Is the U.S. rich or poor?
Rich
Side Score: 7
|
Poor
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
2
points
|
The great thing about Capitalism is that even if you have no money, you can still have plenty of goods and services. Free Market capitalism would practically remove the necessity for paper currency. But consider how people in poverty have cable and shelter. This is because of capitalism. Unfortunately, heavy state involvement has skewed how much money people have, and, of course, we are heavily in debt, but we're still fine compared to other countries that do not try to engage in free trade (or are bombed by First world countries). An example of how a system of Capitalism can provide for poor people their necessities can be noted by this African activist. She basically explains how giving people welfare is not enough to save the African people. They need to have sustaining work and to have a market sector (given, she doesn't use the term market) in order to get themselves out of poverty. Her recommendation is to have an outside company create factories that employ the African people, but I feel that the African people would be better off creating their own factories. It would be better either way than what Africa is currently used to, which is enslavement by dictators and the only provisions that are provided are welfare that doesn't last them long. Outside corporations would have financial incentive to stop the violence in Africa, so maybe in that sense Globalization is still important, however I fear the power of Western influence, because while the private sector is mostly a system of voluntarism, the governments they come from are systems of coercion and politics. inb4 off topic Side: Poor
|