Capitalism:
Free market capitalism is like a casino with an ever-increasing house advantage. It continuously builds up
inequality, but this gets overlooked because of that chance, though ever-decreasing, that you can win or be
successful. The rich minority are constantly building up their resources at the expense of the poor majority. They
don’t necessarily have to produce anything or provide any useful service to the world, they just have to own
things and invest in advantageous situations, and their money makes them more money. All the while, the
increasingly populated working class sees their incomes and job security reduced, as well as a reduction in the
potential to ‘break out’ to the other side. Why would the majority accept this flawed system that as a whole works
against them? Part of it is the dream of hitting the jackpot, because if you can get over to the other side, life is
sweet. But a bigger part is the fact that every individual arguably is capable of achieving success, which blinds
the big picture from view. Any individual can win in this economic system, but the house always wins. Take an
advantage and play it out over millions and millions of trials, and it will inevitably gravitate to the predetermined
house take.
I for one, knowing that the house has the advantage, still enjoy going to the casino from time to time. You win
sometimes, you lose sometimes, and occasionally you get to drink for free. But I certainly don’t want to live at the
casino, at a perpetual disadvantage. In the system of modern free market capitalism, we effectively live in a
casino. A few of us are the house, and the rest of us are the suckers. What’s more, at the casino, generally
people play within their means and with money they can afford to lose. In the real world, people are forced to live
in this grand casino, with their general state of existence being what is put on the line. It’s one thing if you choose
to go in the casino, it is far different if you are forcibly exploited.
That being said, the opportunity that any individual has to achieve success through hard-work, dedication, talent,
intelligence, and of course, luck, is absolutely wonderful. I believe that it makes life more worth living. Capitalism
provides incentives that promote great achievement and pushes the human race to be constantly improving its
capabilities. So how can this system that can be such a force for good, also cause negativity in the forms of
inequality and poverty? Well, because like any tool, it has the inherent limitation of the user implementing it.
Capitalism is by no means perfect, in spite of what the house might try to tell you. There needs to be limitations.
The goal of a society should be to try to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Some
people might argue that it is unfair to tax the rich more heavily, almost as a punishment for success. But
sometimes individual rights trample on the collective rights of the whole. It’s the same issue with excessive
litigation that exists in the US. At the expense of the rest of society having to pay much more for things like health
care and insurance, individuals get paid off for their misfortune. This contributes to many people being unable to
afford adequate health care, which I believe infringes on those people’s individual rights. (The problems with
health care in the US go far beyond excessive litigation, but that requires a section all its own). There are many
cases where litigation is quite reasonable and appropriate, but it would make sense for society to limit how much a
person can be compensated for their misfortune, so as not to shift the misfortune onto the rest of us. This would
also decrease the number of frivolous lawsuits because the incentive would be decreased, further benefiting the
rest of society.
If a rich person’s individual rights are causing increased inequality and poverty, that is a problem. By
progressively increasing taxes as individuals go up the pay scale, there still exists an incentive to make more
money by investing and creating businesses, while at the same time generating huge revenues for social
programs that benefit the people that capitalism allows the rich to exploit. More accessible health care, improved
education and other social programs can help to create an environment where everyone truly does have a
reasonable opportunity to succeed if they possess the qualities conducive to success. At the same time, the
incentives still exist to motivate people to achieve great things.
This is not simply a moral issue either. Increased equality will lead to success being based more on one’s merits,
as opposed to having one’s initial station in life be such a determining factor. This will in turn increase
competitiveness, which will increase efficiency. Increased efficiency is supposed to be a big part of what
capitalism is all about. Decreased poverty means decreased crime, another boost to overall efficiency.
Decreased inequality will also lead to greater unity and democracy. Decisions made on a national level will be
forced to more so reflect the voice of the overall population, not just the powerful special interests. So this leads
to the question, if having regulated capitalism leads to both moral and economic success for society as a whole,
why is the US moving towards ever-freer markets?
Because the house holds the levers. They have the power in the form of money, which means political
connections and influence that allow them to continuously increase their competitive advantage. Indeed, they
would be fools to give up such an advantage, and most of them did not get to where they are by being fools. But,
the public too can possess a power strong enough to overcome money and influence. This power lies in the
sheer size of the majority. If united, they cannot be beaten. That is what makes change difficult though. The
power possessed by the rich is concentrated and easily wielded, while the power possessed by the majority is
scattered. What’s more, capitalism involves competition, so to wield the power of the majority, people must unite
with those whom they must also compete. The people in power are quite good at driving a wedge in between
people, and will do everything in their power to destroy the possibility of the general population uniting, as it is the
main enemy to their power. This makes things very tricky. There is no easy solution. I think that increasing the
consciousness of the individuals who comprise the majority is a big first step. Being able to see the big picture is
necessary for changing it. Otherwise, it takes organizations such as unions with leaders wise enough not to sell-
out for short-term gains. It takes activism to increase public awareness. Rallies, marches, and protests all help.
And ultimately it takes patience and resilience. Change takes time and dedication, but in the end you must ask
yourself the question, do you really have anything more important to do?