Letter: The case for capitalism
There’s a saying: “The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” Probably, but are the poor getting poorer because the rich are getting richer? I’m not so sure.
The rich get richer because they have more money and resources to invest. The poor don’t have that luxury. But is this a zero-sum game?
Here’s another saying: “Capitalism is the creation of wealth. Socialism is the redistribution of wealth.” Capitalism is pro-active; socialism is reactive. Socialism can only work if wealth already exists.
The Oxford College American Dictionary defines capitalism as “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.”
The dictionary defines socialism as “a political or economic theory advocating that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole.”
Profit is not greed. We all need profit. If your monthly bills are $1,500, you better make at least $1,501 to cover yourself. That $1 is profit.
As for “owned and regulated by the community,” that’s Big Brother, and it can’t know all our needs.
Capitalism advocates the individual. Socialism advocates the government. Both are exploitative and corruptible. But if you think money corrupts capitalism, try power socialism.
Like our founders, I favor the individual over government. If the individual violates the law, the law of the land must be enforced. It’s not so easy when the government violates the law. Just look at Congress and hearings taking place today.
In the “lefty” days of the 1960s, familiar slogans were “Power to the People” and “Question Authority.” Today, it’s more like power to the government and authority is OK.
How times have changed — another example of the progressive left not knowing what they want, only what they don’t.
— Allan Gilmour