Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeraph
The other thing is that the theory assumes decent to abundant resources. When resources become scarce it changes things. The divide between poor and rich is increased. If youre a rich merchant class person in a scarce resource economy, its hard to follow that theory and not hurt some group of people. The theory only works if there are "extra" resources sitting around and otherwise being unused.
|
This isn't always true. What is always true is that capital and resources are scarce. If they weren't, they'd have no discernible value.
What isn't always true is that scarce resources will always create a divide between the rich and poor. Take the case of scarce labour resources. When the labour pool is tight, wages invariably increase, which bumps up the incomes of even lower wage workers. This is one of the causes of inflation, but there it is.
I don't think business will ever view resources as "extra." Either it's accounted for or it's not. The stuff that's accounted for is limited (i.e. scarce) and has a determined value. That which is not yet accounted for has an unknown value, as there isn't an understanding of how much there is and who owns it.
Back to the OP: capitalism does have the capacity to be moral, but not in and of itself. When it's tempered with good government, then it's entirely possible and is in practice to some extent today. Capitalism is a system of economics; it shouldn't be a system of government. The two need one another to ensure stability and fairness.