Capitalism is not the problem. Corporatism is. With large entities ascending higher and higher, the middle class in America has been diminishing and will soon disappear in the future. Corporations will do anything they can to pay unfair wages and gain profits for themselves. Without strong unions, government policies are the only way workers have to balance the playing field. The solutions that the government may produce are far from perfect, but it is the only defense employees have against predatory employers. I fear only a major recession will lead to a revolution against the extremely rich and their foundations. And then the small can regain control of what Karl Marx rightly called "the means of production". -M Misir. Period 8
The article seems to talk more about the promotion of inclusive capitalism and less about the actual economic principle. However, I like idea of boosting the lower/middle class, not just because I am one of them. I hope that increasing the people's purchasing power can boost the economy by increasing demand.
Even though the Republicans currently control the Congress, this new idea of inclusive capitalism seems very likely to come about in later years once the Democrats gain more power. I believe that it is a smart idea to allow the middle and lower class people to have more money since it will not only benefit them, but will benefit the economy and the advancement of America as a whole. Now, only large businesses make the majority of the profits and do little to benefit the country. If more money is circulated throughout the middle and lower class, the people could invest in our country itself and help it grow. Less taxes for the lower class people would mean that they could better support themselves financially, and also have more spending money. This would cause an increase in demand, and therefore benefit the economy. I think it is unfair that only a small percentage of Americans hold the majority of the money. I believe it should be distributed more evenly to all the people in America. With this new system, the wealth of America may be more evenly distributed and therefore help our economy.
I think the key in this proposal is to balance the uneven purchasing power. While balancing the wealth not only brings median incomes closer together but the even distribution of wealth will help money flow in the economy better.Without government intervention there will be insufficient aggregate demand and little spending in the economy. This could potentially be a good solution as it will prevent the rich from evading taxes or having them simply lose pocket money and have the money go to those who actually need it thus balancing the wealth somewhat.
I think that corporations will take extreme measures to keep the minimum wage from going up. And without strong(er) government policies and unions, the playing field will never be equal. So while government solutions such as this "inclusive capitalism" may not be a perfect solution, I think it's a step in the right direction. Moreover, Obama's attempts at leveling the playing field is, I believe, a step in the right direction. Increase taxes on the wealthy and increase support for those in poverty. But as technology increases and machines take over the labor market as suggested in the article, in combination with the fact that the wealthy may move their assets offshores to avoid further taxation, I do wonder how the future will turn out. It can either work out very well for those in need, or it could further damage the economy as the wealthy move out and the size of the labor market decreases.
According to the article, people believed that Republicans were better geared to handle the economy when compared to their Democratic counterparts. So the answer to the question is simple: capitalists can save capitalism. They have support in their economic policies, so they have the potential to save the capitalist notion. The real question is whether or not they will. And if they do, how will they go about it? Democrats are pushing for wealth equality, which is a noble in pursuit, but it appears their execution is a bit flawed. While I'd agree with the notion to press for wealth equality, the idea that the Republicans have about reforming tax codes is appearing a bit more popular now. Maybe after the reforms are done, can the Democrats can focus on how to help the poor and middle class at the expense of the wealthy, but then this would be against the idea of capitalism where the people get to keep all their capital gains. Regardless of how this issue is resolved, the democrats need to go about this issue carefully.
The idea of inclusive capitalism seems to be portrayed in a solely positive light in the article, which states that it would counteract the decrease in aggregate demand and greatly improve living standards for workers. But the article barely addresses a fairly significant question: what are the downsides of adopting this policy? Would innovation or business expansion suffer as a result? While I, like many others, would love an increase in labor share, at what cost would it take to obtain this? Nevertheless, the fact that knowledgeable figures from companies like Intel and Google are in support of inclusive capitalism does persuade me to place more trust in the concept.
The fundamental reason for inclusive capitalism is certainly appealing. It makes sense that if lower- and middle-class workers don’t have enough money to spend it and encourage the production of more goods (often by the wealthy elite who are unlikely to spend for that reason). This isn’t mentioning the fact that, citing utilitarian principles, money will do the most good for the most people when it is spread out somewhat evenly (this is assuming production stays the same, which is why we need the invisible hand). At the same time, the phrase “unchecked market fundamentalism” used by Carney ironically highlights the difficulty of putting this into practice domestically in the US, let alone internationally to raise the boats of 4 billion of the world’s most financially marginalized denizens. I feel that the best strategy for a politician to make strides in this direction without risking his/her election campaign is simply to raise an awareness. In AP Gov earlier this year, we watched a video about a survey that polled average US citizens on their beliefs about where income inequality is right now and where it should be. Strikingly, the actual gap in incomes was much greater than what they thought it was and what they thought it should be, and this poll included Democrats and Republicans alike. Realistically, though, with a severely divided government and accelerating political polarization, inclusive capitalism is unlikely to become a nonpartisan issue any time soon. Karan Singhal AP Econ Pd 9
The ideas brought up in this editorial are quite interesting. However, while capitalism may pose several issues that need to be resolved, I feel that it is not up to the capitalists to fix these problems as capitalism is its own dynamic way of motion. In addition, capitalism is perhaps not the problem at hand; rather racism and society's classes significantly impact the way that certain groups are treated in economic terms which leads to the large disparity. Kevin Chao Period 8
I thought this was a very interesting article. I agree that what really sets the Republican Party apart from the Democratic Party is their stronger appearance of their ability to handle our nation's economy. I think this is a crucial factor when people choose political parties because young adults are often Democrats due to their social values and later on become Republicans due to their newfound economic values. If Democrats could raise their ability to handle our nation's economy, I think more moderates would find middle ground and have both their social and economic values represented. The idea of inclusive capitalism is interesting in theory. I think that everyone should get the same opportunity to participate in our capitalist economy. However, I don't agree with some of the means of spreading the wealth. For example, I feel like the attack of inherited wealth is a bit unfair. People work hard to earn their money and want to pass it down to their descendants, not have their hard work be taken away by strangers and redistributed to strangers. That isn't to say that giving back and redistributing the wealth isn't important. I just think that it should be the owner's personal choice to do so in the forms of charities and philanthropy. Additionally, I don't fully agree with the increase in capital gains tax because it almost seems counter-productive for investors. I think inclusive capitalism is an interesting theory and also an important one to consider, but it still has a few parts that need to be re-figured out before it can be effectively put into practice. - VL Period 8
The idea of using inclusive capitalism sounds like it would work really well. The idea of giving more money directly to workers instead of waiting (if it ever does) for it to trickle down makes a lot more sense. However, we are reading an article that is advocating it. The only thing that confuses me is the fact that if companies are paying their employees better and are more involved, this would also give them more control over their employees at the same time. It only focuses on increasing the income of workers and nothing else. My other problem is that inclusive capitalism seems to be an oxymoron. AA Per9
I don't know how to feel about this policy because maybe I'm just cynical or negative, but I don't think this would ever work out because of the human nature of being greedy. I think big corporations are trying to find any way to not pay fair wages, thus ruining the redistribution of wealth. It is because of the greed of these corporations which is stopping the growth of middle class income which essentially leads to the decrease of consumer buying and thus GDP. They are continually earning a massive amount of money, while their laborers are struggling. Tax breaks on the wealthy would not help because its proven that the trickle down effect does not work. I think this all depends on the large corporations and I doubt it is going to easy, let alone, possible, to even convince them to be fair.
I think that this system would be beneficial because the poor people would get more money, which would help to stimulate the economy and would allow them to live a better life than they could without this much money. The plan can help determine the economics for the future - Karan L. Period 8
Inclusive capitalism in my opinion is a great idea to help the poorest of the poor and redistribute some of the wealth in America and abroad. However, as the article mentioned, this Democratic plan has no chance of being passed in the next couple years due to the Republican-controlled Congress. The article says that it will then be used as a base for the Democratic Party in 2016, but I still think that it is highly unlikely that such a government-involved policy will be enacted any time soon, in the midst of a divided government era where the Democratic and Republican parties are extremely polarized. The policy is simply too forceful, too involved for advocates of the free market and businesses to adopt. To me, the whole idea is extremely idealistic. It would take years for such a policy to be enacted in the United States.
the unequal distribution of wealth in US always a problem and it always will be because now more and more machines are taking over the jobs that were used be done by human. more advanced our technology is, the more people lose their jobs. rich people's wealth is growth because of their share in the corporation. so rich people get richer, poor people become poorer. tax is only a temporary way to fix this problem. i think the best way to cure it is to create new jobs and raise minimum wage. per9 Yan
S.S.- Pd. 9 Inclusive capitalism is a great idea and has a lot of potential goals. I really appreciate that this new system would lessen the gap between the working/middle-class and the wealthy. If you have a large amount of people that are not spending enough, then that can have a negative effect on our nation’s GDP (“insufficient aggregate demand”). I agree how we need to counter the issue of “business enterprises los[ing] profit-making opportunities when consumers have little money to spend”. I also think this new system of incorporating this new system into Democratic circles while simultaneously making this a global effort to create new opportunities for the working class and impoverished people. Integrating the global economy is very important in order to see the relationship between public and private sectors. And even though it stimulates more competition, I find there to be more pros than cons when considering this factor. This issue is how to raise low/middle-class incomes, and inclusive capitalism is definitely a great start.
I completely support the new set of policies known as “inclusive capitalism.” I think the powerful corporations should aid in improving the conditions of the world’s poor because a lack of financial resources among them will result in low aggregate demand, which will eventually lower GDP. The top 1 percent should start giving the working- and middle- class more attention because they could be valuable assets to our future economy. They are the ones that help keep their corporations running. However, I doubt the wealthy will even follow Obama’s new plan to increase their taxes in hopes of boosting breaks for the working class because it has been tried before and it hasn’t worked; therefore, I’m not surprised to hear that the expectation for a positive outcome is very low as of right now.
I really like this new idea of inclusive capitalism. Sure, there are probably some flaws, but nothing is perfect. Instead, this plan would try to lessen the polarizing impact of the current trickle-down, Republican, theory. The poor get poorer while the rich get richer, and the middle class is struggling too. And it's true--most likely, if this keeps getting worse and more extreme, those at the bottom and in the middle class will stop buying (so many) unnecessary goods because they can no longer afford to. Aggregate demand increase, harming businesses as well. The current situation is not sustainable in the long run. But of course, the biggest obstacle remains the Republicans, who would likely never agree to such a proposition. The Democrats can only hope that this idea will garner the support of working class whites, either making the Republicans more willing to compromise or helping Democrats to win the next few elections. At the very least, I think we need a new approach to US economics.
Corporations will do anything they can to not pay a fair wage as fairness has never been their goal and never will be. Without strong unions government policies are the only way workers have to potentially create a level playing field. The solutions government might produce are far from perfect, but it is the only defense we have against employers. Knowing Republicans, this fight will be a long and brutal one, but it is the only course that has any possibility of creating a fair society for as many people as possible. At least now Democrats have a useful plan that can counter the devastating Republican goal of destroying the middle class and catering to the greed of their rich associates. -Yash Shah Pd 8
I like President Obama's initiative to distribute the wealth, helping poor families and also helping expand GDP. The plan to hold employers responsible for their employees general well being and enact taxes on the very rich will help distribute the wealth more evenly in the nation. Poor families will have more of a disposable income, allowing them to spend more and grow the economy. I don't think the Republican theory of trickle down will be effective in today's time. Avital B.
It's interesting to see how this idea of inclusive capitalism seems to be generating waves within the populist wing of the Democratic Party. However, I don't see any of them as implementable because some proposals seem to eliminate a key part of the democratic party: well-off social liberals. While a populist shift in message may appeal to the overall electorate, it will not be held in high regard by the affluent members of the party. E.S. Period 8
From what I've learned in economics so far, this approach of "inclusive capitalism" seems like an effective way to stimulate the economy and lead to a greater GDP standard for the future. An increase in demand, being the other important piece in the supply/demand relationship, is emphasized in this plan by putting money into the hands of more people who will then go and purchase goods, increase demand, and increase GDP. The several liberal points of view in this article stressed the importance of sharing the wealth between the super rich and those less fortunate. I've been convinced that this may be the right way to go about growing our economy. - Jugal
The current state of the economy is turmoil. The top 1% are reaping the benefits of capitalism while the bottom percentile is suffering immensely. Unless there is serious intervention from the government this disparity between financial resources will lower consumer spending and minimize GDP. Social and political institutions have the obligation to improve the livelihood of the poor and reintegrate them into society. Whether this is done through commercial activity, employment opportunities or access to credit the wealthy have a moral obligation to aid the poor and reintegrate them into society. Obama’s imposition of new taxes on major financial institutions will led this change. The money used will be able to bring low income citizens to community college and earn jobs. -TB Period 9 AP Econ
I don't think that capitalists can save capitalism unless they are not being truly capitalist. In other words, I mean that a truly capitalist economy cannot exist because the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer. There is no way to save capitalism unless there is some government regulation and with that, the economy leads to a communist type approach. So when Senator Charles E. Schumer said, “We need to share the wealth,” he was abandoning the ideas of capitalism where the invisible hand of competition pushes people to produce better. With his idea to share the wealth, it is more of a regulated capitalism and that is the only way that capitalists can save capitalism. -AL Period 8
I believe inclusive capitalism is a great idea. We have been making the rich, richer.. but I think if we increase the capital of the poor it will be more beneficial. There is no reason to not tax the rich. They should actually be taxed more because they have so much money. If the poor can not keep up with their payments, what are they going to do? The rich can at least make sure they pay it. We are giving a lot of financial aid, but once the poor can get on their feet we will be paying less and less for it. We won't need it. Janvi Pd 9
I think inclusive capitalism sounds like a good way to help lessen the disparity between the extremely wealthy and the middle class/ poor class of the United States. I find it ironic however, that the way this plan is being pitched by many is as something that will ultimately benefit the rich 1% (if poor have greater purchasing power due to tax cuts, then businesses will prosper more). I would think that Democrats would want to sell inclusive capitalism as something that benefits the poor over the rich. However, I am happy that the Democrats finally have a persuasive economic plan, as they often have been screwed over by media in the past for not having a unified and strong party platform that covers all areas.
I believe inclusive capitalism is a great idea. We have been making the rich, richer.. but I think if we increase the capital of the poor it will be more beneficial. There is no reason to not tax the rich. They should actually be taxed more because they have so much money. If the poor can not keep up with their payments, what are they going to do? The rich can at least make sure they pay it. We are giving a lot of financial aid, but once the poor can get on their feet we will be paying less and less for it. We won't need it. Janvi Pd 9
It's quite interesting to know that in today's world- where the economic gap between the rich and poor is becoming greater than ever- that capitalism is on a decline. In fact, it may not have a chance of surviving, and the only way to save this is to take a more socialist approach to our problems. The concept of inclusive capitalism makes sense, for if more of the working class has more money to spend, then aggregate demand will go up and the economy will rise. However, how will the government finance this? and let alone that, but in a nation that is as diverse and polarized in terms of politics as we are- how will this idea ever get implemented? Therefore, I'm intrigued as to where this concept of inclusive capitalism will go in the months to come. - Maisha Savani PD.8
Thomas B. Edsall’s article “Can Capitalists Save Capitalism?” delves into the fascinating concept of “inclusive capitalism.” Personally, I consider myself liberal, both socially and fiscally. For this reason, I advocate the left-winged policies necessary “to counter inequality, restrain the accrual of vast wealth at the top and provide the working and middle classes with improved economic opportunities.” Through government intervention, I am confident that today’s capitalism can finally “work for the many and not the few.” We have witnessed time and time again that trickle-down economics, otherwise known as supply-side economics, is not effective in addressing and tackling prevalent issues such as inequality and stagnating wages. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party dealt a major blow in the midterm elections of 2014 and consequently will not be able to enact legislation to implement “inclusive capitalism.” Hopefully, however, this developing concept will play a critical role in the 2016 Presidential election. - ZA (Period 8)
It is obvious that there is a wealth gap in the United States. However, what is not so obvious is that this wealth gap is detrimental not only for those that are struggling financially, but also for the top 1%. When there is a wealth gap as wide as the one existent in the United States, purchasing power is weak, and everyone, including the rich, struggle. Inclusive capitalism is a great way to spread the wealth and improve our economy overall. Inclusive capitalism also allows us to utilize the talent and skill the lower class offers. We have been neglecting a large chunk of America's human resources, and it is time we reverse that.
Personally, I agree more with inclusive capitalism than Republican capitalism -- I feel the government should at least try to decrease the wealth gap as the poor are also people in the country, too. With that said, unless the democrats are able to defeat a Republican Congress in the next election, then inclusive capitalism really doesn't stand a chance. People in Congress make a lot of money; it is hard for those up top to willingly give to those at the bottom. Jim T
I find this article particularly interesting in that it centers about decreasing inequality by a concept of "inclusive capitalism" which levels equality by revising the tax code, increasing wages for the working and middle class, and expanding refundable tax credits. In capitalism, the middle class in particular often suffers and generally has higher taxes and little to no government support. Inclusive capitalism can solve this issue and promote a stronger middle class and a sustainable economy that provides aid for the working class. D.M 8
In the last few years, I been hearing things about how the economic gap is the worst in years and isn't fair. At the time, i thought this was pointless and new, however, i been completely oblivious to this as a kid. Going into the real world, many of us want to be in that upper part of the economic gap. Thats not likely for all of us as our best bet is trying to lower the economic gap. The developed nations have a working economy and its been proven, however, it needs to adapt and change in the right way where it benefits everyone from top to bottom, not just the top. Fair game for everyone means the more possibilities for economies. If the government becomes a watchful force, it may cause problems so there needs to be a balance where it can help both sides of the party, not make things even worse. Its going to be a complicated job as working conditions and wages and all that stuff effects the top of the businesses to the bottom of it. As a society, we need to find a perfect balance in the long term and not be too afraid of what happens in the short run. Theres no gain without pain (in the short run).
Chirag Soni Period 8 At first the concept of redistributing the wealth made me think of communism but as I read on the professors explained that the redistribution would be done by giving the poor more opportunities. I wouldn't agree with the policy if it meant that the rich would get their money taken away from them making the poor equally as rich as them because that eliminates the motivation to succeed. Inclusive capitalism also might decreases competition because the large amount of aid being handed out.
Ideally, inclusive capitalism is a good idea that leads society into an utopia. However, it's not realistic. The idea is a good one, but I don't think it can happen with such a top-heavy country such as America. -Jim T (Period 8)
SG-This was an extremely interesting article. Its premise was quite fascinating and the idea of inclusive capitalism was intriguing. if we start recognizing the fact that the poor are a resource to be utilized and have the potential to be self-sufficient entrepreneurs-given the opportunity, we can greatly enrich our economy. The wealthiest one percent of the population controls nearly 62 percent of the nation's wealth. This inequity is the reason for our stagnating economy. By treating our lower and middle classes with respect and providing them the benefits and resources they need, we can help improve the lives of the majority of our population and stop catering to a tiny portion of the population.
If the market is going to change, it has to be for a good reason. In the article, it seems interesting but there are always problems when a good idea is brought out and switched into. The idea might actually be helpful but we don't always know if things will workout or not. Obama has improved the economy and brought in more jobs since the recession. Many think Obama is stupid and hasn't done anything but he has done a lot. It is true how the wealth gap between the super rich and everyone else is so wide. There has to be help. But that is because of our current capital system. That leads to the question whether or not capitalist can save our markets and our systems.
Won park period 9 This idea of inclusive capitalism sounds good on paper. However, could it actually be implemented? They said they want the poorer 4 billion people to have more power in the marketplace but I do not see it as possible. Anyways the article said the republicans would never agree to it so it will stay as just an idea.
Capitalism is not the problem. Corporatism is. With large entities ascending higher and higher, the middle class in America has been diminishing and will soon disappear in the future.
ReplyDeleteCorporations will do anything they can to pay unfair wages and gain profits for themselves. Without strong unions, government policies are the only way workers have to balance the playing field. The solutions that the government may produce are far from perfect, but it is the only defense employees have against predatory employers.
I fear only a major recession will lead to a revolution against the extremely rich and their foundations. And then the small can regain control of what Karl Marx rightly called "the means of production".
-M Misir. Period 8
The article seems to talk more about the promotion of inclusive capitalism and less about the actual economic principle. However, I like idea of boosting the lower/middle class, not just because I am one of them. I hope that increasing the people's purchasing power can boost the economy by increasing demand.
ReplyDeleteRobert Lis- Pd. 9
ReplyDeleteEven though the Republicans currently control the Congress, this new idea of inclusive capitalism seems very likely to come about in later years once the Democrats gain more power. I believe that it is a smart idea to allow the middle and lower class people to have more money since it will not only benefit them, but will benefit the economy and the advancement of America as a whole. Now, only large businesses make the majority of the profits and do little to benefit the country. If more money is circulated throughout the middle and lower class, the people could invest in our country itself and help it grow. Less taxes for the lower class people would mean that they could better support themselves financially, and also have more spending money. This would cause an increase in demand, and therefore benefit the economy. I think it is unfair that only a small percentage of Americans hold the majority of the money. I believe it should be distributed more evenly to all the people in America. With this new system, the wealth of America may be more evenly distributed and therefore help our economy.
I think the key in this proposal is to balance the uneven purchasing power. While balancing the wealth not only brings median incomes closer together but the even distribution of wealth will help money flow in the economy better.Without government intervention there will be insufficient aggregate demand and little spending in the economy. This could potentially be a good solution as it will prevent the rich from evading taxes or having them simply lose pocket money and have the money go to those who actually need it thus balancing the wealth somewhat.
ReplyDelete-KJ PD 8
I think that corporations will take extreme measures to keep the minimum wage from going up. And without strong(er) government policies and unions, the playing field will never be equal. So while government solutions such as this "inclusive capitalism" may not be a perfect solution, I think it's a step in the right direction. Moreover, Obama's attempts at leveling the playing field is, I believe, a step in the right direction. Increase taxes on the wealthy and increase support for those in poverty. But as technology increases and machines take over the labor market as suggested in the article, in combination with the fact that the wealthy may move their assets offshores to avoid further taxation, I do wonder how the future will turn out. It can either work out very well for those in need, or it could further damage the economy as the wealthy move out and the size of the labor market decreases.
ReplyDelete-Ben Jung period 9
AHirani prd 9.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article, people believed that Republicans were better geared to handle the economy when compared to their Democratic counterparts. So the answer to the question is simple: capitalists can save capitalism. They have support in their economic policies, so they have the potential to save the capitalist notion. The real question is whether or not they will. And if they do, how will they go about it?
Democrats are pushing for wealth equality, which is a noble in pursuit, but it appears their execution is a bit flawed. While I'd agree with the notion to press for wealth equality, the idea that the Republicans have about reforming tax codes is appearing a bit more popular now. Maybe after the reforms are done, can the Democrats can focus on how to help the poor and middle class at the expense of the wealthy, but then this would be against the idea of capitalism where the people get to keep all their capital gains. Regardless of how this issue is resolved, the democrats need to go about this issue carefully.
Jonathan Chen - Period 9
ReplyDeleteThe idea of inclusive capitalism seems to be portrayed in a solely positive light in the article, which states that it would counteract the decrease in aggregate demand and greatly improve living standards for workers. But the article barely addresses a fairly significant question: what are the downsides of adopting this policy? Would innovation or business expansion suffer as a result? While I, like many others, would love an increase in labor share, at what cost would it take to obtain this? Nevertheless, the fact that knowledgeable figures from companies like Intel and Google are in support of inclusive capitalism does persuade me to place more trust in the concept.
The fundamental reason for inclusive capitalism is certainly appealing. It makes sense that if lower- and middle-class workers don’t have enough money to spend it and encourage the production of more goods (often by the wealthy elite who are unlikely to spend for that reason). This isn’t mentioning the fact that, citing utilitarian principles, money will do the most good for the most people when it is spread out somewhat evenly (this is assuming production stays the same, which is why we need the invisible hand). At the same time, the phrase “unchecked market fundamentalism” used by Carney ironically highlights the difficulty of putting this into practice domestically in the US, let alone internationally to raise the boats of 4 billion of the world’s most financially marginalized denizens. I feel that the best strategy for a politician to make strides in this direction without risking his/her election campaign is simply to raise an awareness. In AP Gov earlier this year, we watched a video about a survey that polled average US citizens on their beliefs about where income inequality is right now and where it should be. Strikingly, the actual gap in incomes was much greater than what they thought it was and what they thought it should be, and this poll included Democrats and Republicans alike. Realistically, though, with a severely divided government and accelerating political polarization, inclusive capitalism is unlikely to become a nonpartisan issue any time soon.
ReplyDeleteKaran Singhal
AP Econ Pd 9
The ideas brought up in this editorial are quite interesting. However, while capitalism may pose several issues that need to be resolved, I feel that it is not up to the capitalists to fix these problems as capitalism is its own dynamic way of motion. In addition, capitalism is perhaps not the problem at hand; rather racism and society's classes significantly impact the way that certain groups are treated in economic terms which leads to the large disparity.
ReplyDeleteKevin Chao Period 8
I thought this was a very interesting article. I agree that what really sets the Republican Party apart from the Democratic Party is their stronger appearance of their ability to handle our nation's economy. I think this is a crucial factor when people choose political parties because young adults are often Democrats due to their social values and later on become Republicans due to their newfound economic values. If Democrats could raise their ability to handle our nation's economy, I think more moderates would find middle ground and have both their social and economic values represented. The idea of inclusive capitalism is interesting in theory. I think that everyone should get the same opportunity to participate in our capitalist economy. However, I don't agree with some of the means of spreading the wealth. For example, I feel like the attack of inherited wealth is a bit unfair. People work hard to earn their money and want to pass it down to their descendants, not have their hard work be taken away by strangers and redistributed to strangers. That isn't to say that giving back and redistributing the wealth isn't important. I just think that it should be the owner's personal choice to do so in the forms of charities and philanthropy. Additionally, I don't fully agree with the increase in capital gains tax because it almost seems counter-productive for investors. I think inclusive capitalism is an interesting theory and also an important one to consider, but it still has a few parts that need to be re-figured out before it can be effectively put into practice.
ReplyDelete- VL Period 8
The idea of using inclusive capitalism sounds like it would work really well. The idea of giving more money directly to workers instead of waiting (if it ever does) for it to trickle down makes a lot more sense. However, we are reading an article that is advocating it. The only thing that confuses me is the fact that if companies are paying their employees better and are more involved, this would also give them more control over their employees at the same time. It only focuses on increasing the income of workers and nothing else. My other problem is that inclusive capitalism seems to be an oxymoron. AA Per9
ReplyDeleteLP Pd 8
ReplyDeleteI don't know how to feel about this policy because maybe I'm just cynical or negative, but I don't think this would ever work out because of the human nature of being greedy. I think big corporations are trying to find any way to not pay fair wages, thus ruining the redistribution of wealth. It is because of the greed of these corporations which is stopping the growth of middle class income which essentially leads to the decrease of consumer buying and thus GDP. They are continually earning a massive amount of money, while their laborers are struggling. Tax breaks on the wealthy would not help because its proven that the trickle down effect does not work. I think this all depends on the large corporations and I doubt it is going to easy, let alone, possible, to even convince them to be fair.
I think that this system would be beneficial because the poor people would get more money, which would help to stimulate the economy and would allow them to live a better life than they could without this much money. The plan can help determine the economics for the future
ReplyDelete- Karan L. Period 8
Inclusive capitalism in my opinion is a great idea to help the poorest of the poor and redistribute some of the wealth in America and abroad. However, as the article mentioned, this Democratic plan has no chance of being passed in the next couple years due to the Republican-controlled Congress. The article says that it will then be used as a base for the Democratic Party in 2016, but I still think that it is highly unlikely that such a government-involved policy will be enacted any time soon, in the midst of a divided government era where the Democratic and Republican parties are extremely polarized. The policy is simply too forceful, too involved for advocates of the free market and businesses to adopt. To me, the whole idea is extremely idealistic. It would take years for such a policy to be enacted in the United States.
ReplyDeletethe unequal distribution of wealth in US always a problem and it always will be because now more and more machines are taking over the jobs that were used be done by human. more advanced our technology is, the more people lose their jobs. rich people's wealth is growth because of their share in the corporation. so rich people get richer, poor people become poorer. tax is only a temporary way to fix this problem. i think the best way to cure it is to create new jobs and raise minimum wage.
ReplyDeleteper9 Yan
S.S.- Pd. 9
ReplyDeleteInclusive capitalism is a great idea and has a lot of potential goals. I really appreciate that this new system would lessen the gap between the working/middle-class and the wealthy. If you have a large amount of people that are not spending enough, then that can have a negative effect on our nation’s GDP (“insufficient aggregate demand”). I agree how we need to counter the issue of “business enterprises los[ing] profit-making opportunities when consumers have little money to spend”. I also think this new system of incorporating this new system into Democratic circles while simultaneously making this a global effort to create new opportunities for the working class and impoverished people. Integrating the global economy is very important in order to see the relationship between public and private sectors. And even though it stimulates more competition, I find there to be more pros than cons when considering this factor. This issue is how to raise low/middle-class incomes, and inclusive capitalism is definitely a great start.
R.L. Per. 8
ReplyDeleteI completely support the new set of policies known as “inclusive capitalism.” I think the powerful corporations should aid in improving the conditions of the world’s poor because a lack of financial resources among them will result in low aggregate demand, which will eventually lower GDP. The top 1 percent should start giving the working- and middle- class more attention because they could be valuable assets to our future economy. They are the ones that help keep their corporations running. However, I doubt the wealthy will even follow Obama’s new plan to increase their taxes in hopes of boosting breaks for the working class because it has been tried before and it hasn’t worked; therefore, I’m not surprised to hear that the expectation for a positive outcome is very low as of right now.
I really like this new idea of inclusive capitalism. Sure, there are probably some flaws, but nothing is perfect. Instead, this plan would try to lessen the polarizing impact of the current trickle-down, Republican, theory. The poor get poorer while the rich get richer, and the middle class is struggling too. And it's true--most likely, if this keeps getting worse and more extreme, those at the bottom and in the middle class will stop buying (so many) unnecessary goods because they can no longer afford to. Aggregate demand increase, harming businesses as well. The current situation is not sustainable in the long run. But of course, the biggest obstacle remains the Republicans, who would likely never agree to such a proposition. The Democrats can only hope that this idea will garner the support of working class whites, either making the Republicans more willing to compromise or helping Democrats to win the next few elections. At the very least, I think we need a new approach to US economics.
ReplyDeleteCorporations will do anything they can to not pay a fair wage as fairness has never been their goal and never will be. Without strong unions government policies are the only way workers have to potentially create a level playing field. The solutions government might produce are far from perfect, but it is the only defense we have against employers. Knowing Republicans, this fight will be a long and brutal one, but it is the only course that has any possibility of creating a fair society for as many people as possible. At least now Democrats have a useful plan that can counter the devastating Republican goal of destroying the middle class and catering to the greed of their rich associates. -Yash Shah Pd 8
ReplyDeleteI like President Obama's initiative to distribute the wealth, helping poor families and also helping expand GDP. The plan to hold employers responsible for their employees general well being and enact taxes on the very rich will help distribute the wealth more evenly in the nation. Poor families will have more of a disposable income, allowing them to spend more and grow the economy. I don't think the Republican theory of trickle down will be effective in today's time.
ReplyDeleteAvital B.
It's interesting to see how this idea of inclusive capitalism seems to be generating waves within the populist wing of the Democratic Party. However, I don't see any of them as implementable because some proposals seem to eliminate a key part of the democratic party: well-off social liberals. While a populist shift in message may appeal to the overall electorate, it will not be held in high regard by the affluent members of the party.
ReplyDeleteE.S. Period 8
From what I've learned in economics so far, this approach of "inclusive capitalism" seems like an effective way to stimulate the economy and lead to a greater GDP standard for the future. An increase in demand, being the other important piece in the supply/demand relationship, is emphasized in this plan by putting money into the hands of more people who will then go and purchase goods, increase demand, and increase GDP. The several liberal points of view in this article stressed the importance of sharing the wealth between the super rich and those less fortunate. I've been convinced that this may be the right way to go about growing our economy. - Jugal
ReplyDeleteThe current state of the economy is turmoil. The top 1% are reaping the benefits of capitalism while the bottom percentile is suffering immensely. Unless there is serious intervention from the government this disparity between financial resources will lower consumer spending and minimize GDP. Social and political institutions have the obligation to improve the livelihood of the poor and reintegrate them into society. Whether this is done through commercial activity, employment opportunities or access to credit the wealthy have a moral obligation to aid the poor and reintegrate them into society. Obama’s imposition of new taxes on major financial institutions will led this change. The money used will be able to bring low income citizens to community college and earn jobs.
ReplyDelete-TB Period 9 AP Econ
I don't think that capitalists can save capitalism unless they are not being truly capitalist. In other words, I mean that a truly capitalist economy cannot exist because the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer. There is no way to save capitalism unless there is some government regulation and with that, the economy leads to a communist type approach. So when Senator Charles E. Schumer said, “We need to share the wealth,” he was abandoning the ideas of capitalism where the invisible hand of competition pushes people to produce better. With his idea to share the wealth, it is more of a regulated capitalism and that is the only way that capitalists can save capitalism.
ReplyDelete-AL Period 8
I believe inclusive capitalism is a great idea. We have been making the rich, richer.. but I think if we increase the capital of the poor it will be more beneficial. There is no reason to not tax the rich. They should actually be taxed more because they have so much money. If the poor can not keep up with their payments, what are they going to do? The rich can at least make sure they pay it. We are giving a lot of financial aid, but once the poor can get on their feet we will be paying less and less for it. We won't need it.
ReplyDeleteJanvi
Pd 9
I think inclusive capitalism sounds like a good way to help lessen the disparity between the extremely wealthy and the middle class/ poor class of the United States. I find it ironic however, that the way this plan is being pitched by many is as something that will ultimately benefit the rich 1% (if poor have greater purchasing power due to tax cuts, then businesses will prosper more). I would think that Democrats would want to sell inclusive capitalism as something that benefits the poor over the rich. However, I am happy that the Democrats finally have a persuasive economic plan, as they often have been screwed over by media in the past for not having a unified and strong party platform that covers all areas.
ReplyDeleteShweta Lodha
Pd: 8
I believe inclusive capitalism is a great idea. We have been making the rich, richer.. but I think if we increase the capital of the poor it will be more beneficial. There is no reason to not tax the rich. They should actually be taxed more because they have so much money. If the poor can not keep up with their payments, what are they going to do? The rich can at least make sure they pay it. We are giving a lot of financial aid, but once the poor can get on their feet we will be paying less and less for it. We won't need it.
ReplyDeleteJanvi
Pd 9
It's quite interesting to know that in today's world- where the economic gap between the rich and poor is becoming greater than ever- that capitalism is on a decline. In fact, it may not have a chance of surviving, and the only way to save this is to take a more socialist approach to our problems. The concept of inclusive capitalism makes sense, for if more of the working class has more money to spend, then aggregate demand will go up and the economy will rise. However, how will the government finance this? and let alone that, but in a nation that is as diverse and polarized in terms of politics as we are- how will this idea ever get implemented? Therefore, I'm intrigued as to where this concept of inclusive capitalism will go in the months to come.
ReplyDelete- Maisha Savani PD.8
Thomas B. Edsall’s article “Can Capitalists Save Capitalism?” delves into the fascinating concept of “inclusive capitalism.” Personally, I consider myself liberal, both socially and fiscally. For this reason, I advocate the left-winged policies necessary “to counter inequality, restrain the accrual of vast wealth at the top and provide the working and middle classes with improved economic opportunities.” Through government intervention, I am confident that today’s capitalism can finally “work for the many and not the few.” We have witnessed time and time again that trickle-down economics, otherwise known as supply-side economics, is not effective in addressing and tackling prevalent issues such as inequality and stagnating wages. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party dealt a major blow in the midterm elections of 2014 and consequently will not be able to enact legislation to implement “inclusive capitalism.” Hopefully, however, this developing concept will play a critical role in the 2016 Presidential election.
ReplyDelete- ZA (Period 8)
It is obvious that there is a wealth gap in the United States. However, what is not so obvious is that this wealth gap is detrimental not only for those that are struggling financially, but also for the top 1%. When there is a wealth gap as wide as the one existent in the United States, purchasing power is weak, and everyone, including the rich, struggle. Inclusive capitalism is a great way to spread the wealth and improve our economy overall. Inclusive capitalism also allows us to utilize the talent and skill the lower class offers. We have been neglecting a large chunk of America's human resources, and it is time we reverse that.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I agree more with inclusive capitalism than Republican capitalism -- I feel the government should at least try to decrease the wealth gap as the poor are also people in the country, too. With that said, unless the democrats are able to defeat a Republican Congress in the next election, then inclusive capitalism really doesn't stand a chance. People in Congress make a lot of money; it is hard for those up top to willingly give to those at the bottom.
ReplyDeleteJim T
I find this article particularly interesting in that it centers about decreasing inequality by a concept of "inclusive capitalism" which levels equality by revising the tax code, increasing wages for the working and middle class, and expanding refundable tax credits. In capitalism, the middle class in particular often suffers and generally has higher taxes and little to no government support. Inclusive capitalism can solve this issue and promote a stronger middle class and a sustainable economy that provides aid for the working class.
ReplyDeleteD.M 8
In the last few years, I been hearing things about how the economic gap is the worst in years and isn't fair. At the time, i thought this was pointless and new, however, i been completely oblivious to this as a kid. Going into the real world, many of us want to be in that upper part of the economic gap. Thats not likely for all of us as our best bet is trying to lower the economic gap. The developed nations have a working economy and its been proven, however, it needs to adapt and change in the right way where it benefits everyone from top to bottom, not just the top. Fair game for everyone means the more possibilities for economies. If the government becomes a watchful force, it may cause problems so there needs to be a balance where it can help both sides of the party, not make things even worse. Its going to be a complicated job as working conditions and wages and all that stuff effects the top of the businesses to the bottom of it. As a society, we need to find a perfect balance in the long term and not be too afraid of what happens in the short run. Theres no gain without pain (in the short run).
ReplyDeleteNoved G Period 9.
Chirag Soni Period 8
ReplyDeleteAt first the concept of redistributing the wealth made me think of communism but as I read on the professors explained that the redistribution would be done by giving the poor more opportunities. I wouldn't agree with the policy if it meant that the rich would get their money taken away from them making the poor equally as rich as them because that eliminates the motivation to succeed. Inclusive capitalism also might decreases competition because the large amount of aid being handed out.
Ideally, inclusive capitalism is a good idea that leads society into an utopia. However, it's not realistic. The idea is a good one, but I don't think it can happen with such a top-heavy country such as America.
ReplyDelete-Jim T (Period 8)
SG-This was an extremely interesting article. Its premise was quite fascinating and the idea of inclusive capitalism was intriguing. if we start recognizing the fact that the poor are a resource to be utilized and have the potential to be self-sufficient entrepreneurs-given the opportunity, we can greatly enrich our economy. The wealthiest one percent of the population controls nearly 62 percent of the nation's wealth. This inequity is the reason for our stagnating economy. By treating our lower and middle classes with respect and providing them the benefits and resources they need, we can help improve the lives of the majority of our population and stop catering to a tiny portion of the population.
ReplyDeleteIf the market is going to change, it has to be for a good reason. In the article, it seems interesting but there are always problems when a good idea is brought out and switched into. The idea might actually be helpful but we don't always know if things will workout or not. Obama has improved the economy and brought in more jobs since the recession. Many think Obama is stupid and hasn't done anything but he has done a lot. It is true how the wealth gap between the super rich and everyone else is so wide. There has to be help. But that is because of our current capital system. That leads to the question whether or not capitalist can save our markets and our systems.
ReplyDelete- NG period 9
Won park period 9
ReplyDeleteThis idea of inclusive capitalism sounds good on paper. However, could it actually be implemented? They said they want the poorer 4 billion people to have more power in the marketplace but I do not see it as possible. Anyways the article said the republicans would never agree to it so it will stay as just an idea.