Note: this comment turned out to be too long for the comment section, so I decided to make it a post. This might not be very interesting to most people out there, but in the midst of so much capitalism bashing I decided to present the other side.
Here it is.
Jon - it seems as if you place emphasis on the value of society as opposed to the value of individual people. My question is, are you willing to sacrifice the natural rights of the people living within the society for your cause? Because that's exactly what you're proposing with wealth redistribution, where the government extracts money from certain individuals through the use of force and gives it to others. See, if an armed man came to your house, put a gun to your head, and took your money, that would be wrong. But what makes it morally justified when the government does it? Remember, this is what the founders warned us about in a democracy - it is often nothing more than mob rule.
Also, you don't think people in the private sector work for a common goal? Just take a look at some of the incredible entrepreneurship that we have witnessed in our society. In some cases, literally millions of people work for the common goal. The only difference is that the private sector has a profit incentive, which in turn causes them to create the best product for the cheapest price, while politicians will sell their soul just to get re-elected into office again and again.
I find your assumption astonishing that under a free market system people would be paid five cents an hour. In that case, why isn't everybody paid the minimum wage right now? What's stopping employers? There's a reason they don't do that. I don't want to get too technical but it makes perfect sense - if an employer pays an employee below what they deserve based on their productive capacity, the employees will flock some other place where they are valued according to their productive capacity. In other words, wage competition occurs.
To give you an example of how the free market benefits everybody, look around. Two hundred years ago, poor people faced a very short life expectancy, starvation, backbreaking labor, poor transportation, poor housing, etc. On the other hand, rich people worked little, had servants, and led a more luxurious lifestyle. Nobody had adequate transportation. Now, the difference between a poor person and a rich person is that a poor person has a beat up car, while a rich person has a new BMW. But they both have cars! Although wealth disparity exists, EVERYONE has become wealthier and enjoys a higher standard of living.
About the 1900s, you're right (and I did acknowledge this with the word "virtually") - there was a small amount of poorly funded programs. To be honest, I don't know the exact specifics. But remember, the War on Poverty began in the mid-late 1960s along with massive, leviathan programs like medicaid. Is it really just a coincidence that since these enormous government programs were put into place, the poverty rate has stagnated? Hardly.
Now, in terms of the New Deal, I always find it laughable when people bring it up as an example of exceptional government action. Remember, the Great Depression lasted for a whopping 15+ years (not officially, but I can give you further evidence of this if you'd like). Have you ever heard of the depression in 1920? That's because although the GDP plummeted and the economy was headed for the doldrums, government did nothing, and the free market fixed itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment