CAPITALISM & INEQUALITY
Posted by TruthFreedom1 10 years, 4 months ago to History
Has capitalism fractured society? Has it created barriers which prevent some from succeeding or creating wealth for themselves? As governments pays for the welfare state through taxes and fees collected, the richest pay nothing. How have they managed to manipulate us to this point? Does selfishness and greed promote lack of empathy for our fellow man? Do we wish for equal economic opportunity or a Darwinian economic state (survival of the fittest)? And is it fair that the bourgeois through history have manipulated governments and society to get us to this point that we forget about those who have as a result less than a fair kick at the can of success? This is a long read, you may wish to bookmark it for future consideration and the questions are only suggestions for consideration while reading it.
This is a quote from the article:
"The Economist recently repeated a shibboleth: "In a society with broad equality of opportunity, the parents' position on the income ladder should have little impact on that of their children." The fact is, however, that the greater equality of institutional opportunity there is, the more families' human capital endowments matter. As the political scientist Edward Banfield noted a generation ago in The Unheavenly City Revisited, "All education favors the middle- and upper-class child, because to be middle- or upper-class is to have qualities that make one particularly educable." Improvements in the quality of schools may improve overall educational outcomes, but they tend to increase, rather than diminish, the gap in achievement between children from families with different levels of human capital. Recent investigations that purport to demonstrate less intergenerational mobility in the United States today than in the past (or than in some European nations) fail to note that this may in fact be a perverse product of generations of increasing equality of opportunity. And in this respect, it is possible that the United States may simply be on the leading edge of trends found in other advanced capitalist societies as well.
This is a quote from the article:
"The Economist recently repeated a shibboleth: "In a society with broad equality of opportunity, the parents' position on the income ladder should have little impact on that of their children." The fact is, however, that the greater equality of institutional opportunity there is, the more families' human capital endowments matter. As the political scientist Edward Banfield noted a generation ago in The Unheavenly City Revisited, "All education favors the middle- and upper-class child, because to be middle- or upper-class is to have qualities that make one particularly educable." Improvements in the quality of schools may improve overall educational outcomes, but they tend to increase, rather than diminish, the gap in achievement between children from families with different levels of human capital. Recent investigations that purport to demonstrate less intergenerational mobility in the United States today than in the past (or than in some European nations) fail to note that this may in fact be a perverse product of generations of increasing equality of opportunity. And in this respect, it is possible that the United States may simply be on the leading edge of trends found in other advanced capitalist societies as well.
I'm glad to find another common thread between us.
As for those unaccounted down votes, I've no clue, but if I thumb down somebody I tell them why. Not doing so is slightly cowardly in my mind. 'Stand by your opinion and say why' is how I see it.
I don't hold the same view for 'thumbs up' since that is not derogatory against some one's bravely offered opinion - but if you are down checking some body, man up and say why.
http://mercatus.org/publication/crony-ca...
But thanks.
That essay is from John W. Cambell, the overseer of the Golden Age of science fiction; that's where the link takes you.
Near the end, he continues the theme:
" The United States has, I suggest, fallen for that philosophy, hook, line, and sinker. And it's sinking us. Our educational system is accepting the philosophy of the convoy -- “Proceed at the maximum pace of the slowest member” -- with disasterous results. “Togetherness” is a fine idea... but not when it means slowing down the class to the pace of the high-grade moron that happens to be the slowest member. Mustn't drop the incompetent back a grade; it might damage his precious ego.
Yes? What's the resultant crawl doing to the egos of the stultified bright students?”
When a “Social Studies” teacher assigns three pages of text, for studying every two days, in a sixth-grade class... whose precious, incompetent ego is being protected? And at what cost?
And what's with this “Social Studies”, anyway? They used to call it Geography, and History, and Civics, make it three courses and require that the students learn something, or get dropped back a grade.
So it's a painful shock to a child to be rejected from his group! So what? If he's earned it, why should not he get a boot in the rear? He's going to get some rugged shockes when he gets out of that educational system!
Or... wait, maybe he isn't. They're certainly doing everything possible to make the real world of adult work just as cushioned and protected as that cockeyed educational hothouse. Advancement in a job isn't to be determined by individual ability, but by seniority. It isn't fair to advance a young man over twenty others who've been with the company for a dozen years of faithful service just because the young man happens to be a clear, quick, fruitful thinker, and accomplishes things, is it? Would it be democratic to let a young man develop his individual abilities like that, at the risk of injuring togetherness? No.. in our adult world of real work, we're rapidly installing the priniciple our schools have established; each individual must be promoted with his class, incompetence to the contrary notwithstanding."
And now we're learning the cost.
The only thing I'd add was the liberal, socialistic solution in a effort to further contrast the difference. Here goes:
In order to provide a truly equal education to both Tom and Dick, certain educational offsets were given to Dick since his best efforts were consistently below Toms by 40%. This insured that on graduation day that both Tom and Dick would graduate as equals, with both student psyche equally stroked.
On day one of the rest of their lives, Tom arrived to work on time, was dressed appropriately and was prepared to succeed. Dick arrived twenty minutes late, dressed in "school ware" and unshowered.
Following a two hour basic skills test that evaluated each applicants mental abilities, knowledgebase of history, science, language arts and business, each new hire was escorted to their new workplace.
Tom was shown to the lower levels of the executive floors and Dick was shown to the basement mailroom.
Ten years later Tom and Dick both work for the same company. Tom upstairs as an executive, Dick still in the basement mailroom.
Here, Truth, since you're new:
http://www.xtimports.com/text/Hyperdemoc...
" Suppose two individuals, Tom and Dick, are given equal opportunity to develop their individual abilities. Tom winds up a millionaire, and dick winds up on a skimpy retirement pay. The objective evidence clearly shows that Tom and Dick did not have equal opportunities, doesn't it?
Yes, it does. Tom had superior opportunities, he had the gift of learning very rapidly, so that, exposed to the same information sources, and the same situations Dick was, Tom learned fifteen times as much. Tom, going to the same school Dick did, learned that Columbus discovered America... and that Leif Ericson probably landed in Labrador five or six centuries earlier. That various French and Spanish pioneers explored the area of the western United States, but the Lewis and Clarke expedition was more important.
And Dick, having answered the school examinations properly, knew that he had learned what the proper citizen was supposed to learn.
But Tom, having answered the school examinations the same way Dick did, learned something quite different. “It doesn't do much good to open a pathway if people don't want to go there. There's no point in discovering a continent until people need a new continent. There's no use exploring a new territory until people are present to move in, and want a new territory to move into.” That was a great help to Tom in later life, when he was organizing the companies and enterprises that made his millions."
I need time to assimilate it. I for one am an Individual and claim it. Because we differ on that ... other issue... I think we will be able to agree on this one. Is the premise to be able to do whatever you wish to make your way through the world and your life? To claim the liberty (freedom from despotic rule) to do so, but inflict no pain on others and eliminate government interference in allowing you to do so? You see... I am seeking truth to find freedom