Despite some criticisms towards capitalism, it is seen as the most successful economic strategy for a country compared to others such as socialism and communism, these successes can be highlighted by the economic development of Western countries and in which is soon becoming a global phenomenon. Capitalism has a negative geographical dimension, this is inequality. David Harvey writes in Spaces of Hope, 2000, that capitalism is “one national struggle between the classes” This highlighting that although capitalism aims to make individuals proposer, it is not a balanced concept at all (Harvey, 2000). This inequality is spatially manifested and therefore gives it a capitalism a geography. Capitalism’s economic inequality has led to a clear divide between urban and rural, this is evident in China.
He claims that the laborers get poorer the more wealth they produce. The more commodities created, the cheaper they become. Marx states that while the value of objects in this world increase, the value of human beings decrease. I have found there to be a lot of truth in this even in the world today. Usually the things that we can buy for super cheap come at the expense of exploiting some child laborer working an illegal amount of hours in some factory while being paid basically nothing.
What sweatshop usually means is that the workers have to work with less skill-intensive, but tough and dangerous jobs, like coco beans cultivation and sewing under poor working environments, but they finally receive extremely low wage, just slightly above the poverty line of the poor countries. Most sweatshops are formed by the profit-oriented multinational firms which would like to maximize productivity as much as possible, so there many job opportunities for the labor in the poor countries. In short-term, that would fight poverty as there would still be income guaranteed for the poor workers. However, as the reality behind the sweatshops becomes notorious, sweatshop critics who fight against the existence of sweatshops stand out, forcing some FDIs to flow out of the poor countries. Take Nike as an example.
Every single person in socialist countries are treated the same , e.g.“Socialists believe economic inequality is bad for society and the government is responsible for reducing it via programs that benefit the poor (e.g, free public education,free or subsidized healthcare, social security for the elderly, higher taxes on the rich).” demonstrating the fact that socialism has less poor people, the rate of poverty in most socialist countries is drastically less than capitalist countries. On the contrary, Capitalist countries still show, through graphs and data, that they have the better economy and the freedom of choice. society gets to choose if they want to be a farmer, an artist, a musician, a restaurant owner, society, the citizens, as a group, gets to choose what they want to do for a living. For instance, “All individuals make decisions for themselves.”-diffen.com- In spite of that, socialism still pulls through and proves itself once again, did you know that socialists have a tight non discrimination policy? e.g.
The first one, titled, “hyper patrimonial society”(Piketty 247), highlights the generic method of wealth accumulation, usually dominated by unequal societies. The second method of wealth accumulation, which Piketty notes as, “hyper meritocratic society”, highlights the peak of income hierarchy dominated by a very high income of labor rather than inherited wealth. (Piketty 265). Ironically, Piketty, himself, criticizes the truly “ meritocratic” nation of such a society and extends to the idea of a world with super managers being more adequate. Such form of society, recently emerged in the US, is , according to Piketty, “the peak of the income hierarchy dominated by very high incomes from labor rather than by inherited wealth” ( Piketty 265).
Cheap minerals, agricultural commodities, and cheap labor are been supplied by the dependent states which also serve as the surplus capital and a storehouse for the wealthy countries and, old-fashioned technologies, and manufactured goods. These functions orient the economies of the dependent states toward the outside: money, goods, and services do flow into dependent states, but the allocations of these resources are determined by the economic interests of the dominant states, and not by the economic interests of the dependent state. This division of labor is ultimately the explanation for poverty and there is little question but that capitalism regards the division of labor as a necessary condition for the efficient allocation of resources (Ferraro,
For this reason, disparity in terms of economy increases dramatically just as people who live in underdeveloped countries have many opportunities, just like finding easily workplaces, to live a superior life unlikely people who live in the U.S. lose their workplaces. In the perspective, globalization allows companies and businesses of the U.S. to gain far better earnings; however, this allowance is number one cause of economic inequality. This case leads gap between rich and poor to increase
Dependency theory believes that the reason why developing countries are poor is because of developed countries. The process of industrialization and modernization has made the richer rich and the poorer poor and the gap between the rich and the poor remains. This is because Dependency theory argues that, the rich countries depend on materials and resources from poor countries and they exploit the small or developing countries. In fact, without the under-developed and developing countries, there is no development in the developed countries because the rich countries are well developed in the expense of the already poor countries. The Dependency theory also argues that rich or western countries cannot be compared to under-developed and developing countries in terms of tradition and customs, because they have far different cultures and
Small entrepreneurs lack the support and accessibility to gather their resources to produce their goods, so through fair trade these small scale producers will be able to compete against the developing nations and make a sustainable living. Hence fair trade allows for more equal distribution of wealth between undeveloped and developed countries. Therefore I agree that a better managed fair trade will bring
Size/Quantity This is a dilemmas that companies mainly balance differently in emerging markets. For no other reason but the illusion of low prices sensivity that applies to all of the market. As we already mentionned, its is true that some of the items are considered more luxurious in the emerging markets due to the low power of spending. Nevertheless it’s often much better to accommodate this by offering smaller sizes. Lower quantity but the same quality.