It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
EDIT: But to make matters worse on that front. America is being locked out of manufacturing because of the law of supply and demand. Now to be cost effective you have to have low wages to compete with the slave labour in China's manufacturing industry. Consequently it produces very few jobs in the US because of extreme innovation/mechanisation which has a high start up cost. It's ether do that or.. work for the same wage as the slaves in third world countries.
Last edited by Gabriel; 09-25-10 at 09:40 AM.
If capitalism only produced jobs and it did not lower the cost of living, keeping people in poverty might be true.
For the notion that "capitalism creates poverty" to be true, you're going to have to show that prior to or in absence of capitalism, these people would not be impoverished.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
Look, I understand that supply and demand is the cardinal rule. If you wanted to think like one of those libertarian fundamentalists, you might even think it's the only rule. Certainly you'll hear many right-wingers talking as if "capitalism" is just a convenient shorthand for the interests of big business. But in a broader historical view, there's a lot more to it than that. A capitalistic society is, first, a society. That means everyone plays by the same rules. In a capitalist society, those rules form a coherent policy that encourages economic activism, not stagnation. A corporation, in a so-called free market, that makes its money exploiting workers on a completely uneven field doesn't qualify as any kind of society, much less a capitalist one...no matter what Karl Marx or Dick Cheney may tell you.
I would argue capitalism is the best system to bring people out of poverty. As for whether or not a certain % must live in poverty, I think that no one is forced to live in poverty, but there are people in a capitalist society who live in "poverty". Of course, we cannot list the U.S. as an example of capitalism at work since we are not a purely capitalist society.
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.