A Second Slice of Pie
One of the most common complaints about capitalism is that it is inherently unfair. That the operation of an unrestrained, free market will inevitably lead to iniquity, and a great disparity in outcomes. Complaints usually proceed along the lines of - "the rich get richer, and the poor just keep getting poorer". Thus, government intervention is appealed to as protection against the vagaries and unfairness of free market forces. Arguments against unrestricted capitalism include charges of exploitation of workers, an obsession with efficiency, and the consignment of unproductive individuals to the economic scrap-heap. This essay is not intended to address each specific accusation, but will identify the erroneous, central premise behind these misgivings, and the implications of correcting it. The flawed premise held by almost all critics of capitalism, is the view that it is a zero-sum game. In other words, that any gain in a free market economy must have occured at someone else's expense. Ironically, this misconception plagues capitalism and not other economic systems, precisely because of capitalism's great success in wealth generation. It is not hard to see why this is the case. Before the advent of capitalism, the vast majo
The fundamental mistake of capitalism's detractors is the idea that a certain level of economic welfare is a given. Consequently, capitalism is portrayed as being responsible for dividing this given "economic pie" unfairly. This perspective gives rise to the idea that the operations of the free market are a zero-sum game involving this economic pie, and that for one person to gain, another must have lost. This "winners" and "losers" mentality belies the fact that man's "natural" share of the economic pie is nothing. There is no pie in the sky. Nor is there pie on the ground. The pie has to be produced, it is not a given. new technological changes. Though it is true that some of these "losers" of the market system were transported into Dickensian-like poverty, the fact that they remained there is generally due to their failure, or refusal to accept the changes. The standard of living of the majority rose dramatically. That all changed in the new economic order, and the first rumblings of discontent started early. The most famous of all these malcontents were English textile workers who railed against the replacement of their jobs by mechanical looms. This anger at new technology has immortalised these textile workers, with the inception of the word Luddite, to mean someone who eschews This contention is just as mistaken as the first, but it is also less obvious. However, once again, the root of the error lies in a flawed conception of reality. From this perspective, the existence of chance in determining economic outcomes is untenable. Inheritance of wealth for example is not earned, but due to the providence of having been born into a particular family. Yet, intelligence, various talents and aptitudes, physical attractiveness and even which country one is born in, are also due to chance. The economic freedom's of capitalism allowed the servile classes to escape their indentured slavery, and capital
Some common words found in the essay are:
Garden Eden, , Industrial Revolution, Adam Smith, free market, economic pie, respond opportunities, majority people, vast majority people, pie unfairly, economic freedom, zero-sum game, economic freedoms, market system, vast majority,
Approximate Word count = 1296
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
