|
|
|
|
|
by rohern
4950 days ago
|
|
His point is that one of the main avenues for the poor to leave poverty is through capitalistic action. If you are arguing for the restriction of that behavior, you are arguing for the restriction of opportunities to leave behind poverty. As pathetic as it is to see people camping out at Wal-mart to buy products they do not particularly need (indeed, many of them would be better off if they saved the money that they will spend today), one of the results of that behavior is additional economic opportunity for poor countries and poor people. You could state a case that the net gain from this behavior makes it not worth having, as the social and environmental costs of using natural and human resources to produce unneeded products obfuscates the value of the resultant economic growth, but then you would need to present data and math. |
|
That doesn't follow. Laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily lead to greater class mobility. The idea that one must abandon "restriction" of capitalism to offer the greatest benefit to any individual is ridiculous.