't think that any economic system can be practiced perfectly, as history shows evidence with monopolies and stock market crashes. I think that in order for there to be competition in the economy, and opportunities for people to pursue their self-interests, the government should intervene to regulate extreme circumstances.
DeleteWhen thinking about the American model of capitalism, it is not completely consistent with the laissez-faire model proposed by Adam Smith. While in many cases companies experience the ability to compete, in fact, there are many impediments to such competition. For example, there are government regulations that limit certain actions. Historically the economy left alone has not yielded the best outcome; in fact, it frequently needs some form of government intervention to smooth out declines in economic output. I agree with Matt’s position with respect to the historical record involving the Great Depression and the Crash of 1987. I would also add that bubbles frequently happen as exhibited with the Internet Bubble of 2000 and the most recent financial crisis. So, while I understand the pros to Smith’s model of capitalism, I don’t think it is the best economic model for the world and I think it is too idealistic.
DeleteWhile I agree that capitalism is the best economic model, I think a purely laissez-faire government would be a disaster. I agree 100% with everything Matt Aronson said in his post. The Stock Market Crash of 1929 is the best example I can think of to show what can happen if business is not regulated at least to some degree. Also I agree with how Matt said that one of the three assumptions is that profitable businesses will pump money back into the economy is false. In this day and age with practices like outsourcing as businesses develop they expand to other nations (usually with a very large lower class) and exploit their lack of safe working condition laws. When this happens it is not Americans getting jobs and getting paid, but it is Americans buying the products. So the money Americans put into the business is not put back into the American economy. If there was no government interference then this would happen on a much larger scale and probably be taken to a further degree. The best thing to fix our economy would be, in my opinion, to eliminate outsourcing completely, at least temporarily. This would require a good amount of government regulation so laissez-faire would not work.
DeleteI believe that a completely lassiez-faire approach to solving economic problems of a capitalist society would be ineffective, and like Mary Kate stated, regulated government intervention is the solution to the economic problems. Though Capitalism is a flawed system, a lassiez-faire & regulated government approach would help solve it problems. For example, many argue that a “free market” allows companies to monopolize and exploit customers, like during the 19th century when American railroads gained power by raising prices. However, with government intervention monopolies would be prevented from forming in a capitalist system and would allow for economic equality and reassurance of consumers. The stability capitalism provides to an economy despite its flaws, makes capitalism the best economic model for the world.
DeleteObamacare is flawed in many ways, with one being that it does not adhere to the basic capitalist principles laid out by Adam Smith. Obamacare has provided a mandatory health insurance to every US citizen. While this is good because it protects those with preexisting medical conditions who would have otherwise had coverage refused, Obamacare is ultimately not effective to its fullest potential as it deals mainly with the supply, or the people being insured rather than addressing the supply which would best take advantage of capitalist principles. If Obamacare used its funds to expand the healthcare field by doing things such as building facilities, creating educational incentives that would increase the popularity of the medical field, and expanding the overall availability of healthcare to the public, it would allow for a better healthcare system overall. Instead of providing national healthcare in a socialist manner, Obamacare could address the issue by greatly increasing supply, which would in turn lower the costs of healthcare, increase the competition among providers, and most importantly give citizens a chance to pursue their self-interests and choose how and where they will be insured. Obamacare is a very flawed system, as it replaces Capitalist principles with Socialist ones.
ReplyDeleteI agree Mitch, by expanding the supply and availability of insurance, competition in the insurance marketplace would drive down costs to consumers. I think that one solution to Obamacare, or rather America's healthcare cost problems, would be to increase the supply of insurance by allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines.Currently restrictions are in place that prevent the purchasing of insurance from non-residential states. With only 36 health insurance companies in the U.S. market, and having only about ten available on average in each state, the supply is not great enough to truly create competition to drive down costs. Insurance oligopolies have formed due to the restrictions and lack of competition. However, if insurance could be bought across state lines, consumers would have a greater range of options to suit their needs. In addition, more competition for insurance companies to retain and add customers would force more competitive insurance rates in the benefit to the customer (demand). Competition would also decrease insurance premiums. I believe that in order for the insurance marketplace to be more capitalistic and open, the statewide oligopoly in the insurance marketplace must be stopped by having more competition in order for the cost to go down for consumers and help to solve the rising rates of insurance costs in America.
DeleteI disagree that Obamacare "replaces Capitalist principles with Socialist ones." One of its features, individual mandates, is meant to require all people to have health insurance so people who are insured will no longer have to subsidize the cost society incurs for the people who would otherwise get health services without being able to pay for them. Also, the health insurance exchanges are new marketplaces where insurance companies have to compete with each other fairly (free market capitalism). And guaranteeing coverage when there are pre-existing conditions and establishing minimum standards for insurance policies makes it more fair to consumers so the health insurance industry can't take advantage of them. Yes, that's regulation, but fair regulation is required to make capitalism work for all.
DeleteSorry I had to do this to you :/
I agree with Mike on this one. The idea of Obamacare is far more of a Socialist idea than a Capitalist idea, like you said Mitch, however, the philosophy of the Social Contact and Obamacare are almost identical. One must sacrifice his or her original freedoms to provide for the greater good. Mitch, you had excellent observations that Obamacare is not the best way to solve this problem. The Demand for health insurance is insanely high and increasing the supply in other ways, than that of required health insurance would be the most accurate way to address this problem. But the government and the United States was built off of Capitalism. If money is not being forced into the economy then we all crash and burn. The idea of feeding required money to the economy is brilliant on behalf of the ideas behind Obamacare. It is all about helping the greater good, and Obamacare, like the Social Contract, is exactly what is needed.
DeleteInsurance companies are losing money from Obamacare, which could lead to an oligopoly in the future. Because insurance companies have to charge the same amount for men and women, whereas women used to be charged more, the price of insurance for men has increased. As the price increased, the demand decreased. Also, fewer people under 35 (who are usually healthier and less money) signed up for Obamacare plans than expected, so the companies could lose even more money. These losses are paid for with taxes, so they very well might increase to foot the bill. Most people signing up for Obamacare are also paying more than they did with their previous plans, leaving less money for people to use in the economy. Although Mike pointed out the perspective from the theoretical point of view, in practice Obamacare is only doing harm.
DeleteI think that Obamacare addresses the need for healthcare among those with pre-existing conditions. I believe that that is one of the most important aspects of the Affordable Care Act because prior, those with pre-existing conditions were often unable to purchase health care due to the fact that treatments and medicine would be considered too costly for the insurance companies. Simply "expanding the healthcare field" as Grant and Mitch suggested, would not give these companies incentive to provide health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions for an affordable rate. The insurance companies are private corporations and they, like any other private company, are in the business of making money so any person with a pre-existing condition will have to pay a lot more than someone without to make up for what the company will lose by paying for treatments, etc. Even with an expansion of the medical field, the cost of healthcare for those with pre-existing conditions would remain the same but with the Affordable Care Act, healthcare is affordable for all Americans.
DeleteI agree with Emma that Obamacare is crucial in order for people with preexisting conditions to to obtain the medical help that they need. While I do agree that focusing on the supply would lower the cost of healthcare, this would still not be enough for many people. I don't believe that Obamacare takes away from the capitalist nature of the economy because it does not take away the competition between healthcare providers, but actually creates new a new marketplace for them to compete in. Americans who do not recieve healthcare through their employer or through government subsidized medicare will now need to get insurance from insurance companies in the new marketplace that Obamacare creates. This would create more competition between companies in that market. So even though this does involve government regulation, it does not completely take away from the capitalist nature of our economy. As many people mentioned, some government regulation is needed in capitalism because we don't live in a perfect world.
DeleteI completely agree with Emma and Sarah about the pre-existing conditions ultimately holding healthcare from a person in need. Everyone wants healthcare to prepare for the time when they actually have to use it, yet those that are in need but lack this preparation have been unable to get healthcare. By providing Obamacare to those that can actually use it, healthcare is doing the job it was designed to do. Why should someone be denied healthcare because they are already sick, shouldn’t that be when they are the most able to receive it. Unfortunately, looking at Obamacare from a business perspective shows its faults. Because the number of healthy participants sustaining this care for the needy is far less than the amount of people using the affordable health care, this program will face serious struggles in the future economically.
DeleteDrew, I agree with you. Obamacare is definitely more of a socialist program because it's attempting to provide for a whole group. However, this is very ineffective because it can't do its job. It would be great if everyone was taken care of even if they can't afford it but it's just not realistic. There are so many people taking advantage of the system that don't need it. It's the idea of Obamacare that is good but the execution of the plan is terrible. The system is relying on younger people to support the elderly and the sick but the younger generation isn't paying for health care as much for personal reasons. So the plan will not ever work accordingly.
DeleteCorinne, I respectfully disagree. Health insurance does not only serve the sick and elderly; the "younger generation" as well as all others should still be insured so that they can have regular checkups and have access to vaccines and medicine which are typically covered by the insurance company. I don't believe that anyone is "taking advantage of the system because they don't need it" because pretty much everyone needs some health insurance plan. ObamaCare makes health care affordable for anyone who was previously unable to afford it whether because they're lower class individuals or because they have a pre-existing condition. Younger or relatively healthy individuals are not just paying for healthcare to support the sick and elderly, they are paying so that they can have a health insurance plan for themselves, one which almost all people need.
DeleteDon't get me wrong, health insurance is a good but the reason why it isn't as great as is sounds is because people are taking advantage of it. Not everyone of course, there are many people that need it and don't abuse it. An example of someone that abuses it would be someone with excessive self-indulgences who spends money on themselves but he or she can not even pay for their own health care. Instead, other people are paying more to cover them. This is unfair but it doesn't go for everyone, I'm just stating one of the flaws in the system. Love you see you in class ((((:
DeleteI agree with Mike and Drew. Obamacare is completely socialist and the government knows it. But just because America has labeled itself as "capitalist" does not mean that other economic systems cannot be explored in order to alleviate a specific problem. In a perfect world, Mitch's explanation on how to make health care affordable in this country is very accurate and is undoubtedly the most effective way to fix the health care mess in this country. However, the health care industry has become so locked up with only a small number of companies providing health insurance. Because of this, it is extremely difficult, nearly impossible, to increase the supply of healthcare and thus drive down the price to a more reasonable number. Government economists recognize this fact and thought that Obamacare would be a decent attempt at fixing the problem. To Corinne's point about health care abuse, that is precisely the problem with capitalism. Although it provides healthy competition, it leaves the door open for greedy people to potentially abuse the efforts of the government to truly try to help the American people.
DeleteI agree with Adam here in his statement about Mitch’s idea for lowering healthcare costs and increasing facilities being the ideal one to follow, but under our country’s current economic situation it is not a possible solution. The Obamacare route to solving our country’s faulty healthcare system is not correct either and is indeed very flawed. With such a severe national debt and the current recession, although improving, a strong push for healthcare reform is a dangerous one. I do not know of a way to fix this problem as it currently stands, but I also disagree with the Obamacare system for our nation in its current state. The requirement for all citizens to have healthcare is a socialist one, but I do not believe this alone should take away its credibility. Under a more powerful economy such a system would work and indeed increase the chances for people getting the kind of coverage they want while also visiting the doctor they want to visit. Not everything about Obamacare is bad however. Like Emma said, Obamacare gave many people with pre-existing health conditions the ability to be insured and was able to do so at a reasonable price for those people.
DeleteLauren, I agree that Mike takes the theoretical perspective of Obamacare. I wouldn’t go as far to say that Obamacare is socialist. I think that under Obamacare, there are still some capitalistic undertones where companies still compete for customers. However, government intervention provides customers for the companies. I don’t think that having Obamacare, like Lauren said, is as beneficial as it could be. But I can understand why the government implemented it. They provide healthcare along the prerequisite standards, and people are free to choose which plan they’d like. Like Emma said, Obamacare gives people healthcare they can afford. But I still agree with Laruen beacuse most people probably pay more than what they previously did. Likewise, more money spent on healthcare causes less money going into other parts of the economy, therefore causing stagnation in other fields of the economy.
DeleteThe way Obamacare is designed to work is good in theory, but in real life it is not a realistic system to instate. With the economy in its current state, we cannot afford for the government to pay for health insurance. This would only drive our debt deeper, further constricting our economy. We would be much better off if health insurers were to offer coverage more easily to those truly in need. To restate my opening point, Obamacare is genuine in theory, but it is unrealistic and impractical for our country right now.
DeleteI agree with Drew regarding his position that Obamacare satisfies the social contract. Obamacare’s purpose is to provide for the greater good of all society by allowing everybody to get insurance, even those with pre-existing conditions that normally would not be eligible for insurance. It’s interesting that many people who are upset with the concept of Obamacare are not upset with Medicare, when in fact; Obamacare is basically Medicare for a younger demographic. While I agree that there are a lot of flaws in Obamacare, I think that we’re better off as a society than we were before. I think that all people should have the option to retain the healthcare they used to have, and that, although promised, did not happen. Another way I think our healthcare system could be improved is the expansion of Medicaid.
DeleteI have to disagree with Mitch on this one. While I agree Obamacare is flawed, I don't think a better option would be pumping money into the medical field and building new facilities. Health insurance is not like car insurance. A car is an item you can do without so it makes sense to only have one if you can afford the insurance. However health is not something you can do without. Everyone should have the right to see a doctor when they are sick and receive appropriate treatment. The sad reality is no matter how many facilities are built and how cheap health insurance can potentially become, there will always be a group of people who cannot afford it. Though your method would certainly shrink this group, it will still exist, and health insurance is something everyone needs. Even for people who have money, expensive treatments such as chemotherapy can erase your savings completely. There needs to be government-issued health insurance to make sure that everyone has it because it is an absolute necessity.
DeleteResearching more about Obamacare, I looked into which countries offered universal health care. One article that I read pointed out how presence of universal health care was one of the factors that separated the developed nations from the developing. "The only developed outliers are a few still-troubled Balkan states, the Soviet-style autocracy of Belarus, and the U.S. of A., the richest nation in the world." This is one quote that made me really wonder why the US is still against Obamacare. Yes, I see the issue with budget and un-capitalistic aspect of Obamacare. However, just as Drew pointed out, the Social Contract emphasizes how the general will is more important than individual will. I believe that eventually as Obamacare begins to show its benefits the economy will stabilize, the problems will be solved as times goes, and Obamacare will truly benefit the whole country. Therefore I think it is time for people to sacrifice some of their individual will and try the new plan that might change the future of this country.
DeleteYuna, I think you bring up some great points about the state of health care in other countries. Obamacare, like any government policy, has its pros and cons, but in this case, I believe the benefits are greater. The greatest of those is providing health insurance to those with pre-existing conditions. This is definitely a necessity in any situation. And, while it does require some people, like the young and the rich, to pay a slightly increased rate, it allows those poverty-stricken families and the elderly living on a fixed income to have health insurance. This policy is in accordance with the social contract, as many people have stated, but that goes to show how the roots of this country are still in the ideologies that founded it. For many people, the institution of Obamacare will not make much of a difference in their lives: they can keep the same doctor and the same plan as they were on before. Overall, the benefits of Obamacare (coverage for pre-existing conditions, the poor, and the elderly) outweigh the negative effects(some people like the rich and the young to pay a slightly higher fee for the greater good of the country).
DeleteCapitalism is the best economic system for a country. As Adam Smith points out, “The quantity of every commodity brought to market naturally suits itself to the effectual demand.” This system of supply and demand creates a naturally balanced economic system based on the different interests of the people. This laissez-fair system is a better option than the government controlling the economic system because it allows for more individual rights. Also, as Smith said in the Wealth of Nations, if the quantity of a certain commodity or need for labor is decreased, the free-market will fix itself through supply and demand. Therefore, capitalism is the best economic system for the world because it promotes the idea of the “invisible hand.”
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Kayce that capitalism is the best economic system. Since capitalism is initially based on the recognition of individual rights, it is also more practical when it comes to deciding the best economic model for the world. As Kayce stated, the laissez-faire system prevents the government from having full control on the economic system, which benefits individuals in the society. Additionally, because of the amount of freedom that is given to the sphere of production, the result of this is free-market. Kayce says that the free-market will fix itself through supply and demand, and I also agree with that since the job of the free-market is to regulate supply and demand rather than government policy.
DeleteI completely agree with both Kayce and Dilan. Capitalism is perfect for a numerous amount of reasons. Capitalism basically functions off of human nature. Humans are always competing and, according to Hobbes, are naturally greedy. This greed and competition drives the "invisible hand" that Kayce mentioned earlier and makes our economy grow. Also, capitalism gives birth to the American Dream and gives more people an "equal" chance to become wealthy or at least live a comfortable lifestyle. I put quotes around equal because its no secret that people have more of an advantage over others because they were born into wealthy families; however, a less privileged person can become wealthy with the hard work and good ideas. Even though I mentioned earlier that capitalism runs off of greed, capitalism is good for the overall society. The invisible hand drives services and products to be nicer and cheaper than before, meaning that people will be happier (because lets face it we are a completely materialistic society). It is true that capitalism does have flaws, but so do all the other economic models of the world. Until a new economic model is made with fewer flaws and greater benefits than Capitalism, it will remain on top.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI disagree with the argument presented that capitalism is the best system to have in place. Capitalism, like any other government form, has its flaws. While capitalism does give the individual power to make his or her own decisions, the absolute lack of regulation will allow for the rich to gain more and more wealth as they take advantage of the working class and push them deeper and deeper into poverty. Without regulation, there would be no minimum wage, small business will collapse under the might of big business. For example, as of 2010 in America, the top 1% on the population controls 34.5% of America’s wealth, the next 19% controls 53.5% of the wealth, and the bottom 80% controls a measly 11.1% of the wealth of America. And this is with much government regulation, such as minimum wage, restricted number of working hours, child labor laws, etc, which is considered non-capitalist. In a completely capitalist society, none of these regulations would be in place, and therefore more people would be in poverty. Even with hard work, a wage of 1 dollar an hour would be insufficient to provide for yourself, let alone an entire family family. Therefore, capitalism is no where near a great economic system. I am not saying that the government would need to fully control the job market, I am saying that the lack of regulation presented in capitalism is detrimental to the majority of the population in the country. And if that does not prove my argument, the United States is ranked #6 in the world for GNP, which while very impressive, it is behind Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Denmark, all of which are socialist nations. Therefore, how can capitalism be the best if the country best known for its capitalism ( which even then it is modified with regulations) is ranked 6th in the world and not 1st.
DeleteYeah, wow...you have a lot of facts matt, and that is impressive, but i still agree with the initial argument of Kayce. The United states is ranked number 6, but you can also blame that on the greedy people of this country. Capitalism is a brilliant idea that, yes, may allow for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, however with this "Invisible Hand policy," it is a fix it yourself problem. It is basic supply and demand. If an object is needed, the demand will increase, and by the invisible hand theory so will the supply. This is the same if a product is not needed as well. They are basic principles, however, to work, we need people to understand them as well as use them, not just use them, and that is where our problem lies.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteObamacare's economic foundation is based on two main areas. The first is that young people from the ages of 18-34, who are the healthiest group of adults, pay for the old (Adults over the age of 50 without medicare benefits) and the sick. It is also based on people paying the cost for those who cannot afford to pay healthcare costs. For the old and the sick, who statistically are more costly, Obamacare is likely to be more affordable and a great option. However, Adam Smith would be baffled by the fact that a healthy 18 year old without medical problems would be forced to pay the same price for the same coverage as a 60 year old with serious medical problems. In Adam's mind, the market should have options for every individual’s situation, not one proposed universal option (Which in fact is not based on medical history). New reports say that only 24% of Obamacare participants are in the key age group of 18-34. Without the economic foundation of healthy young adults to support the more costly participants, Obamacare cannot sustain in the future. If Obamacare was a business, without sufficient income from healthy 18-34 year olds, the costs of supporting the sick would put Obamacare underwater (bankrupt). A friend of mine, who is a CEO, told me that a capitalistic business must meet the ever-changing market in order to retain an income (The market being the demand). While Obamacare meets the market (Supply) for the old and the sick, it does not cater towards the majority of healthy American's. Without healthy young adults enrolling, Obamacare, being based off the principle that healthy young adults would pay for the sick and those who cannot afford healthcare, will fail.
ReplyDeleteObamacare must cater to the healthy while meeting the needs of the old and the sick in order to succeed. Adding a refundable tax credit to motivate the young and healthy to purchase Obamacare could work. Government credit assistance separate from Obamacare for those who cannot afford insurance would work as well, rather than credit assistance from the system. Whatever the solution may be, Obamacare is unsustainable until it can function to meet the entire market successfully.
In response to the third question, there are multiple causes of the current recession. The most prominent cause was the mortgage crisis concerning the housing market. Banks and lenders enticed buyers with low interest rates and small down payments to invest in houses they could not afford. Many of the buyers were not educated about mortgages and fell victim to the banks. These banks and lenders were motivated through greed because they were interested in getting the biggest amount of commission they could possible, so they sold higher mortgages to almost everyone. However, as the buyers soon realized that the mortgage was overpriced, they defaulted on the loans. This default hurt the banks, which in-turn hurt the overall economy. If both the lenders and buyers were not drawn into the situation by greed, each party would have made more rational decisions benefiting each other and themselves more so. Therefore, Hobbes’s argument about human motivation is correct in relation to the current recession.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ariel. I believe that their greed, their desire to achieve the highest commissions possible and make the most profits, led to hasty and dangerous ventures that were profitable in the near future, but as we experienced, ultimately failed. Such widespread risks are, because of their risky nature, unethical. A gambler may squander his own money, but when millions of gamblers squander millions of other people's money, there will be disaster. The government, or at least the federal agencies concerning each industry, must set regulations so that this crisis will not be repeated. Absolutely free enterprise can not be the perfect system because sometimes people do stupid things, and we need to prevent that somehow. Thus, regulation.
DeleteI disagree on the fact that it is solely the banks and lenders faults for the mortgage crisis. I disagree because if Congress and the Federal Reserve didn't loosen the requirements for mortgage verification over the years there wouldn't have been nearly as much issues as there is now. This is because it allows the lenders to act as middle man and take advantage of the innocent buyer. Ariel was correct saying Hobbes was right about men being selfish, but the selfish lenders were not the start of the recession. It started because Congress and the Federal Reserve gave room for the lenders to take advantage of those lenders to an extreme extent.
DeleteI agree with Ariel in that the Banks and lenders were driven by greed and only concerned with making money for themselves. They were blinded by their desires and acted irresponsibly. They used other people’s money unfairly in that they were not completely open about the risks they were taking. People were uneducated about what exactly they were giving their money away to. The banks and lenders knew this and thought they could get away with it. That is why I agree with Josh about the government needing to regulate this more strictly. People will always do things to benefit themselves but if there are restrictions set upon them then perhaps they will be forced to consider the other people who they are working with. Hobbes was completely correct about people being selfish by nature. Everyone will deny what their true motives are but 90% of the time, people are only thinking of themselves and what will benefit them the most.
DeleteI think that many of the statements made by Ariel and Gigi are correct. However, it is not logical for a bank to offer a loan to someone who cannot repay. The amount of commissions upfront is more than offset by orders of magnitude when the loss occurs, so the idea that the banks were taking advantage of the buyers’ ignorance for the commission doesn’t make sense since the loss on the underlying loan would far exceed the benefit of earning the commission. The mortgage crisis was, in part, created by the greater fool theory. This theory posits that someone else will come along to pay a higher price, thus, giving the original homeowner a profit. This shows that the buyers did know what they were doing and many made a profit from flipping houses. As Gigi stated, the Federal Reserve was culpable with its loose money policy and the generous ability to refinance mortgages.
DeleteI agree with Ariel in that the most prominent cause of the current recession is a product of the mortgage crisis in the housing market. Although Hobbes’s idea of people being selfish by nature sounds negative, it applies in this situation. The banks took advantage of uneducated buyers and eventually impacted the overall economy. However, I think as Americans people should become more educated about the economy and evaluate the mortgage deal before they act with only greed first. It is a natural instinct to want more for less, as Hobbes stated. But in the end it affects the lender and buyer as well as the overall economy in a negative way. Rather than act on impulse and be taken advantage of, buyers need to be more cautious while lenders need to be less greedy and think about what will be most beneficial for the future. With this attitude, the current recession may not have had this big of an impact on the economy.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is important for the citizens to educate themselves on public matters so they can make good decisions for themselves and when voting, I don't think you could ever count on lenders not acting on greed. If there's an opportunity for money, people will seize it. This recession is an example of the government needing to impose regulaitons on the housing market. It's another way a completely laissez-faire economic system can go wrong. This recession was practically the same thing as the Great Depression except in the Great Depression it was the stock market and banks that weren't being regulated.
DeleteI agree with Kayce that this is an example of how the Hobbes was correct and that the people's greed helped to cause the recession. I also agree that people should be more cautious and educated on their large purchases like housing. While regulation on some things may be helpful, I would still caution too much regulation, which would disrupt the economy too much when it should be left alone. After the Great depression the Glass Steagall act was implemented that essentially stopped banks from investing in the stock market. Then, in 1999 it was repealed. Shortly after we had the recession in 2008. I believe this shows how small amounts of regulation helped because once it was gone we headed towards another recession. Some regulation may be needed, but it should be a minimal amount if at all.
DeleteI agree with both Dan and Brandon. I think that no matter how many regulations you put on an economy people will still take advantage of each other out of greed. There should be some small regulations to prevent people from losing too much money, but it should still try to adhere to capitalism as much as possible. The best way to prevent economic crashes is for people to educate themselves and make informed decisions. Otherwise, it is just the wealthy taking advantage of the poor.
DeleteDo you guys believe that if companies should be regulated in their advertisements and the price of their down payments? I feel that our society jumps at sales because of these low initial prices and, as a result, we fail to see the long-term impact and the cost
DeleteWell, Ariel, it depends what they're selling. When you are talking about buying homes, that is a huge decision, and when you purchase a home you need to make sure you can afford it, even if it looks like a great deal at a first glance. If your just talking about items you buy in a store, its not really a big deal if you buy a small piece of clothing or something that you later regret spending your money on.
DeleteI'm not really an expert on what happened with the mortgage crisis, but I believe the (very) brief overview of the problem was banks were making loans to people to buy homes knowing that these people wouldn't be able to pay them back. Then when the family couldn't repay them they would have to foreclose on the house and the bank would get everything.
If this is the case, the solution to the problem would to have banks do stricter background checks (on things such as credit score) on people before loaning them large amounts of money. Then, if the people are able to pay of the loan, the bank should be fine with it.
The problem isn't really with the attractiveness of the low down-payment or sales, but banks being too willing to loan people money that can't be repaid AND people not stopping for a minute and thinking: "Am I really living within my means if I purchase this?"
I don't think that the banks caused the problems, they just facilitated poor decision-making.
Hooray for agreement. I believe the housing bubble and any bubble for that matter, be it South China Sea or The Tulip Bubble, etc., is a direct proof of Hobbesian Human Nature. People want the best deals, and if that means a cheaper rate now, they will take it. The average house consumer is not prepared for the legal fine print regarding adjustable mortgages. Most people who faced foreclosure were stuck in those adjustable, non-fixed mortgages. Clearly some banks abused their legal knowledge to make profit.
DeleteIn lieu of all the recent news over Wall Street and large corporations, I don’t believe that Adam Smith would approve. The corruption of Wall Street has become a reoccurring headline in news. Stories about insider trading and fraud are commonplace. 29% of Wall Street employees said that they may need to engage in illegal activity to get ahead in their careers. This takes money out of the economy that could be utilized somewhere else and benefit more people. This is also against Adam Smith’s principle that people should look out for others that are struggling. Simply by cheating others, these employees harm the economy and others around them. Large corporations also do harm by trying to expand, even when they don’t need to. They would buy out other businesses until they achieved a monopoly if they could, or an oligopoly. People are without jobs and income because of these corporations.
ReplyDeleteAgreed! Adam Smith is merely used as the “poster child” to support the status quo we have today. Traditionally, Americans have believed and engrained in their minds that the “invisible hand” means that capitalism will benefit us all without any oversight. Smith railed against monopolies and the political influence that accompanies economic power. Smith worried about government encroachment but from the viewpoint and directed towards 18th century issues (churches, religious institutions, etc.) Smith was also tolerant of intervention when it had to do with reducing poverty, raising equality, etc. He foresaw a tacit conspiracy in that employers would play cheap (wages), corporations would illogically expand throwing others in peril, and that corrupt stockowners (and anyone else associated with corruption on Wall Street) would find a way to abuse (cheat) the system and cause an excess amount of problems—no jobs, business closures, bank bailouts, mortgage rates, etc. The real Adam Smith didn’t believe in an enchantingly benevolent market operating for the benefit of all without any checks and balances. The government needs to be that middle ground to end all corruption [unless they’re a part of it (winky, evil-knieval emoji)]. Adam Smith had envisioned the free market in the “Wealth of Nations.” However, in this day and age, with this corrupt system and flawed economy, it is more like the “debt of nations.” Because of these flaws and problems, fairness has gone out the window and “strategy”(corruption) has come in.
DeleteI agree with Lauren. Adam Smith would not approve of what capitalism has become today. His original ideas in the Wealth of Nations were based on the idea that everyone has more individual freedom in a capitalist market. However, he never accounted for the chance that only a small percentage of the people would actually benefit from the free market. He also would not approve of the illegal activity involved in order to get ahead of competitors, as Lauren said. Smith also stated, “man has almost constant occasion for the help of is brethren.” He definitely would not have approved of people in the free market undermining and cheating each other. I also agree with Dhruv in his idea that the “invisible hand” needs some amount of government involvement to work for everyone. Wall Street and major corporations have corrupted Adam Smith’s original ideas.
DeleteIn a way I disagree with Kayce, Dhruv, and Lauren. Though I do not think Adam Smith would approve of Wall Street fraudulence, I do feel that the essence of capitalism (with its many evils) is found on Wall Street. Smith called for people to make economic decisions based on self interest and essentially, greed. Smith believed that these decisions would subsequently benefit the nation as a whole. In the case of Wall Street, we see greed serving as a detriment to the economy of the nation. However, I think it is foolish to look at the ends and say that Smith would certainly not have justified the means of self-interest that he so adamantly wrote about in The Wealth of Nations. It is imperative for our culture to stop putting Smith on a pedestal and praising him for his ideas of capitalism. Yes, capitalism is far and away the most successful economic system. But to ignore the greed that inevitably tags along with an economic system rooted in self-interest is imprudent as things such as Wall Street fraud are inevitable under the capitalist system.
DeleteI’m kinda neutral/disagree about this. I agree with Lauren that corruption on Wall Street is causing harm to the economy. But I agree with Adam. I think that Smith would approve of some of work done on Wall Street because his perspective of the economy is based on people making choices on self-interest. Like Adam said, Smith would most likely not approve that the results justify the means. Smith doesn’t deserve to be on a pedestal. At the same time, I don’t agree with Adam. Complete capitalism is not the best economic system. I think that some government intervention is not detrimental. I think that government intervention that is limited to only providing regulations of the economy and monitoring it is acceptable.
DeleteJanna I agree with you on the second part of your statement. I was not trying to saying that pure capitalism is the best economic system because it clearly is not. Under that system, the wealth gap would simply get too big too fast. Limited government intervention is absolutely necessary. I was just generalizing that when compared to socialism, communism, mercantilism, and others, capitalism has proven the most effective in creating a thriving nation.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn general, I agree with Lauren and Dhruv’s position that Adam Smith would be somewhat concerned with the fraud that occurred during the most recent financial crisis. However, Wall Street was not the only party at fault. There were many other companies and individuals involved in the fraud, such as the homeowners’ part in the mortgage crisis, in that, they lied on their mortgage applications. This shows that, in general, a large part of the population was involved in this fraud and supporting their own self-interest. So, if Smith were to be opposed to what Wall Street did, he’d probably be opposed to what most people were doing at the time, and in all fairness, Smith did support people doing things out of self-interest, so I don’t think he’d be as opposed to these actions as some may think even though I do agree that he’d probably be disappointed in some of these immoral acts. I also agree with the statements made by Adam regarding Smith’s position regarding the “Invisible Hand”.
Delete(I didn't wanna post this as a reply, but will agree and disagree with some stuff in Rachel's post)
ReplyDeleteClearly, there’s no way to explain this but Capitalism alone is failing and socialism has too many restrictions (ex: USSR ☺). Capitalism allows the rich to get richer, and once a Capitalistic country reaches its highest point, those who had become rich before those on the way tend to oppress those who are not yet rich. For example, say Target imports their items from China. This presents no problem because Target got rich and because of Capitalism and the allowance of Free Trade, they import all of their goods with no restrictive policies. The problem arises and permeates when at the same time, while the rich are getting richer, the gap between the middle and lower class increases in size. As long as Target is consistent in importing from China, both are growing and booming while the rest of the country’s (in this case the world’s) suppliers are not producing any business and losing many jobs resulting in lay offs and business closures. A plethora of industries are getting laid off because they can’t afford their mortgage payments. That causes the housing industry to nose dive. That causes the banking industry to collapse because mortgages are financed through banks. With all of this in mind, this further exacerbates the problem in the country let alone the world. Subsequently, the country (or the world) faces recession because Capitalism has reached its limit and is plagued with the worst of dilemmas. Although we can see that China plays “cheap” and devalues their currency making it an unfair playing field, this is just one of many holes in a Capitalistic government. The founding fathers definitely had no idea that Free Trade would be opened up in a sense like it is today. However, until you can find another system, capitalism is the most logical system to utilize. I agree with Meckles (I <3 you girl!) that the government is the GREAT EQUALIZER in a sense that it can regulate anything it wants; the government can fix the problems or at least avoid most of them should it choose to act in the right manner.
I have to agree with you Dhruv. Capitalism is a system that is based on the accumulation of wealth, something that smith was against. Instead of benefiting the people as a whole, it abuses the majority for a 1%: the rich. The government should regulate the larger businesses and continue to reduce them so that they cannot negatively influence other companies. As mentioned, the government is an equalizer and can balance the economy if it wants. However, some larger companies are able to buy out politicians and pass laws that only make said companies larger. As a result, the situation is getting worse because no one in the government is taking a stand against companies and thus the old, corrupt system is still in place and more people are suffering. A shame that this is the reality. While good in concept, the initial beneficiaries of Capitalism squander their spoils and do not provide room for new economic growth.
DeleteJustin Pan
I agree with you Dhruv, and by doing so slightly go against what I had posted earlier today. There seems to be no "perfect" economic system. Pure capitalism has it's flaws; taking a look at our economy shows that. Government regulation can always be worked around, I.e. Bootleg alcohol being sold during prohibition, making sellers rich. finally, socialism has it's issues because it crushes any hope of creativity within the market
DeleteI agree with Dhruv. Capitalism only leads to the rich getting richer, and the poor are just as poor as ever. Although this will sound unpopular, I believe higher taxes could improve everyone's standard of living. The more people pay to the government, the more benefits they will receive from the government. And that won't just be rich people benefiting, it will be everybody equally. For evidence, we may look to countries like Denmark. Taxes in Denmark are very high, 4th highest in the world. But their governments offer wonderful amounts of benefits because of it. Denmark routinely ranks as the #1 happiest country to live in. [ http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-high-the-5-countries-with-the.aspx ] Maybe, as an economic policy, the government should save some extra for the people. Although "raising taxes" sounds like it wouldn't go over well, it could only improve our nation.
DeleteJosh, it most definitely would not go down well in America. It seems to be one of the only things that most parties can agree on. But I'd also like to point out that you guys seem to be avoiding the flaws with socialism too. (Brendan almost mentioned it but still). By giving the government more power, it is giving it more of a chance to abuse it. Like Justin (?) said, politicians can easily be bought out by companies and large corporations. So if the government is given all of this power and then a corrupt official is put at its head, who is to say this will help the country? Maybe he/she will waste the money on a useless war or for his own political gain instead of what is good for the people. Although I agree that it could potentially help, you cannot avoid the flaws with your side of the argument. Also there are some perks to Capitalism that you seem to be forgetting. Often a capitalist country as a whole is richer than countries that are primarily socialist or communist. For example, look at the cold war and compare America to Russia and its satellite states. Although neither system is completely perfect, you cannot dismiss one for its flaws but not mention the other's flaws as well.
DeleteCapitalism is the most effective economic practice for the sole purpose that it lacks government interference. Having economic freedom will help in other areas of life like political freedom. Capitalism creates efficiency. State-owned firms are less efficient than private firms because it is not as personal and there is less thought going into how the business should be run or modified. Efficiency is one of the most important factors of capitalism because it decreases costs. The way to solve the economic issues is to continue with a capitalist approach. Government interference is dangerous because it is too big and the system is getting messed up. Socialism does not work because too many people are relying on the government's help. Socialism leads to higher unemployment rates and ultimately more debt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Corinne that capitalism is the best economic model for the world. As Smith explains in Wealth of Nations, if the amount of a product is decreased for any particular reason, the free market will fix itself through the laws of supply and demand, known as the invisible hand theory. Rather than the government needing to constantly getting involved to "fix" the economy, they should allow the idea of the invisible hand to bring the market back to its previous state. A free market allows resources to be used more efficiently and allows for self interest. Once the government becomes involved in the economy and lends money, the debt continues to increase yet the economy is never resolved. Instead of doing this, capitalism is a better, more efficient way for the economy to be run.
DeleteI agree with Corinne and Sarah. Capitalism is the best economic policy. Capitalism allows for there to be competition within a market because it is run by individuals not the Government. This allows for prices to stay at a reasonable amount. The reason why this happens is because of the Invisible Hand Theory created by Adam Smith. The theory states that as prices for a product raise the demand will decrease which will bring the prices back down. This means that as long as the government doesn’t become involved prices will always go back to an amount that the consumer wants. It is when the Government gets involved that prices stays inflated. For example, when the government gives money to college students to attend school, they are keeping the prices of college high. If the government stops paying for students colleges then a majority of Americans would not be able to attend. The colleges would then be losing business so they would have to lower their prices in order to get students to come to their school.
DeleteI disagree with Corinne's argument that perpetuating free capitalism is the best way to fix the economic troubles. The main issue currently is the unequal distribution of wealth. Much of the nation's wealth is concentrated by the top 1% of the nation's earners, leaving a large middle class and a relatively large class of people that fall below the poverty line. This inequity was crated by capitalism, as in capitalism, the rich get richer and the poor tend to stay poor. If we continue with unregulated capitalism, the distribution will only grow more unequal. I think the time is coming where the government, out of pure necessity, will have to step in and issue some regulations that lean towards the side of socialism.
DeleteI disagree with Jackie. I do not believe that capitalism is the best economic policy for the world. Capitalism is based on competition. However, when competition becomes too fierce, people lose and end up bankrupted. As a result, large companies rise and dominate the market. In order to stay on top, the large companies will destroy the smaller companies, leaving more people jobless and bankrupted. In the end, the rich stays rich and the poor stays poor.
DeleteI agree with Nick. Capitalism is based on greed and competition. Everyone wants to be on top and make the most money. Therefore, they will do anything to get there even if that means destroying smaller companies. This destruction will lead to many people jobless, which is a big issue today. The country literally cannot afford to have more people without jobs. The government is already in too much debt and most of it has to do with its current spending habits, which includes giving money to the unemployed. Therefore, I believe Capitalism is not the best option.
DeleteI agree with Adam, quite possibly to an even more extreme extent. Capitalism has a tendency to go unregulated as he said, and this will cause greed-based competition. This type of practice cannot go on without major consequences (here is where my connection might get crazy). Take the island of Rapa Nui, aka Easter Island, for example. Their population of roughly 30,000 was dwindled down to 111 people out of greed (and yes, people who disagree, the Europeans hurt the population too. Happy?). Each tribe wanted to out-do the other in "making the large stoned structures." This became the focus of their society much like big business and corporate fascism is in today's world. The competition became so fierce (as nick said) that they began destroying their resources just to out-do the others, eventually, leading to tribal (civil) warfare, and killing nearly everyone. America is making the same mistakes. Greed has become the main drive in society. Each rich person trying to out-do the other on their way to the top of the totem pole. So what am I saying? Well, eventually, these greedy ways of Capitalism will lead to the disappearance of our resources (money in the system, oil/gas, etc.). So while everything seems nice and fruity now with this economic principal, we'll just end up like the history lessons we never actually learned from in the past, but on a global scale. And this time, with WMD, not spears and cannibalism.
DeleteI disagree with you slightly, Nick. I think when Capitalism becomes intense, overall quality and quantity will increase due to a constant battling of companies. They will go back and forth trying to make their product the most appealing, which, in that case, the consumer benefits. When the consumer is benefitting and receiving a greater product, they are able to pump more money into the system. Granted, large companies and monopolies will occur, but there are still smaller companies that will thrive, maybe even increasing their product to try and even the playing ground.
DeleteI want to throw another issue into the mix here, something we've been talking about this year.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the best examples of Capitalism Gone Wild is Higher education. The cost of college is SKYROCKETING. I can't imagine taking on the debt that current college students are taking on. We agree as a society that college is necessary for individual and professional growth, thus demand is HIGH. Supply is also high!
What should be done about this? Are you willing to take on enormous debt for a big name school? What will happen to our nation as these costs keep rising?
Throughout our education the idea that if you don't go to college you will be flipping burgers has been pounded into us, and not many people dream of flipping burgers so the scare tactic was effective. Many kids know early on that they would like to further their education in the hopes of getting a better job and becoming a more intelligent individual. However most college graduates are having a hard time finding that job they worked so hard to get, most end up doing things they are overqualified for and are therefor having a hard time paying off their student debt. If the cost of college keeps rising then college simply wont be an option for an even larger group of people. The average Joe of the group would be in trouble because only the very wealthy or the very smart or the very athletic would have a shot to get throughout college without creating huge debt.
DeleteI agree with you Krista. Ever since elementary school we are groomed for college. Even going into middle school we are encouraged to take honors courses then ap courses in high school, all with the goal of getting us into college. We're told that if we don't go to college we are not going to get good jobs, or like Krista said end up flipping burgers. With this kind of pressure, huge amounts of students are applying to colleges and these schools know that students will do whatever it takes to attend, even taking out huge student loans. The colleges benefit by getting their money, but do the students really benefit? In some ways yes, but in other ways no. Yes, they get their education but they are going out in a flooded job market, with no guarantee of finding a job. All they are guaranteed is a huge student loan.
DeleteI agree with Krista. Many people freak out about going to college and desire to go to big name schools. But as we are now seeing this college selection process is very unpredictable and it is largely based on athletic ability and luck. I think that people believe that they will be failures if they don't get a college education. This is true but the price of college is very high and it usually requires taking student loans. By attending big name schools, we may receive an education but we will be stuck with a massive debt after college or our parents might have to work longer to help clear the debt caused by the college fees. So, this shows that the capitalist economic system is not helping the majority of the people. This will affect our nations because students with potential will not be able to attend colleges because of the cost. However, since we live in a competitive society, having a college education helps increase our chance for jobs to succeed in the world. I think that it is wiser for people to go to less expensive colleges and to go where the money’s at. College education is expensive but it is similar for many colleges. So, if a person goes to a college which offers them a lot of financial aid, they can still work hard and receive just as good an education as someone who pumps their money into a big name college.
DeleteI also agree with Krista. One of my teachers last year constantly stressed the need to go to college and get an education, as the only way to be successful in life. I do agree with the concept that college can help a person become successful in life. However, the “big name” schools are not a necessity to becoming efficacious. Regardless of where you go to college, you are going to get a very similar education. In essence, you are paying for the name to put on your resume. These big time schools take advantage of that and charge ridiculous amounts of money in order to attend their schools. This situation is a problem in our society because the debt that comes along with college tuition actually is greater than the money you will most likely make after college, considering only 50% of students can get a job after college. If the costs keep rising, many people will be forced to go to community or state institutions, (not saying that is a bad thing), but these expensive colleges will eventually go out of business because no one can afford to attend them. Thus, the economic systems of American could endure a large hit. So who will really benefit from these large prices? In the end, no one can win.
DeleteThe cost of college has become very frightening. The necessity of college has become equally as frightening. Thirty years ago, though difficult, it was very possible to get a decent job without a college education. Today, that opportunity has completely disappeared, as service jobs are the only opportunities for people without a college degree. Students know this, employers know this, and most importantly, colleges and universities know this. They know that students (unless they want to wait tables their whole life) need a college degree and often a postgraduate degree to get the job that they want. As a result, colleges can charge whatever price they want for students to go to the school. Why would they not keep raising prices when there is no evidence that shows that increasing prices is curbing demand? The only effective way decrease the cost of college is for students to stop going, drastically decrease the demand, and require colleges to significantly lower their prices in order to attract kids. However, this will never happen in the current state of our meritocracy. It is an unfortunate result of a society in which merit and education is the primary source of economic success. The system is entirely broken and riddled with corruption, but as long as students seek economic success in their future, they have no choice but to pay the outrageous price of college. This gives colleges no reason to lower their price. I wouldn't either. Capitalism at its finest...
Delete~In recent years, a huge question has arisen, "Is College Worth It?" Times Magazine recently did a study that answered some of the surrounding questions. From 1980 to 2010, the average cost of a 4 year college tuition has almost tripled (10k to 30k for private and 2.5k to 7.5k for public). This growth in price is no surprise, however the payoff of a high school diploma vs college bachelors is. In the past 30 years, the earnings of a college bachelor has stayed the same, between 40 and 50k. The salary of a high school diploma student? It has dropped from 40k to 30k. The same job, 30 years ago, is worth less doing because the need for more complex jobs that do not involve flipping burgers is expanding. College is becoming the new standard and decreasing the value of high school education.
Delete~Continuing on with Alycia's thoughts:
We are brought up with the thought that we will the ones sitting on the sidewalks if we don't go to a top tier college. Therefore, we do everything in our power to do so and get into big names schools.
~Answering the question on whether big school names are worth the debt: They are not. In my opinion, the most important thing is the student's major. Even though big college names will give someone a better resume, more and more companies are basing their choices off of knowledge instead of what's on paper.
I agree with the issue of college prices rising being a huge negative. The bigger issue, to me, is that people are going to colleges they clearly cannot afford. Obviously everyone wants to go to the top class 60+ thousand dollar schools, but that cannot happen. People need to go to the colleges they can afford. From basic community colleges to places such as NYU, there is an extremely large amount of choices for colleges ranging in prices. If individuals went to schools they could afford, things would be much simpler. Just because you want a BMW does not mean you buy it. You only do if you can. The same should go with colleges. If you do your part in high school, scholarships will also be available to you. There are many alternatives to jumping into a 200 thousand dollar debt. That is how we should all think. It is possible to get an average college degree without getting into debt.
DeleteI agree with Bryan that the people of today are attending colleges they simply cannot afford. To me people seem to obsess over having a diploma from a big name school. They feel that going to a school with a good reputation will get them further in life. Although going to a big name school may help it certainty will not dictate your future. Future students are willing to sacrifice excessive amounts of money and go into debt to attend schools that they feel will give them a better chance later in life. In the long run I don’t believe that a good school will get you any further in life than an average school. I think that this issue will only continue to increase as college becomes even more expensive and jobs become scarcer. Society and economic situations may change, but the people’s desire to always have the best will never fade.
DeleteI agree with Julia and Will. It ’s a common belief in our society that only the people with a college diploma will ever be successful, but that is not always the case. College is a business and people have to invest wisely. People don’t invest in businesses without thorough research, so the same should be done when faced with the decision of higher education. Without thinking longterm, people are applying to schools that are way to expensive for the field they want to pursue when an apprenticeship or community college degree will suffice. Some individuals flock to the big name schools that they think will easily get them a job, when that is not always the case. People wind up putting down thousands of dollars on education that was not necessary for their field, when really experience is the key. In my opinion, big name schools are not worth the debt, especially when knowledge or experience can be more beneficial.
DeleteI have to disagree with Julia W. when she says that big name colleges will go out of business when the expenses outweigh the effects. The reason that prices for colleges are so high is because demand is so high too. Many people are arguing that the high demand is the result of lessons instilled as a child; however, I believe those people are incorrect. I believe that demand is high because the results of going to these big name colleges remain satisfactory. I have the privilege of having an older sibling who works for a big name bank and her job is to pick and choose the colleges where they will recruit from. She has told me where they recruit from and trust me a community college is not going to cut it. Once again this is the list for job recruitment from a large financial institution, so do not take this as me arguing that community colleges will not get you a job. I am just saying that if you are after one of the higher, more prestigious jobs, then going to a big name college is necessary and therefore a worthy investment.
DeleteI agree with Mary Kate. A big name school may seem like the best option when in reality it could cause more trouble than its worth. As many people have already pointed out already colleges are businesses, in the end they want to make a profit. Therefore prices for college have increased dramatically in recent years, and big name schools just are not worth it anymore. Huge student debt is not worth a big name school when you could get an equal education somewhere else. Money is the driving force behind the majority of choices we make and paying more to get the same education you can get for a lower price is silly. A student can save big bucks by going to community college for 2 years instead of enrolling in a 4 year program right away. The college game has changed and therefor the approach to choosing a college must change too.
DeleteI agree with Mary-Kate that people shouldn't just blindly apply to top tier schools just because everyone else is. Today, college is way too expensive to choose without having it thought through completely. Certain local schools could have an excellent program for your major possibly even better than the top schools' programs. Higher education has become an industry, and people need to start treating it like one. Colleges understand that people want to go to their school so they can do almost whatever they want. Until there aren't thousands of kids banging down Princeton's door to get in, which I don't see happening anytime soon, they can charge whatever they want.
DeleteI agree with what Julia stated very well, that we are merely paying for the name to put on our resumes. Although society is aware of the escalating price of colleges, we continue to feed them our money to improve our future opportunities as much as possible. Similar to what many people have said, we need to look more at the opportunities we could take advantage of at a school instead of the name of the school. I also think the skyrocketing price is not only because of the high demand for college, but also due to the governmental aid. I think the financial aid given to students, while it is extremely beneficial, gives colleges the impression that it is then okay to charge more from students.
DeleteTo continue what Ariel said, the rising prices of college may also be because of how colleges know they can raise their admission fee and people will still continue to pay it. Colleges that know they are a big name school will take advantage of that. These schools are aware that there is a high demand to attend their school and students will pay large amounts of money to get in. Another huge factor, other than the changing economic situation, is the demand for a college diploma in today’s society. College is stressed by parents and adults more than ever. People feel that without the college degree you will amount to nothing. I believe that colleges are fully aware of this and exploit it in every way possible to make more money.
DeleteJumping off of Ariel’s point, I really believe the whole college system is corrupt. We are paying large quantities of money to learn a few things and have a nice name to put on our resume, but for what? Why should certain jobs or companies judge our overall intelligence by how much we are financially able to spend to go to college? Just because a person doesn’t attend a $60,000 Ivy League school does not mean they are not capable of being just as intelligent. In essence, we have allowed a society where we are, in the end, judged on how much money we can put into creating a decent education for ourselves, which leads back to principles of Capitalism. We maintain this free market of which allows new aspects of self interest and will ultimately further profits in a nation.
DeleteI agree with James. College is becoming more expensive every year. Colleges raise their prices of admission, especially well- known colleges, to make more money. Well-known colleges can raise their prices of admission to whatever they want because they know that no matter what, people will pay to get in. This is because these colleges have weight to their name. In our society, everyone is under an illusion of getting into a big school and then decorating his/her resume with that school's name to get a good job. Therefore, people think that good college= good job, resulting into them paying insane amount of money to get into good colleges.
DeleteI think where you go to college is not nearly as important as what you make of your time at whatever college. There's no point in driving yourself hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt just to go to a college for it's name. Many state schools that offer equally good educations are overlooked simply because the pursuit of knowledge has become so commercialized: from a young age, we have been bombarded with "all the biggest names" and have forgotten the true goal of a higher education. I wouldn't say that I think college isn't worth it anymore but rather that certain colleges aren't worth it anymore. Learning is good, and it's essential that we find colleges that at which we can learn yet reasonably afford.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs everyone else has pointed out, higher education is getting pricier every year, especially when it comes to big name schools. Many people believe that in order to get a quality job you must go to an amazing school. Although a name of a school is important, just going to that school and being extremely smart will not get you a job. As Nick said it is what you make of your time at whatever college you attend. You have to have social skills and you have to know people. Networking is what is going to get you a good job. Getting your name out their in the business world through co-ops and internships that's what matters. Experiencing a real work setting, getting to know people that live it everyday, and making connections with them for the future. But most people do not realize this and do everything they can to get into the big name colleges. This is why these colleges can do this and it is extremely unfair.
DeleteI believe that colleges should not only reduce prices, but also increase the amount of time to pay back college debts. Since our job market is still weak , most graduates are unable to obtain a stable career and would be unable to pay the amount of debt they have by its deadline. Furthermore, once a student enters a college for a certain price, that price should not increase. My sister (who went to Duke) initially owed $48,000 to enter. However, by the time she graduated, the price increased by over 12% and she owed $56,000 instead. If we want to continue to promote education an increase the amount of intellectuals in this nation, we must reduce college entry prices to a point where families can manage the debt and increase the deadline these debts are due in order to allow graduates to earn a solid income.
DeleteI agree with what everyone is saying about college. And I have questioned is college even worth it? However, in today's world, you either go to college to get qualified for a job that you might never get or you become an entrepreneur. It is a chance you have to take. With today's economy and capitalism, a young entrepreneur will get crushed by larger companies if he or she tries to lift his or her business off the ground. Therefore, he or she will have to go back to college unless he or she wants to go flip burgers like Krista said. It is a cycle that is creating more jobless people with more debt to be paid. Thus, like Nick said, the student must make the most out of their college experience and work hard to try to line a job. This is also making the student go crazy and trying to do as much as he or she can so that he or she could tell their employer that he or she has all of this experience. It even goes as far back as high school with students doing all of their extra activities just to get into a well- known college so they might get a good job. We can not win, unless something is done about this issue.
DeleteI disagree with several of Juila W’s points. Julia states that “big time schools take advantage” which leads to society having large college debt. This point is invalid as college tuition across the board has risen significantly over the past twenty years and even the tuition of schools such as Temple and Bucks have risen. Additionally a small percentage of the population goes to big time schools (which I assume to mean Ivy) so mounting college debt cannot be blamed on these few expensive institutions. I also disagree with the riducouls notion that big time schools will go out of business if tutions keep rising. If anything, these institutions only stand to become even more profitable as thousands figuarivly line up each year to give their money, regardless if they can afford it or not, to a school such as Princeton. To many this ivesmnet is a very sensible one as salaries 15 years out of college differ $76,200 yearly on average by people who attended Princeton vs Kutstown ($137,000 vs $60,800). While I do see that eventually college reform will be nesscary to make college more sensible and affordable for the masses, big time institutions will continue to exist and thrive.
DeleteI also agree with what everyone else is saying especially the fact that Ivy League schools won’t go out of business. There’s a reason why Ivy League schools are one of the top schools in the nation. Many of the people that attend there or have attended there are either wealthy people who have the money to afford to pay for this school or people who excel greatly when it comes to either academics or sports that those colleges are willing to give them scholarships to attend. A lot of people want to attend these schools because they’ll have less competition when competing for a job compared to someone who went to a community college or a run-down college. In addition, Ivy League schools have a lot of connections; many of the professors in these schools are even Noble prize winners. Sure it’s important to go to high level schools but that doesn’t mean that someone should go to a college where they’ll eventually end up in debt. People should focus on learning new things in college rather than worrying about whether or not they’re going to high ranked colleges. For people that want to enter into a higher level profession such as in the medical field or even law, they’re going to need to attend medical school or law school which will cost even more money.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't see college prices going down soon. I think they will keep rising until it is not longer economically beneficial to go to college. Schools will start seeing a drop in admission and I think it will be a direct result of their prices.I think at that point, collegrs will have to adjust their tuition even with out legislative influence. If this doesn't occur, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a sort of "draft card burning" type revolution among young people. I think we are already looking at some sort of revolution from our generation in regards to the bipartisan inability to compromise. I think both of these areas will undergo drastic changes in our lifetime.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Greg. As the price for college continues to increase throughout our life, students will not be able to afford it. I believe less and less students will be going to college in the future, not because they are not interested, but because the cost of its education is unreasonable. More students will begin to go to community colleges and receive Associates Degrees based off it's less expensive price. From there students can make the decision whether they want to transfer to a school to earn a Bachelors Degree or make do with what they have. It is discouraging to students that even if you do complete college, 50% of graduates will not be employed to the job of their liking. If the cost of college continues to rise similar to how it has in the past 30 years, college will only be an option for the middle/upper class. This is unfair, everyone deserves a right to education, but I do not see its cost decreasing anytime soon.
DeleteIf we count on the principles of supply and demand, it wouldn't make sense for colleges to raise prices so much that they get less admissions. The price is only at the natural level to fit demand. If people stopped going, then colleges would lower the price, and people wouldn't stop going anymore. Colleges are a business just like anything else. By that logic, prices could lower if supply was higher and competition was stronger. But then all that would do is allow more people to get degrees, and statistically not a mojority of people have put their degrees to good use. It wouldn't really be a good idea to give everyone a college degree because we need people to fill unskilled jobs, too.
DeleteI agree with Greg and Sarah. College prices have continued to rise for years and years now and I do not see them dropping anytime soon. The prices are ridiculously high. But in the long run the price is worth it in order to achieve in life by getting a good job and just being educated. However, I don’t agree with Sarah’s idea that the high prices are unfair. Colleges are not meant to be fair. Weather we like it or not, colleges and universities are businesses. They do what they can do to offer the best product in order to gain the most money. As long as they can increase prices and still make money, they are going to do so. It is capitalism at work. So although I don’t think it is a good thing for the nation that prices are skyrocketing, I don’t believe that it is unfair or unjust of colleges to act this way. I cant say that if I was in a position to lead a college I would change the price. It wouldn’t make sense. Also, I agree that everyone has a right to education, but not higher education. We have public schools in place that are a citizens right to attend. Again, colleges are businesses selling a product. People don’t have a right to a company’s product just for being a citizen. To clarify, I don’t think high prices are good for us as a whole, but I don’t believe that they are unfair.
DeleteI agree with Matt that prices are ridiculously high and we have to remember that colleges are also businesses. For some people, going to their dream school will completely crush them financially especially if they don’t get offered financial aid and have to take out loans. I think a possible solution is for colleges to start offering more financial aid, though I can’t see that happening anytime soon. Another solution for students is to apply to state schools to avoid the huge costs of big name schools. State schools also provide a well-rounded education and can save you tens of thousands of dollars a year. I think another solution for being trying to avoid years of debt should be students that work as hard as they can throughout high school to get scholarships.
DeleteI agree with everyone who said that colleges are simply businesses. They notice the competition among students for admission, and increase the challenge by raising the price every year. I agree with Kate that people don't have to apply to big name school. As she said, state colleges are just as good when it comes to education. Regarding Greg's "draft card burning" analogy, I'm a little confused of what you mean, but if you mean that young people would stop applying or attending certain colleges as some sort of protest, I don't agree at all. In today's society, especially I believe in our area, students live under a powerful illusion that with more expensive schools comes more prestige. Because of this, students are willing to do anything to go to their dream school, even if it means paying absurd amounts of money. I think one of the reasons that colleges are raising prices is because they realize how willing people are to pay them.
DeleteI completely agree with you Greg, but only on two aspects. I agree with you in that the prices will keep inflating until the cost of college is deemed too steep, and when getting a job for that possibly 2-10 year period is much more intuitive than going to a university for higher education. I also agree that we may see a revolution among high schoolers and young adults, who cannot afford a college education, which in turn limits their opportunities for higher level jobs, spreading the wealth gap even further. This revolution could also be more effective than the draft card burnings with the use of social technology, as seen in the protests in Syria and Kiev. What i do not agree with, is your argument that the colleges will adjust without legislative influence. As seen with many other financial crisis, our government is highly invasive. If prices keep getting blown out of proportion like they are, even before the colleges have time to adjust, I could see a government takeover of institutions. Public or private, I could possibly see a very socialist higher education system sooner than expected.
DeleteDan, the laws of supply and demand have little bearing in the college discussion. You mention that "the price is only at the natural level to fit demand," but this is not true. In 2009, Dartmouth College charged $36,690 for admission. In the same year, 1,090 students matriculated. In 2010, Dartmouth jacked up the price to $38,445, a $1,775 increase. Also in 2010, 1,090 students matriculated. Furthermore, the number of students who applied to Dartmouth in 2009, and thus the demand, was greater than the number of students who applied in 2010. So, even with a demand decrease, Dartmouth still raised its admission price, which directly violates the laws of supply and demand, especially considering that Dartmouth maintained its supply of admission positions. For this example (many other highly selective institutions follow this trend), I agree with the many other people who contend that college tuition will rise inelastically; few will surrender an Ivy League education because of price.
DeleteDrew, you can't really argue that colleges don't follow the laws of supply and demand. They're a business like anything else, so what would set them off from other businesses, so that it's different with colleges? Looking through a case by case basis doesn't really prove anything. Dartmouth raised the price and still got enough students to fill the school. They met demand. The number of admissions probably went down in fact due to the raised price, which further demonstrates how supply and demand is at play here. No matter what random statistics you pull from a year, the general trend exists: programs to educate more kids created more demand which raised the price.
DeleteIt would be illogical for colleges to indefinitely raise their admission price. It's like if Coca-Cola raised the price for a can of Coke $1 each year. People might be on board for a little amount of time, but soon Coke will lose customers. Do you think they'll keep raising the price and run their business in the ground? There's a principle that one can always expect that a business won't act contrary to their own benefit. The same way we can assume Coca-Cola won't start charging $20 for a can because it's bad for business, we can assume that colleges won't rise in price infinitely.
Dan, it is obvious that colleges act in self-interest. Of course they will not raise tuition to the point where they lose admits, but this was not my argument. My argument is against your statement that college tuition is at equilibrium; it certainly is not. Ivy League tuition raised 44.67% from 2003-2012, nearly doubling the 25% rate of inflation in the same time span. Thus, how can you say the current price of an Ivy League ticket is natural to fit demand? Granted, demand has slowly increased throughout this duration, but the supply has not increased at nearly the same rate (for the 2012-2013 school year, Cornell University admitted an infinitesimal 2% more freshman than it did for the 2002-2003 school year: http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000009.pdf; http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000530.pdf). A true equilibrium would result from Cornell increasing its supply to meet its increasing demand, a choice any capitalist would wholeheartedly support. However, it has not made any attempt to do so. Instead, it has jacked up its price, making fools out of those whom pay full price for something that was worth half as much nine years prior. According to the laws of supply and demand, this tuition increase would mitigate demand. However, this has not been the case. Thus, I contend that college tuition is an inelastic product with a cost that favors the institution far more than it does the student.
DeleteAgain, why would colleges be any different from another business? What sets them apart? Colleges are only able to raise their tuition prices so much because of increased tuition. If there wasn't a constant supply of demand, the prices wouldn't go up so much. You say "demand has slowly increased throughout this duration, but the supply has not increased at nearly the same rate." First of all, supply in this case is the number of colleges, not the number of kids being admitted. Second of all, supply is supposed to decrease as demand increases. Did you forget? The number of kids being admitted into a college isn't a measure of the demand because the colleges themselves pick how many kids they want to accept.
DeleteThe supply in this case is the granted number of admission spots. Connecting back to your Coke analogy, the supply of Coke is not measured in the amount of sodas sold throughout the industry; it is strictly the amount of Cokes distributed. Likewise, Cornell's supply is not measured in the number of colleges (which you stated); it is measured in its own number of admission spots, or the supply of admission to the demanding students. If each college is a business, as you previously insinuated, then what makes a college different from Coke with regards to what is defined as supply and what is defined as demand? Demand is who wants to go and supply is who gets to go (demand is who wants Coke and supply is who gets Coke). Also, supply is supposed to increase as demand increases. You are mistaken. This is completely logical, and you even stated before that real businesses always act in self-interest. It would logically be in the best interest of Cornell and like institutions to admit more students to meet increasing demand; if more people want to buy Coke, then Coke will surely make more. Instead of doing this, colleges keep the same amount of students and jack up the price. However, the number of applicants they receive does not dwindle, clearly defying the laws of supply and demand. Even the simplest knowledge of microeconomics tells you that an increased price of a product lowers the quantity demanded. I have already presented a slew of facts showing that enormous price increases have not been met with lower quantity demands.
DeleteSupply and demand have an inverse relationship.
Deletehttp://stephansmithfx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Supply-and-Demand-Graph.png
Come on.
Colleges decide how many people they want to accept, so they change the price depending on the demand to get how ever many applicants they need to fill supply without losing any.
You're interpreting the graph incorrectly. If quantity demanded goes up (i.e. moves towards the right), so does quantity of supply.The x-axis of the graph is quantity, not the y-axis.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Obamacare, I believe that Locke's concept of the Social Contract is being abused. Locke states that individuals must fully comply with a government body in order for a country to be effective politically and economically. However, Obamacare does NOT take into consideration Republicans who believe that Obamacare if a waste of time and money. Many conservatives believe that having the government pay for other peoples' health care is awful for the economic value of America. The U.S. is already 17 trillion dollars in debt, and the Affordable Care Act just sends America deeper and deeper in debt. When the government spends tax payers money on the "less fortunate," the social contract fails because 1) the bond between individuals and the community breaks and 2) the government in the community cares more about specific individuals than the community itself, a major flaw. In order to fix Obamacare, it must be eliminated so that the Social Contract can once again take place. Another solution is that only registered Democrats pay taxes specifically for Obamacare; thus, opposers of the act will not have to deal with it.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that only Democrats should pay taxes for this seems a little bit ridiculous to me. There is no way that you can divide a country into two parties and tax them based solely on that. Do you reall think that it is too much of a cost to pay to help the sick or less fortunate? If a loved one of yours was suddenly diagnosed with a disease, before health insurance companies might have dropped them right when they needed it most. It's easy to step back and give reasons why you shouldn't have to support others but most of us seem to fail to think about if we were personally affected by such a matter. Also many republicans were in favor of the funding for obamacare so it's not completely accurate to say all conservatives are opposed and all democrats are for.
DeleteSo, you should only listen to the laws you agree with? (ACA is law, upheld by the Supreme Court)
DeleteIs it possible that if Republics cooperated with the law that it would work very well?
Is not, how else do people propose to deal with the insane rising cost of healthcare?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M
I don’t agree with David on this issue. I don’t believe that Obamacare is in violation of the social contract. The whole platform behind obamacare I agree is to help the “less fortunate”. But I don’t see your logic behind it breaking the bond between individuals and the community. Throughout history, we have seen that the lower class is the backbone of civilization. Obamacare is working to lift them up and keep them strong and is therefore making an attempt to bring the community together. Also, these “specific individuals” are really a massive amount of people benefitting from the act. I think it’s a little bit unreasonable to suggest that it is wrong because the rich don’t like it. You will never be able to make an act that gains 100% approval, especially in a nation as gridlocked as ours. also, The solution to only tax democrats would just accentuates that gridlock. It is just another way to tear the nation into two uncooperative halves.
DeleteI believe if Americans listened to George Washington and never created political parties that the ACA would not be an issue at all. However, since political parties are pertinacious with their beliefs and more than tentative toward adjusting those beliefs, I don't think that Republicans will ever get used to cooperating with the ACA. So no, even if Republicans cooperated with the ACA, I still believe that conservatives will always wish that Obamacare did not exist. Furthermore, going off what John says in that video, a solution could be to negotiate with health care suppliers efficaciously. For instance, if hospitals and the government made deals with health supply companies as effectively as a company such as Walmart does, then the cost and quality of medicine, surgeries, and health check-ups would decrease. Another solution would be for America to become poorer by paying off debt. Though this sound ridiculous, paying off some its national debt could help America both regain financial stability and decrease the cost of health care.
DeleteDavid, your "solution" to Obamacare that only Democrats should pay for it is laughable and comes in stark contrast with what the Founding Fathers and Enlightenment philosophers would have wanted. First of all, making only one party finance and/or believe a law is a poor idea. There would be mass rebellion and I could imagine such a concept being the cause of a civil war. If a political system like that was employed, we would essentially split into two countries, the Democrats and the Republicans. Sounds very Civil War-esque to me...I do agree with you, David, that the ACA strains the national debt, but sometimes, in order to keep the citizenry happy, some things have to be prioritized ahead of balancing debt.I believe this to be one of those things. The people have a right to be annoyed with a government that can racks up $17 trillion in debt without providing affordable healthcare to all.
DeleteI am not a big fan of Obamacare. However, I know that some people are, especially my sister who is an Emergency Room doctor at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. Her hospital is one of the busiest and most respected hospitals in the country, and the people she interacts with on a daily basis rely on others to get the care they need. My sister was very tired of people coming into the hospital uninsured. She was also tired of high premiums. I am not sure as of yet how Obamacare is changing her hospital's conduct and the price of care, but she was on the front lines for all of this new healthcare legislation. Personally, I believe something needs to be done about Healthcare. I am not sure Obamacare cuts it, because I know that many people are paying more, and I know that there are not enough young adults buying into it to pay for the old sicker people. The biggest thing for me would be regulation from the source, rather than mandates for healthcare coverage from businesses and all the other ridiculous problems and assumptions that ACA has been built upon. If we attack the issue from the source, insurance companies, premiums will drop and the government will not have to pay as much to ensure quality care is provided to all citizens. Plus, I think that universal healthcare should be provided only until the age of 21 (or end of traditional 4 year education). This ensures that kids have the opportunity to grow and learn unaffected by health problems, and does not drain the system by paying for older people to get their treatments at cheaper prices. We know that old people get sick. So a preventative method covering all children through age 21 would help ensure healthy people in the long run and keep prices low across the board because people will be educated in healthy lifestyles, and protected in their most volatile years.
DeleteWhile I agree with David that Obamacare breaks the social contract, I disagree that only Democrats paying for it would be a solution at all. That would cause the pricing for Obamacare to be incredibly high for the Democrat party and cause it to fail to meet the main reason for it- affordable health care. I also believe that while it may work if the Republicans supported it, it would not be the best choice because it does not give people who could have their own health care already a choice to not help pay for the ACA. That lack of choice goes against many "American" principles. Also, the ACA attacks the problem by giving everyone care, why not attack it from the other side? I remember reading at some point that the Health care providers keep growing into larger companies that combined into only a few main ones. If we allow for more health care providers then the cost would go down because there would be more to choose from and cause more competition. It would be very much like the United Kingdom's bargaining with hip replacement companies that John mentioned. I believe this creation of more companies was once tried in the United States before and worked well for awhile as well.
DeleteThe social contract is meant to create stability within society. How can there be stability and the possibility of growth in society if the individual members can’t take care of their own fundamental needs like health? The ACA isn’t just about taking care of the “less fortunate” like many people are saying. It’s about making sure that every member of society has an equal chance at taking care of themselves physically so that they can continue to be a productive member of society. Just because someone can’t afford healthcare on their own doesn’t mean that they don’t deserve it. By obeying the laws of our country, we as Americans are already holding up our end of the social contract. The government has promised us in return the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. In order to give everyone a fair shot at these rights, the government needs to facilitate affordable and reliable healthcare for everyone. I don’t believe that the ACA is perfect or the end-all-be-all of what our national healthcare policies should be, but I do believe that it is a step in the right direction for the government to fulfill its duties to provide us with our inalienable rights.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it is pretty odd you can reply to a removed comment. Blogger should fix this!
DeleteCapitalism is the best form of government in the world for some people, and the worst for others. Since capitalism incorporates laissez fare, rich people will continue to remain rich (so long as they responsibly handle their money) and many poor people will remain poor if they do not have the motivation to make something from nothing. Since capitalism should include little government interference, people will technically have the most free form of economy possible. This means that rich people will not have to deal with the government taking their money, but it also means that poorer people will not obtain much assistance or financial aid, like the kind the ACA provides. Therefore, a person's opinion on capitalism should depend on his or her's economic status.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree David, the rich will remain rich, and generally, the poor will remain poor. Sure there will be some isolated stories about poor people getting rich quick, but most people below he poverty line would remain there. The benefits are much more individualism, like you said. Therefore, capitalism is for the rich, not the poor.
DeleteI would like to agree with DavidG because some people rely on the system and others drive the system. The invisible hand philosophy embodied by the Wealth of Nations suggests that some people are the "robber barons" and others benefit from the changes big businesses make in their lives. It is true that laissez faire makes the rich richer and the poor - bleh. However, in a laissez faire capitalist economy, there is still an opportunity for social mobility whereas in a more socialist or extreme socialist (communist) economy, people are stuck in their social strata for eternity. I personally prefer social mobility, even if it is difficult to obtain starting from the bottom. Cue Drake music!
DeleteI think that David is correct as far as his concluding statement goes. People will have differing opinions on capitalism based on their economic stability. This brings me to mention that the US is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. This is, in my opinion, almost entirely due to our open market economic system. The only way I would see it fit for the government to intervene is if we plunge into a depression proportionate of the Great Depression. Recessions are just part of the business cycle, and we will recover eventually, barring another war, or another commodities crisis similar to the gas crisis of the 1970s. And Justin, I think that "Born in the USA" would be more appropriate, considering that Drake is Canadian.
DeleteI agree with David for the most part except the fact that the poor will remain poor if they do not have the motivation to make something from nothing. The problem with this is that in some cases motivation can build a better life, but usually it is a combination of motivation and luck. Many people can be very motivated to make something from nothing but in capitalism most of them will fail. However the same luck that the poor need to possibly succeed is the luck that allowed many people to be born into wealth, and unlike the poor they require none of the motivation. That’s not saying that those born into wealth don’t need to work hard, but capitalism favors those with money and it is far easier to keep your station in life than to improve. I do completely agree that capitalism favors the rich.
DeleteFor the same reason that capitalism depends on economic situation, I think it is not a good form of government.I think a good form of government should at least give a somewhat equal chance to all people. I agree with what Jim said below. Capitalism basically gives no chance for poor people to move forward, despite how motivated they may be. Meanwhile, other people born into a rich family can literally coast through life. I do not think that is a good form of government.
DeleteSo are you suggesting we change to Communism Brian? Because that is basically what you are suggesting by saying how people need to have equal opportunities. Capitalism is all based on competition so everyone has an opportunity to get into the competition however given each person's unique background, not many poor people see their specific opportunity for making money.
DeleteI agree with David’s last statement in his response. Typically the situation someone is in economically will greatly influence his/her opinion. A person who has excessive amounts of money is obviously not going to want the government telling them what to do with it. On the other hand, someone who has little opportunity to make money will embrace any help given to them. These two different situations cause different people to generate different opinions of economic systems. I begin to disagree with David’s post when he said that people will remain poor if they don’t have the motivation. Most poor people or people who are not in an ideal economic situation have the desire to pull themselves out of it. Although they may have the motivation they may not have the assets or opportunities to do so.
ReplyDeleteJames, I completely agree. I think it is extremely unfair to stereotype that poorer people will never become successful due to lack of motivation. Being lazy is the simplest of reasons to not be employed. But most unemployed people were unable to achieve the proper education to get a good job due to lack of money. That isn't the person's fault - it's the economy and our society's faults. We live in a time when just having a high school diploma doesn't earn you money. You need a college degree for most jobs - which to many people is unrealistic. I think an easy fix to the economy would be to lower standards on most jobs - obviously not doctors or lawyers positions, or other jobs that really do require a college degree - but for example, trash collectors. They need a college degree... to pick up trash. If there were more opportunity for less educated people to participate in the work force, the economy would be helped greatly.
DeleteI agree that it is not right to just say that all poor people are unmotivated. However, the reality is that many of them are and that is what many people who are against the government's intervention in social care use as their argument. Rachel's idea of lowering the education requirements for many jobs is a very good idea, but I think the government need to do more to actively engage many of the poor population into the economy. Adding onto James's idea that government should provide more opportunities, I think people should be required to earn the services they freely receive right now so that they will be able to ease into the real economical cycle.
DeleteI would like to start another thread because I think people are actually overusing the reply function. I think that Hobbes' beliefs on human nature are inherently appropriate when applied to the degradation of our national economy pre-2008. The Era of the Wolf of Wall Street came upon us because people were allowed to float about economically without restriction and the bubble of the 90's popped under President Bush's term. People seem to enjoy the high life and they do not really prepare for the future. While economic prosperity is always matched by economic hardship in a modern economic system, regardless of capitalism or communism, the lows were excessively low because the nation did not have any restrictions, warning beacons, or excessively taxing wars to keep the economy running longer. The term industrial complex comes to mind because I know that our economy relies heavily upon the military industry and people often blame the military spending when other parts of the economy are weak. This shows another proof of Hobbes' brilliance, in that it points out our human nature to blame others when times are tough. Feel free to criticize this post ad nauseum!
ReplyDeleteI don't think capitalism is the best economic model for the world. Capitalism and communism are both great economic models that should work hypothetically. However, when either or economic models are applied to society, capitalism and communism both have its own flaws. For capitalism, an ideal economy would be a free market where the government does not interfere with the economy. Based on the supply and demand, the suppliers set their prices to yield the highest net profit. When applied to reality, greed and corruption occurs within people, resulting in the creation of monopolies like Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil (Rockefellar) in the 1800s. In an ideal world, communism is an economic model where all of the nation’s wealth is equally distributed amongst its citizen. Like capitalism, the flaw behind communism is the nature of mankind. Greed consumes the individual causing influential people in the communistic economy to unequally distribute the wealth. As an individual can see, there is no one economic model that is best for the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick, I think there needs to be a balance of sorts. Because neither model works, either we need to come up with a completely new one (which seems unlikely) or there needs to be a compromise. Unfortunately, human nature often gets in the way of compromise because everyone likes to think that their opinion is the most correct. Personally I think that that is why our government is having such a problem now. Each side is becoming more and more extreme as the other rejects its proposals for compromise. Because both sides are too stubborn to admit they are wrong, it is pushing them further and further apart, making the ability to compromise that much more difficult. However, because both sides are wrong (as neither economic models work in reality) a compromise is necessary.
DeleteI completely disagree with Nick and Jen and the rest of DavidG's post's people...
DeleteCapitalism is probably the best type of economy for today's society. Why? Competition is key. Sure, MOST of the rich will stay rich, MOST of the poor will stay poor, and the middle class will disintegrate into thin air, but hey, that's life. Competition stimulates and keeps the economy going, which inturn makes a country financially stable. Some might say that capitalism makes things unequal, but infact, it is the most equal. Everyone has a fair chance to move up the ladder in financial states. The rich will no longer complain about having 30%+ of their 'hard earned' money taken away and same thing with the poor. Competition will increase. Some will fall while others will rise. It's human nature. Competition is good. Capitalism is good.
I agree with Will that capitalism does promote competition which will stimulate the economy, but I also disagree with what he said about fairness. I don't think that capitalism is fair because, like he said earlier in his post, some people will always be poor and others will stay rich. I also agree with Jen that there must be a compromise because capitalism has caused the a huge inequality in wealth distribution. In 2012, the top 1% had 40% of the entire nation's wealth. There is obviously a problem with this model, but I'm not sure what the best model would be.
DeleteCapitalism is fair in the way that everyone has an equal chance to gain or lose wealth. The rich staying rich and the poor staying poor is just a generalization. In a capitalism economic society, if everyone were to start from the same place, everyone will have an equal chance to gain wealth, making the playing field level, therefore making capitalism equal.
DeleteI agree with Will completely. I think capitalism is very fair in the way it works. The people that do well in that system are the people who are best at what they do and business overall. Those are also the people that should succeed. Communism, on the other hand, could be fair if it was implemented correctly but it simply hasn't been. Also, if everyone gets paid the same and has the same things, like communism would suggest, no one would want to work hard at all. Thus, Capitalism is simply the best approach.
DeleteI think capitalism needs to cooperate with some socialistic traits - for example, healthcare. I agree with Will that giving people equal opportunity to economically succeed is crucial. But at the same time, pure capitalism would leave many in the dust (those who don't make enough money to support themselves, i.e., keeping themselves healthy). I think it is a basic human right to be healthy and I strongly believe that the government needs to accommodate people who can't afford even the most basic coverage. If someone is very sick, that affects their ability to work and provide for their family. If healthcare is covered, everyone really does have the same platform to succeed.
DeleteWell that's the problem Will. Hypothetically capitalism is a great economic model. However, when applied to reality, it doesn't work. As you said, "if everyone started from the same place," but everyone doesn't start from the same place. So if you were born into a poor family, you do not have an equal chance of obtaining wealth as a kid who is born into a rich family. Also sure there are exception where the poor can rise up and obtain wealth, but most people who are poor stay poor, thus concluding that the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor is a good generalization about capitalism. In other words, capitalism is not the best economic model for the world.
DeleteNick, though capitalism may not be the most equal economic model out there, I would say that it is still the best economic model for the world. As Will said, competition is indeed “key”. Competition creates struggle which ultimately creates progress in a society. For this reason, communism is inferior to capitalism in that the general will of a people under a communist economic model will not be to improve society, for they have no motivation to. One can see such a lack of motivation in the influx of Chinese students coming to seek opportunities in America instead of China in the past few years. America’s competitive economy is just more rewarding for success. Though in capitalistic economies people are mostly pursuing their individual wills, as Adam Smith says, this pursuing of one’s own will ultimately benefit the society. Because of how beneficial capitalism is to the progression of society, I believe that it is currently the best economic model for the world.
DeleteI believe that a huge flaw in Obamacare is the regulations that it has. It provides a nonnegotiable set of things that people can be covered for, which they have to pay for fully. Many people don't need all of the health/medical insurance that Obamacare requires, so I think that certain laws should be modified so people can pursue self-interest and choose what they want to be covered for. Obamacare punishes people who don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for health insurance with only a minimal fine. I think that if people have the freedom to choose what they want to be covered for, there will be more people who buy health insurance, which will cause prices to decrease, which is one reason why the government wants people to pay for health insurance in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Theresa. People need options. People don’t want to pay for something they don’t need and they aren’t going to buy something when most of it is deemed unnecessary. Laws that are not as strict will allow for more options make Obamacare seem less forceful. People will be able to pick and choose what they want and what they need. It would open up the market too because now instead of buying lots of unnecessary coverage you can buy coverage that you need and will use. Plus, as Theresa said it will decrease costs and everyone will be happy.
DeleteResponse to #4:
ReplyDeleteQuestion #4 – Our economy cannot be fixed without the government playing a central role on several different fronts, including monetary policy, fiscal policy and legislation reform. However, I don’t see that role of government “intervention” as a socialist fashion, I see it as what is necessary to sustain a strong economy in a capitalist system which, when successfully executed, can provide higher quality of lives for all people. For example, the government has recently used monetary policy to stimulate the economy through quantitative easing which has helped, to some degree, the economic recovery. They will have to do more going forward with monetary policy so more quality jobs can be created and businesses are able to invest and grow. However, the single most-important area where we need our government to “intervene” to fix the economy, and our very own futures, is to address the national debt disaster through fiscal policy and legislation. The annual budget must be balanced so the debt doesn’t grow any larger; which relies on the government spending only what it can afford and growing tax revenue, not from higher tax rates alone, but from a stronger, growing economy with more, better-paying jobs. Other than the substantial payments of interest on the national debt, the other largest components of government spending are the entitlement programs (social security, medicare). There is no debate that the entitlement programs need to be reformed through legislation (more dependency on government) because they are not sustainable. From the Social Security website; “Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.”
Clearly, we have no choice but for the government to “intervene.” For our economy to thrive in a capitalist system, it requires a functioning government to make it work. The problem is the government has been dysfunctional and therefore, unable to address these economic issues effectively. The question isn’t “does the government have to intervene?” but “will the government ever be able to intervene the way we need it to?”
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that a government needs to learn how to work properly before it can start to fix any problems, whether social or economic. I'm not sure if its possible for all sides of the political problems we have now to give up their pride and create a compromise though. Each group is too stubborn and too different. As we've seen, even in this blog, people's opinions on politics and economy vary so much that a compromise seems unlikely.
DeleteMike, I agree with your last statement. I do wonder if the government will ever do things for what we truly need. John Locke always said that the only government he believed in should be the one the people wanted. Clearly, that is not the case nowadays. The people being governed should always have a say in how they are being governed. I feel like individuals are slowly losing their ability to express opinions.
DeleteMike, I completely agree with you. We can make plans and delineate courses of action, but without trustworthy politicians to implement these plans it’s useless. Jen I disagree with your last statement. In the past, for example the Clinton administration, America has seen very effective bipartisanship. As the views of Americans towards the functionality of our government shifts, I think the government itself will shift into a more compromising and effective team. In time, after many elections, the American people will transform into the government into what they want: two major parties that have differences, but are still willing to compromise. The government has effectively compromised before and they can do it again.
DeleteI think Mike's statement is accurate, but I think the major problem in America right now is that citizens don't know what we need. It's obviously an extremely complicated situation. It's easy to say "oh the government just needs to change." But what about it needs to change?
DeletePersonally, I believe Hobbes's theory of every man for himself doesn't work when applied to economics. It's really important for the economy to be stimulated by not just big businesses, but also tons of smaller, individualized businesses.
We need to utilize the aspect of capitalism that is most effective - motivation to succeed. When people see that they can achieve success in terms of creating a business, they work harder and create more competition which helps the economy. People today feel that success is unattainable due to all the big businesses such as Google and Apple that seem to "rule" the market. What we really need is inspiration for the people.
I agree with Mike's last statement that the government should intervene in the correct manner. I also completely agree with Rachel's statement. In order to have a government function to benefit America, citizens must be aware of their surroundings and what needs to be changed. People demand change, but what change specifically?
DeleteMadden, I would like to discuss something that further supports your optimism about the government changing for the better. The New Labels organization. The New Labels organization, led by Governor Jon Huntsman and Senator Joe Manchin, is working to develop concrete policy solutions that could attract widespread support in Congress and begin to rebuild the American people’s trust in the government. Within No Labels is a group called the Problem Solvers Coalition that actually consists of 89 members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans respectively. These congressmen see what is necessary in America and that is negotiating different issues and coming up with a solution, not worrying about the image of their specific political party. In other words, “ideas over ideology.” Fix, don’t fight, yo. The only way to solve our problems is to come together and ultimately determine a course of action. Over time that ideal has very much deteriorated and now politicians are only concerned about their respective parties. However, now that organizations like these are starting to develop, there is much more hope that parties across the aisle from each other can begin to build trust with one another and finally make a difference.
DeleteFinal Additional question for this topic, and it includes some social contract elements:
ReplyDeleteSome analysts believe the greatest hindrance to economic development for many nations is and will continue to be climate change issues. The USA is one of the only countries that refuses to signed the Kyoto Protocols, which includes a promise by developed nations to reduce carbon emissions. China is another key country that refuses to sign.
Should corporations be held accountable for their impact on the environment? Which should take precedence: economic development or environmental concerns?
Another great example for this question is Fracking and drilling in the Marcellus Shale.
I don't think corporations should ever be held accountable for anything unless they are breaking the law. If a business can take advantage of something to make more money, it will, and that's only natural. The government will need to impose heavier environmental regulations eventually, but until then people will do what they do. Under the social contract, we need the government to organize the solutions to these problems. That's why we have the government.
DeleteSome could argue that economic development right now is more important than the environment, but there will come a time when it will be literally necessary to do something about the environment, and of course then the environment will take precedence. There has been lots of progress in recent years, and it can't continue forever. For example, humans around the world owned ten times more cars in 1990 than in 1950. The world can't support the same proportional increase in the next 40 years. Our progress also causes the extinction of many species. In 2006 a report in Science predicted that 90 percent of the fish and shellfish that feed us will be gone by 2048. We all know about the enviornments that have been destroyed by humans. Our actions cannot continue unadulterated if we want to continue thriving as a species in the upcoming generations. Yes, we should be focusing on the environment more, but because we are capitalist and want to make as much money as possible, we are probably going to wait until last minute before something is done.
Corporations need not necessarily be held “accountable” for their environmental impact but as a good faith effort of not only supporting the environment but also attracting customers should try to be attempt to be as green as possible. An example that has balanced economic development and environmental concerns is Apple. Apple’s data centers are 100% reliant on renewable energy and they have increased the usage of renewable energy at their corporate campuses 114% over the past two years. They do this not because a government agency or other group is holding them to such a standard but because they make a good faith effort and in turn are maybe able to attract customers that share their green philosophy. Regardless, in a capitalistic system companies will favor profit over suitability until the government decides to support greenness. Punishing companies with fines is a system doomed to fail as fines will likely be easily swallowed by larger companies but would drastically hurt small corporations. A more effective system would be one that plays off of social instead of market norms.
DeleteWhile I do not find signing the Kyoto Protocol necessary, I think environmental concerns must be dealt with before it is too late. China and America are the top producers of greenhouse gas emissions, totaling 42% of the world’s emissions. These two countries also have the most to lose by fining large corporations and hindering the capitalistic markets they are dependent upon. I agree with Dan’s clear statement that “because we are capitalist and want to make as much money as possible, we are probably going to wait until last minute before something is done.” Instead of signing the Kyoto Protocol and dealing with the sudden change, our government needs to gradually create laws to cut down on green house gas emissions. A greater effort needs to be given to develop technologies of production with less harmful effects on the environment.
DeleteThis question is basically the same as the Lincoln-Douglas Debate question this past month. I believe that it is too late to look after the environment ten years from now. Anything we do should be with protection of our planet in mind. While it is more expensive to work under regulated conditions, with time those expenses can decrease. Working to fix a broken Earth is a lot harder, in my opinion, than prevention now. Look at some South American countries such as Chile, which rely almost entirely on their mining for their economic prosperity. In countries such as Chile, or South Africa (post-Apartheid), prosperity comes at a cost - degradation of the Earth. If we can find ways to protect our environment while extracting resources, economies will grow, even if it takes longer, and the planet will be safer.
DeleteThe companies are perfect examples of Hobbe’s view on human nature. Being they have no single ‘ruler’ to fear they have been working selfishly for decades and leave a major environmental problem that needs to be fixed before it is too late. Justin makes a good argument with pointing out that the environment is most likely a lot harder to fix than the economy. An economy can bounce back quicker than a rainforest can regrow. Corporations only care about the best way to make money and the only way to make this stop is make them have to listen to one central power and make it so the punishment also effects larger companies as well being Eric pointed out the important fact that fines a lot will not stop powerhouses and in the end will just make them stronger by weeding out smaller companies that cannot keep up with them. Governments need to step it up and start really cracking down on environmental issues because they have waited too long to take actions already.
DeleteBalancing economic developments and environmental concerns is a challenging issue. By human nature we want to develop our economy and make money. While we are doing this we have the nagging issue in the back of our head of environmental safety. The moral side of us wants to help the environment. Eventually most people chose to set aside the environment. But as more and more people start to set aside the environment it will suffer even more than it already is. By the time most people finally realize they need to be concerned with the environment it will be too late. Fracking is a good example to prove how people have completely set aside environmental issues. Over 72 trillion gallons of water are pumped into fracking wells annually in the US. This water is contaminated with over 360 billion gallons of chemicals. Some of these chemicals are even known carcinogens. This water then leaks into the groundwater and contaminates drinking water, destroying local environments. Corporations like this should be held accountable for environmental issues involving their business. Fracking companies know that they pump contaminated water into the ground and still continue to do it. To say these companies can’t be held accountable is wrong.
DeleteI just want to bring to point that we can develop both at the same time (economic and environmental. Everything about going green is still business. Consumers are giving businesses huge profits but at least are being exposed to environmental concerns of the country. Clearly, the issue is that individual concerns are not enough. We need to do bigger picture things. Every ton of carbon dioxide produced damages the economy roughly 20 dollars. So an individual American roughly damages the economy 400 dollars a year. If there is more of a reasonable price on "green" goods, both the economy and environment will develop. Which is more important? I think the environment no doubt. The environment and climate affect the economy negatively. If the environment falls, so does economy. Not as badly vice-versa, though. I think more products and goods that are green need to be made that actually appeal to the consumer. it will increase spending, stimulate the economy, and improve the environment at once.
DeleteI do not believe that the USA should sign the Kyoto Protocols and that economic development is more important then environmental concerns. I think agreeing to the Kyoto protocols would cause too much economic damage for what it's worth and put us in a bigger recession then we are already in. Canada, whose economy and per-capita oil consumption are similar to America, did agree to the Kyoto Protocols and their economy did end up struggling because of it (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/03/30/090330taco_talk_owen). It creates the same problem with America having minimum wage and safety requirements in the workplace. Companies will just outsource to a country where they can make their product cheaper. In a sense the same pollution will end up happening just in a different part of the world. With all this being said, American and international companies should try and make any environment friendly changes they can while still keeping prices down.
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard to have an economy when eventually there won’t even be an environment to live in, right? People overlook the environment simply because they don’t view it as making them money directly. It’s all about the money for these greedy businesses. The US is responsible for roughly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, so our involvement in the Kyoto Protocol is almost necessary for this effort to scratch the surface of solving a global issue. At the start of Kyoto, industrialized nations pledged to cut their yearly emissions of carbon, by varying amounts, averaging 5.2%, by 2012 as compared to 1990 levels. That equates to a 29% cut in the values that would have otherwise occurred. This would be a miniscule, but decent start for such a large problem. But, thanks to Bush, the US backed out and continues to put the environment and the Protocol itself in danger. So while the businesses (and possibly you?) cry about the all the money they will lose, it could create jobs, not out source them. Most studies conclude that reduction measures produce more jobs than are lost, because it is more labor-intensive. In 2012 alone, roughly 120,000 jobs were created from reduction techniques along with renewable energy resources, and that number is expected to grow even larger. So these US businesses should pull their heads out of all the gas their breathing in, respect/learn about the environment, and do something about it to help. Thank you.
DeleteThat was deep man, but I still disagree with you. America is definitely put at a disadvantage by agreeing to Kyoto Protocol. Like Mallon mentioned China and America both did not agree to Kyoto and those are both two of the most powerful nations in the world if not the two most powerful. So while tree huggers (and possibly you?) complain about the pollution, do you really want to deal with a bad economy and let America lose it's power? I do hope one day technology can be created that can help the environment and the economy, but for now, when weighing the consequences, I choose to keep my countries economy strong.
DeleteCorporations should not only be held accountable for their impact on the environment, but they should also actively work towards minimizing that impact. Although environmental issues can hinder economic growth, in the long term, protection of the environment is the smartest move. Besides the aesthetic value that the environment adds to the country, the ecological importance of our natural world cannot be overstated. The biological implications that the destruction of our environment is causing can and will have negative effects on our food sources, health, and many other areas of our life. Moreover, the destruction of the environment due to the ignorance of massive corporations can and will lead to the exhaustion of natural resources. Just like the slash and burn techniques of ancients around the world, the minimal and ephemeral success of these agricultural techniques eventually lead to destruction. By exhausting their resources, the collapse of the Mayan civilization happened. The only reason this technique was successful in Eurasia is because those people moved after destroying their environment. We are not in that same position today. Therefore, to protect our nation's future, we must curb and minimize the destruction of the environment, even in the place of economic growth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt. I think the US should sign the Kyoto Protocols, even if it is detrimental to our economy. Our environment should be seen as more important than our economy because our environment (this is very cliché) is our home. We need the environment for water, oxygen, food, and we cannot afford to run out of resources. Yes it might seem nice to have a better economy, but in the long run the environment is so much more important to deal with considering it helps keep us alive. The Kyoto Protocol, which will help reduce emissions of green house gases, should be what the US is focusing on more, rather than the economy. As for the corporation aspect, I think it would be fair for companies to be held accountable if they are negatively harming the environment. Maybe fines against corporations that are hurting our environment would cause businesses to change their bad habits?
DeleteMatt you make several great points why the environment is so important to us, all of which I agree with. I would like to expand on your argument that corporations should work towards lessening their impact on the environment. Businesses survive from profit, so obviously whatever decisions they make should be the most cost effective. Therefore it can be assumed their decision to pollute the environment was the most cost effective way to get rid of waste. I do not see businesses coming together any time soon to pledge to prevent pollution unless there is some sort of monetary incentive. I believe the only way for businesses to reduce pollution would be if the government is willing to give money (that would obviously have to outweigh the cost of clean waste removal) to businesses for clean waste removal. I think that it would actually be very effective if the government awarded those businesses with some sort of energy-star-like award for their positive impact on the environment. There was a similar situation during WWII where businesses would receive a blue eagle sign to put on the front door, which showed their support for the NRA. It was actually very effective in attracting customers because most Americans supported the NRA.
DeleteMatt, I agree that the sustenance of our environment is of the utmost importance, but government intervention is an inefficient way to approach the problem. The consensus seems to be that laws and protocols are economically inefficient, and subsidies and economic rewards for environmental awareness are similarly ineffective. They would only work if the government would be willing to at least cover the losses of a polluting company, a massive sum of money for most companies. How would the public respond to hearing a large percentage of their tax dollars were going to subsidies to major corporations? What we are all ignoring is that as Smith realizes, economic inefficiencies tend to fix themselves given time. A whole new (past 20 years or so) niche in every market exist, most filled, by business models claiming to do things in an environmentally friendly manner. The most powerful tool in any economy is advertising and its effect on consumer behavior. Using advertisements, the firms get the consumers to think they get more utility out of a product made in an environmentally-friendly manner. If the mentality of the consumer changes to an economically-concerned attitude, firms will accordingly change their business models to accommodate because only consumers turnover profits. The only economically efficient way to preserve the environment while progressing forward is to change the consumer mentality, because only they have the most significant effect on the market.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, no country can be forced to sign a law they don't agree with. Also, I don't think it's a councidence that the countries with the two highest GDPs internationally, the US and China, are ones that have not signed the Kyoto Protocols. In a way, the Protocols would balance the economic playing field, as countries with the means of greater manufacturing would be limited by environmental protocols. Although I think the Kyoto Protocols are a noble effort, industrial powerhouse countries simply will never agree to such a debilitating piece of legislation. Instead of such a major law, I think a good place to start would be to award minor incentives to companies that meet certain environmental marks. These incentives could be anything from tax breaks to cash bonuses, but large American and Chinese manufacturers must be enticed by something in order to help the environment in conjunction with making money. The Kyoto Protocols do no such thing; they only strip successful countries of the industrial power they have worked so hard to achieve.
ReplyDeleteAdam I agree with you but disagree with you. On one hand, it's clear that the federal governments of economically powerful countries do not enjoy or want to make new laws and codes to increase environmental protocol (so long as money is lost). In fact, a recent news article from ann.com states that small companies are "much more proactive in taking action on [environmental] change than the federal government." So clearly, the governments of nations are stubborn. This is why I disagree with you… if countries will continue to be so pertinacious with their decisions regarding environment protection, then I think they should be forced to sign and create laws. Think about it, why should the ENTIRE world suffer because countries are selfish. The environment is for everyone, and, therefore, everyone should help to preserve it, even if it means losing some money. Since the US has such a high GDP, taking some measures to preserve the environment is very possible, but it's all about taking step one: making laws.
DeleteAdam, while your idea sounds good on paper, I doubt that the lower and middle classes would support giving big corporations tax breaks and cash bonuses. Especially because this would be tax-payers' money.
DeleteUnfortunately, since China and the United States are the two largest economic forces right now, nothing can really be done about the environment until they decide to do something. And right now they will not want to do anything that will help the environment if it hurts their economy. So, the only way change will happen is when NOT helping the environment has a more negative impact on the economy than helping. This can be brought about at a consumer level by people buying "green" products. Then businesses will start to make their products more environmentally friendly so people will buy them. This has already been happening a lot with things like hybrid cars. I think that this change will have to happen on its own, not by governments creating laws.
Sure, it would be wonderful if we could simultaneously preserve the Earth and progress at a sufficient economic rate, but that is utopian. The primary purpose of any business is to turnover profits; if they are unable to, they fail and die. It is the same for countries in a globalized, money-driven world. Asking the poorest, developing countries to save their environment before putting food on the table, or the table they probably don't even have, is ludicrous because money brings relative stability, and companies invest in countries where they can cut the most corners and legally get away with it, thereby making the most room for profits. In the same way, asking the wealthiest nations, like the US, to restrict emissions is just as crazy; they need every advantage to stay near the top of the power table and keep some sort of status quo. Signing the Kyoto Protocols would effectively put a handicap on the US and its industry. Imagine how much more powerful China could become if the US signed onto such a disadvantage?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree Brian. Global economic competition now triumphs over environmental decisions. That is why neither America not China will sign the Kyoto Protocols. Neither country will willingly put itself at a steep disadvantage in the scheme of the global economy. In an age where economic success dictates global political power, economic decisions will always be seen as more important that environmental ones. It is a sad situation, but whether we like it or not, it is the reality of the current age.
DeleteI understand and agree with you that we cannot expect and should not demand that every country must consider the environment before their economic well-being. I also agree that neither the US or China are signing the Kyoto Protocols because of the economic disadvantage it would put them in. However, I offer a compromise: instead of a globalized mandate, or one country powerful country to set the example, why not mandate every first-world country to follow these protocols? This would make the biggest difference to the environment, as these are the countries with the biggest harmful effects on the environment, and it would not put poorer countries at a disadvantage. It would keep the playing field constant for countries like the US and China while cutting back on the most harmful effects on the environment.
DeleteWhy should only democrats pay for Obamacare? Republicans clearly don't like the ACA, so why should people who want to forward themselves economically and go fully by the capitalistic system within America need to benefit those who dare too lazy to take the initative to make their lives better. Plus, our country has so much debt and tax problems that it's not reasonable to spend more money on the ACA. Furthermore, people are fed up with taxes as it is, and Obamacare just increases taxes even more. According to John Greene, Americans pay more for medical care than any other country, and we're one of the most in debt countries in the world. America wasn't founded on assistance given by other countries. Do you think Rockefeller and Carnegie were given aid? NO! They fulfilled the American dream by making something from nothing. That is how America should run; the US cannot take on the economic strain brought on by poorer people who further deplete the government's funds and raise the country's debt.
ReplyDeleteDavid, your view of America is so antiquated that it cannot be applied to the current situation with the ACA. To call everyone that needs to use the ACA "lazy" is simply incorrect and a fallacy of the greatest degree. Let's say you walk outside your house right now and get hit by a car. That would not be your fault nor could the accident be at all attributed to your laziness, but you, hopefully your insurance, would cover the thousands of dollars in medical costs. Should a person that can't afford health insurance have to pay this all by themselves? They did not do anything wrong or "lazy," they simply were in the wrong place at the wrong time. All users of the ACA are not abusers of the ACA.
DeleteDave, I totally agree with you that there is injustice in the current way the American economy is structured, but in turning the ACA into more of a partisan issue, the country will imminently split itself. I'm not saying a Civil War round 2 will occur, but greater discord will exist. The goal is to unite the country and move forward, not split it apart. The ACA is an attempt to bring a sense of equality so forward progress can be made, although as with anything, abuse is imminent because humans suck. Additionally, I would like to dispute your claim about the American Dream. Carnegie and Rockefeller were geniuses who COULD make something from nothing, an insurmountable task for most. A modern day equivalent is Bill Gates. The average American cannot be a Bill Gates no matter how hard they try. The American Dream may be the same, but the moral changes in America have made it much more difficult. A more religious America would revive values in education and work ethic, something both Carnegie and Rockefeller shared, and would subsequently bring about a moral unification of the US in addition to a more productive workforce and economy. Finally, leaving the poor to wither and die is not a possibility, even though i agree that it is the most economically efficient. Such an act may lead to another shooting of protesting paupers on the lawn of the Capitol. Dave, your claims make some economic sense, but are to idealistic for the realistic world.
DeleteAnd Adam, there is a fine line between "users" and "abusers" and human greed will lean towards abuse when possible, unless a moral enlightenment occurs such as the one i mentioned above.
DeleteBuhr, stay golden. But Adam let's say that someone is hit by a car accidentally, don't you think that the United States Judicial System will handle the situation and that the person hit by the car will obtain compensation for his loss? Obamacare is to HELP people get back on their feet when they do not have enough economic stability, but people abuse this system. The government has to constantly check up on people utilizing the ACA to see if they're actually in need of it, and many of those people do not need it. As Buhr said, morals have changed, and people want to be more equal and have good health care. Well just by being an American doesn't mean that people should automatically get health coverage: they need to earn it. Just as food stamps can be used to buy soda, money obtained by Obamacare is used by many abusers to purchase non-necessities. This isn't moral at all. We pay for the coverage of millions of people who "cannot" afford it on their own. But ask yourself, why can't they? The answer may surprise you.
DeleteI know this is an older topic, but I'm putting a new idea out here in reference to the question about capitalism. Capitalism is not the best economic model for the world, and my main example is going to be China. Additionally, Smith would hate this argument because it is the farthest from an unfettered economy. Don't get me wrong, I love America, but what the Chinese Communist Party have done since Mao went bye-bye is brilliant. It is the most adaptive political and economic system in the world, and constantly corrects past mistakes. Where Mao went wrong, the Party corrected, with policies such as the Great Leap Forward and Deng Xiaoping's reformation of the market, which boosted China to the top of the economic table. Even still, they continue to adapt and reform to fit the modern world, while preventing political instability and preserving fundamental communist values. The strongly Socialist economy also boosts China's Y Generation's optimism with 93% believing the future will be good, compared to America's 47%. Within 60 years, Socialism has taken China from civil war, foreign control, and a life expectancy of 41 years to a modernized society and arguably the most economically powerful society. Sure, it is not a perfect system, but major arguments such as meritocracy and corruption are invalid as China is moving upwards on the Transparency Index and has a strict Party Organization Department that only allows careful progression up the party ladder, show a continuity of Confucian ideals. Overall, China's adaptable, Socialist economic model is the best economic model for the world as it looks to move forward. It is adaptable, effective, and brings a better life by the people, for the people. PLEASE RESPOND. I"M SORRY THAT IT IS LENGTHY.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what David said I think we need to look at the times in America where our economy was successful. Time such as when people had faith to invest and startup businesses from nothing. With the government involved in everything it goes against what America was founded on and what has worked. I believe that the government should take the hands off approach. I feel that some people pity the poor, which isn’t a bad thing, and invest too much time and money into them. The economic system that made our country to powerful was letting the strong rise to the top over the weak. People are too impatient these days and want to see change in an amount of time that is simply impossible. By having less involvement in the government I feel that eventually the economy will work itself out just like it has in the past. The government trying to get its hands in everything will only cause further delay due to the varying opinions within the government.
ReplyDelete