Therefore, I believe that Moore’s observation is that the America people that have equity are the people that are in control of power, while the people that are without are forced into economic slavery. However, Moore suggest that Capitalism has not always been a crisis, which he reiterates the story of his life and further explains that his dad received a substantial pension and benefits. Moore spoke proudly of growing up in an economic bang that have expanded the industrialization. There were high taxes on the rich, which created lucrative jobs for the average person and also investments in education and infrastructure. The power of the union and high taxes on the wealthy created a balance in the system.
"Rich businesspeople like me don 't create jobs. Rather, they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers---When the middle class thrives; businesses grow and hire, and owners profit.” (Quoted in the words of Hanauer, 2012). In “INTERNATIONAL: 'New ' middle class fuels global growth” also believes that the global middle class is the prime market for consumer goods from cars and smart phones to bottled water, wine and scotch. Which is true, our middle class is the leading class believe it or not and we them to help improve our democratic country before it gets too out of hand. If the decline of the middle class continues in the U.S., in the years ahead, he stated that roads and bridges will start to deteriorate.
Jackson being a “common man” was something he should be praised for not criticized for. Being a common man helped him relate to the American people. He understood the hardships they experienced and saw their struggle to gain power in the government because of the wealthy class. You said this was a bad thing because he wasn’t educated enough to run the government, but he was actually better educated through his experiences as a common man. He brings new ideas never seen or used before to balance the power between the wealthy and the poor.
Name of Industrialist: Henry Ford How did he acquire his wealth? He acquire his wealth by being a self-made man, that revolutionize the car industry in the 90’s. How he (or his related industries) treated workers? Ford manage to lowered the cost of manufacturing, while providing a wage correspondent to more than double of the previous average. He is known for the “skilled workers who earn steady wages.” But like most industries of the time, employees had severe health problems cause by the repetitiveness nature of the job and work place conditions.
In Robert Reich’s documentary “Inequality for All” he demonstrated a great balance of emotional and logical appeal, which resulted in getting his point across to the audience. Reich argued that America is a consumer-driven economy and for it to achieve the middleclass should have more purchasing power to keep the economy as strong as it once was. From the beginning of the documentary I began to trust him by examining that he has an honest and comedic personality. The part of the documentary that interest me the most was the comment that CEOs worry more how fat their pockets are rather than worry if they have enough employees and if those employees are paid correctly. Overall, I view Reich as someone who does not point fingers towards the
Since the upper class is controlling the market, they make sure the market will work in their favor, and not for the rest of the population. This is causing major problems in our capitalistic society because it only favors small amounts
The concept of 'Laissez-faire' economics relied on supply and demand, rather than government intervention, to regulate prices and wages. Sumner believed that the best prepared to win the struggle for survival was the American businessman. And on saying so he determined that taxes and regulations function as dangers to their survival. A majority of American businessmen rejected the theory because it did not think about the good of the less fortunate. Refuting Sumner’s ideologies, the businessmen gave millions to build schools, colleges, hospitals, art institutes and parks.
They promoted the middle class, and did not favor anyone. Oligarchies only favored the rich and other upper class families, but democracies, when used correctly, would make everyone equal. They are safer and more permanent in Aristotle’s opinion, because the large middle class has a greater share in the government. He believes the middle class actually had the most power, and he gives clear examples of people who showed this: Solon, Lycurgus, and Charondas, all powerful middle-class
People deserve what they work for but some have advantages over others. While affirmative action was meant to take care of the such discrepancies, these problems still exist and show no real signs of weakness. In episode 9 of the Harvard lectures, John Rawls discusses the issues of distributive justice in terms of affirmative action. Rawls argues that distributive justice is a matter of moral dessert. Another reason why I believe meritocracy has its flaws is because of the current wealth disparity in the United States.
Hispanic, Hasiah, Caribbean, Canadian, African, and European, are a few of the many people that help make the American Dream possible. Americans only have use of these people when it comes to cheap labor and to help create the American dream yet who help build the dream are not a factor in this dream. Do you know how it feels to be in immigrant’s shoes? Immigrants should be allowed to remain in the United States because of the past American history, law enforcement (border), family, and the economic impact (taxes). History Since the 1880’s immigrants have had a huge impact on the history of America.
Here enters the idea of amendments. These flaws threatened but also aided the readiness for democracy in the United States. The constitution still allowed slavery, it founded what we now know as the electoral college, protects the president from popular majority, gave state legislatures more power, gave congress more power than any other democratic colony, and didn’t limit the judicial branch. Now when they created this constitution, they didn’t realize at the time that some problems would come with it, but in realty, these flaws help make the constitution stronger. As problems arise within certain aspects of the constitution, the farmers made it so that amendments could be made in order to fix whatever needed fixing.
He also had to retain his character and full support with the public in fixing the economy, so they would have confidence in his administration and leadership. How FDR did this is by his “First New Deal.” It was a plan for implementing an economic recovery / relief for both the nation and its citizens. For President Roosevelt to do this, he needed to overcome criticisms by the leftists, again gain public confidence and stand his ground to new reform policies and legislation. FDR did not want his administration to be a failure, just as it did before he came into office with Republican Herbert Hoover’s Presidency. To me, if FDR could overcome these obstacles which he did, he could move the country forward in the right direction.
As industry exponentially grew after the Civil War, the need for labor and materials to power newly-created manufacturing giants caused new social classes to form: the rich corporation owners and the poor laborers. Unfathomably rich Robber Barons, or plutocratic American Capitalists, dominated the economy and industry and profited from the slave-like work of millions of poor laborers during this time period. Moreover, the poor working class and the rich further divided by distribution of wealth. Therefore, exploitation of capitalism widened the gap between the rich and poor classes of America, and both newly-formed classes developed reasons for the change. During the period of industrialization, between 1865 and the early 1900’s, corporate
The conflict of the era was big business, and its need to keep inflicting actions to keep a strong division of the wealthy, and the lower class workers, while maximizing profits and personal gain. As well as spotlighting the inequality of gender, race, and social status.This is paired with the stories of activists and everyday men who called for change in this pivotal time. The book is effective in using vivid imagery to explore scenarios of divide and disparity of the era. However,
My intention is not ridicule the U.S. government for its lack of effort; after all it is doing better than the average country. My concern is that many countries see the U.S. as their economic model. Therefore, the U.S. government cannot continue to neglect income inequality. If the U.S. is able to pass policies that seeks to improve the living condition of its low-income citizens, maybe then it can be considered the gold