English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i think it is.. but im trying to think why....

2006-10-08 09:29:47 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Economics

4 answers

You can't think of why because we rely on a growth economy. The instant it stops growing it crumbles. But to continue growing it requires ever-greater resources, and those must be procured at below-market costs. Thus-- inequality, built into the system.

The alternative is what is called the steady-state economy, in which there is no growth except as follows population growth. In this model the profit motive would be regulated to match comfortable lifestyles, and essentially the corporate form of business would be disallowed.

The answer is, no inequality is not bad for the economy, in fact the economy requires it. But the question you probably would want answered is, is an economy dependent on this model good for society?

2006-10-08 10:23:57 · answer #1 · answered by almethod2004 2 · 0 0

Well, you probably think its a problem because so many socialist whine so much about it. But the fact is it doesn't hurt the economy at all. And is perfectly normal. Right now people pretty much work as much or as little as they like.

The inequalities of our system are reponsible for producing the excesses of our system. Like extra food, and disposable income. Since the productive people are rewarded more than non productive people extra stuff, wealth etc. are produced.

In economies where equality is forced by the government they have shortages, of wealth, and even food. This is because the non productive are paid the same as the productive.

2006-10-08 12:25:42 · answer #2 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0 0

The previous poster said:
"In economies where equality is forced by the government they have shortages, of wealth, and even food. This is because the non productive are paid the same as the productive. "

You imply that the socialist systems are bad because they create shortages-but the question concerns the very real shortages created by (more) capitalist systems, like ours (socialist and capitalist are, of course, relative terms in this case, since both U.S. and what we call socialist countries have elements of each).

Silly non-point. If you're going to contrast two systems, you have to point out differences.

-Stephen

2006-10-08 16:26:57 · answer #3 · answered by ruhamah13 2 · 0 0

Well, economy is dynamic and progresses according to the existing situation. Thus, while there is no equality, it has been evolved, like political and social systems, in these trends!

2006-10-08 10:27:07 · answer #4 · answered by soubassakis 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers