This is a silly discussion, IMO. There are so many problems, especially if one has a command of the principles of "ECONOMICS."
First, understand that wise, tempered analysis is divorced from the use of "good" vs "bad". It should be divorced from Winners vs Losers.
In economics and economic history, we should recognize that the historical story is uneven, for a host of reasons. Thus, there should be no expectation that economic development in the US should or might be mirrored by nation states like Chad or Mali or Nigeria. Lots of differences, so we shall note that the cultural and material characteristics of these nations, even if under the rubric of "capitalism," are not the same. Nor is there any reason to assume that they should be the same, historically, or even contemporaneously. Related to the discussion that Glenn has with Cortes, I think it is clear that the protagonists, themselves, are unclear.
Since capitalism is a process that is uneven, we should realize that some nations/cultures/economies do not, and will not, share the same outcomes. This is NOT, repeat NOT a case of winners and losers. Rather, it is simply the amoral assessment that capitalism grows in different ways and at different speeds for different nations/geography, and cultures.
To conclude that hard working folks "deserve" success, while those who do less well, are "losers," is a silly way to formulate the the issue. Reason -- > all groups/nations/people don't 'progress' at the speed. So that some nations/cultures flourish while others, as equally hard-working, do not, is a story about the empirical manifestations of capitalism. It is NOT about Winners vs Losers.
Capitalism on Lake Louise in the Alberta, Canada is far different than capitalism in Manhattan. Agricultural production of rice (or cotton) in Arkansas is far different than the agricultural production of dairy farms in the UP of Michigan or California's Death Valley.
Meritocracy? Merit? If society does not reward hard work, risk and thoughtful initiative with greater rewards or benefits than passive lives on welfare, there is little hope for an increase in social and individual GNP ---> Consumption levels.
Why should anyone assume that economic growth/prosperity of a town in Iowa should be the same as the dry grasslands of Eastern Montana?
This is a silly discussion, IMO. There are so many problems, especially if one has a command of the principles of "ECONOMICS."
First, understand that wise, tempered analysis is divorced from the use of "good" vs "bad". It should be divorced from Winners vs Losers.
In economics and economic history, we should recognize that the historical story is uneven, for a host of reasons. Thus, there should be no expectation that economic development in the US should or might be mirrored by nation states like Chad or Mali or Nigeria. Lots of differences, so we shall note that the cultural and material characteristics of these nations, even if under the rubric of "capitalism," are not the same. Nor is there any reason to assume that they should be the same, historically, or even contemporaneously. Related to the discussion that Glenn has with Cortes, I think it is clear that the protagonists, themselves, are unclear.
Since capitalism is a process that is uneven, we should realize that some nations/cultures/economies do not, and will not, share the same outcomes. This is NOT, repeat NOT a case of winners and losers. Rather, it is simply the amoral assessment that capitalism grows in different ways and at different speeds for different nations/geography, and cultures.
To conclude that hard working folks "deserve" success, while those who do less well, are "losers," is a silly way to formulate the the issue. Reason -- > all groups/nations/people don't 'progress' at the speed. So that some nations/cultures flourish while others, as equally hard-working, do not, is a story about the empirical manifestations of capitalism. It is NOT about Winners vs Losers.
Capitalism on Lake Louise in the Alberta, Canada is far different than capitalism in Manhattan. Agricultural production of rice (or cotton) in Arkansas is far different than the agricultural production of dairy farms in the UP of Michigan or California's Death Valley.
Meritocracy? Merit? If society does not reward hard work, risk and thoughtful initiative with greater rewards or benefits than passive lives on welfare, there is little hope for an increase in social and individual GNP ---> Consumption levels.
Why should anyone assume that economic growth/prosperity of a town in Iowa should be the same as the dry grasslands of Eastern Montana?