7 of 7

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 5

to put one over on its customers will quickly fail, opening the door to better businesses.

One of the biggest arguments against capitalism is that it does nothing to help those who are at a disadvantage. If someone who was poor stole from someone who was wealthy, even if the poor person were doing it to feed his or her family, would society condone it? No. That person would be punished the same as any thief. Yet, when the government steals from the wealthy in the form of taxes in order to redistribute that wealth to the poor, we say that it's for "the good of the people". However, if someone is poor, and all of their basic needs are provided for, what incentive do they have to pull themselves up out of their poverty? I realize that many people do, but there are a greater number who don't, because they don't feel the need to. Why is it considered okay for wealth to be taken from someone who has rightfully earned that money, through the use of their own mind, to be given to those who do not work as hard and do not use their mind to the same extent? In a capitalist society, those who have the wealth are those who have earned it. They are not made wealthy through government favors or looting. They have been made wealthy through production and the use of their rational mind. Private charities will always be available to help those who are in true need, and there will always be those who choose to help others who deserve it. The main difference being that charities will get their funds through donors who choose to offer money to those causes, not by government redistribution of wealth.

Many say that capitalism centralizes wealth too much. If a person leaves a great fortune to an undeserving heir, the money is usually squandered more quickly than anyone could imaging. The wealth is redistributed to those more deserving by market factors, not by taxes and looting. If the money is left to a deserving heir, they generally increase their contribution to the market by producing more and better products. This in turn benefits the consumer by offering better products and better choices.

In a true free market, there is very little chance of a national depression or recession. There may be localized economic cycles, like if a large employer were to go out of business and leave half a town unemployed, but those would only have local effects, and would still leave those left unemployed with the option to relocate to where there are more jobs. Depressions are caused my massive

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about The pros and cons of capitalism?
We want to hear your view. Write now!