Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

From British Raj to Billionaire Raj: How India's income inequality is worse in 2017 than in 1922

Discussion in 'Internal Affairs' started by InfoWarrior, Sep 11, 2017.

  1. InfoWarrior

    InfoWarrior Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    507
    Country Flag:
    India
    [​IMG] BT Online Last Updated: September 6, 2017 | 14:04 IST
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    India's income inequality in 2017 may be worse than what it was during the British Raj. According to a paper titled 'Indian income inequality, 1922-2014: From British Raj to Billionaire Raj?' penned by renowned economist Thomas Piketty and Lucas Chancel, India witnessed a sharp rise in the incomes of top 1 per cent post 1980s.

    The study, which took inputs from household surveys, national accounts, NSSO data and recently released tax tabulations tracks the dynamics of Indian income inequality from 1922 to 2014.

    The share of national income accruing to the top 1% income earners is now at its highest level since the creation of the Indian Income tax in 1922 during the British colonial rule. The top 1% of earners captured less than 21% of total income in the late 1930s, before dropping to 6% in the early 1980s and rising to 22% today, the paper said.

    The study says the share of fiscal income accruing to the top 1 per cent of population shrank substantially from the mid-1950s to the mid-1980s, from about 13 per cent of fiscal income, to less than 5 per cent in the early 1980s. However, after India's economic liberalization when pro-business, market deregulation policies were implemented the situation was reversed, the share of fiscal held of the top 1% doubled from approximately 5 per cent to 10 per cent in 2000.

    The revised paper which was released on Tuesday found that the bottom 50% group grew at a substantially lower rate than average growth (Figure 1a) since the 1980s. Middle 40% grew at a slower rate than the average (Figure 1b). On the contrary, top 10% and top 1% grew substantially faster than the average since 1980 (Figure 1c).

    The paper stressed on the need for more democratic transparency on income and wealth statistics to avoid what it called another 'black decade' similar to the 2000s, during which India entered the digital age but stopped publishing tax statistics.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Such data sources are key to track the long run evolution of inequality and to allow an informed democratic debate on income patterns, it said.

    Calling for a more inclusive growth in India, the paper said its findings reveals the unequal nature of liberalization and deregulation processes in the country.

    [​IMG]
    In 2016, the Income Tax Department released tax tabulations for recent years (2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14), making it possible to revise and update previously published top income estimates and better inform public debates on growth and income inequality in India, it added.


























    http://www.businesstoday.in/current...me-inequality-top-1-percent/story/259780.html
     
  2. InfoWarrior

    InfoWarrior Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    507
    Country Flag:
    India
  3. bharathp

    bharathp Developers Guild Developers -IT and R&D

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2016
    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    1,263
    Country Flag:
    India
    income inequality is bound to increase. thats the way capitalism works. it will also give incentives for disruptive technologies/processes (uber/ola/flipkart etc) to come up and try to destroy the old guard and become the new top 1%. there will and can never be a time when every one will earn equal. there will be differences as long as human capabilities, opportunities, abilities are different
     
    Wolfpack, omya, zebra7 and 1 other person like this.
  4. InfoWarrior

    InfoWarrior Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    507
    Country Flag:
    India
    India is a mixed economy not a capitalist or socialist economy.
    I think top 1% should have not more than 10% of GDP, there will still be a good incentive for disruptive technologies.

    If income inequality increases beyond a threshold, some socialistic measures should be taken by government to reduce income equality. timing and scale of disruptive technologies are not certain. In resource constrained country like India with widespread poverty, higher Income inequity results in increased wastage of human capital.
     
  5. Golden_Rule

    Golden_Rule Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    657
    Several key reasons for this phenomena -

    1. Loot of government treasury by the politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen
    2. Builder mafia which skyrocketed real estate prices
    3. Supply-demand manipulation of essential commodities leading to super high inflation

    All by the corrupt rule by all political parties from pre-Modi time
     
    bharathp and InfoWarrior like this.
  6. A_poster

    A_poster Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    1,573
    Country Flag:
    India
    Looks like high priests of poverty have struck again and start pushing their agenda in media.

    Income inequality was low during British rule because nearly EVERYONE was poor. There was no middle class,& 95%+ of Indian were living in absolute poverty.I would say close to 100% because this 95% figure is for 1947. Compare to this, less than 7% Indians live in absolute poverty,today.

    Income inequality is becoming worse because a large chunk of formerly poor have pulled themselves out of wretched poverty and accumulated wealth.And since they have invested their surplus to improve productivity, their income have improved even further.

    People who put these retarded arguments about income inequality want to see everyone as poor and combing through horseshit to find some grains to eat,while they lord over those poor.
     
    BlackOpsIndia likes this.
  7. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,408
    Likes Received:
    3,642
    Country Flag:
    India
    ahh looks like a socialist ideology supporting article
    sucks if anyone thinks its true
     
  8. A_poster

    A_poster Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    1,573
    Country Flag:
    India

    It is true and aimed at suckers who do not understand statistics.

    When 99% of your population is in absolute poverty and could not afford "do waqt ki roti", there would be less inequality as everyone is poor, compared to when 10% are absolutely poor, another 30% are poor as in not having disposable income, another 30% lower middle class, 25% upper middle class, and 5% rich.

    Chants of inequality are done by high priests of poverty which hate people for not being poor and their disciples.
     
  9. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,408
    Likes Received:
    3,642
    Country Flag:
    India
    BS 99% population is not in poverty in india it is less than 40% and in india and china total 55000 people come out of poverty every month.. less government... capitalism is the only answer.. why not a single lower caste guy is able to build an empire like infosys or persistent ? let me tell u why bcuz of the socialist free loading system of india

    Nope chants on inequality is done by the 16 to 30 year old jobless population born in the middle class family... it is always the rich or middle class born who brainwash people on socialist ideology.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
  10. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,408
    Likes Received:
    3,642
    Country Flag:
    India
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
    Nilgiri and BlackOpsIndia like this.
  11. InfoWarrior

    InfoWarrior Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    507
    Country Flag:
    India
    Income inequality in India at its highest level since 1922, says Lucas Chancel

    [​IMG] Sanjay Vijayakumar

    Chennai, September 08, 2017 21:17 IST
    Updated: September 09, 2017 15:57 IST

    • Share Article
    • 19
    • PRINT
    • AAA
    [​IMG]
    The top 1% of earners captured less than 21% of total income in the late 1930s, before dropping to 6% in the early 1980s and rising to 22% today, says renowned economist Lucas Chancel
    According to a research paper by renowned economists Thomas Piketty and Lucas Chancel,
    income inequality in India is at its highest level since 1922, the year the Income Tax Act was passed. In December, they will release the first ‘World Inequality Report’ where they will compare India’s inequality trajectory with other emerging, industrialised and low-income countries and suggest ways to tackle global and national inequality. In an e-mail interview, Lucas Chancel discusses the findings of the paper titled ‘Indian income inequality, 1922-2014: From British Raj to Billionaire Raj?’ Excerpts:

    Can you summarise key findings of the paper?

    According to our benchmark estimates, the share of national income accruing to the top 1% income earners is now at its highest level since the creation of the Indian Income Tax [Act] in 1922. The top 1% of earners captured less than 21% of total income in the late 1930s, before dropping to 6% in the early 1980s and rising to 22% today. Over the 1951-1980 period, the bottom 50% group captured 28% of total growth and incomes of this group grew faster than the average, while the top 0.1% incomes decreased. Over the 1980-2014 period, the situation was reversed; the top 0.1% of earners captured a higher share of total growth than the bottom 50% (12% versus 11%), while the top 1% received a higher share of total growth than the middle 40% (29% vs. 23%). These findings suggest that much can be done to promote more inclusive growth in India.

    You have said the income inequality has been at the highest level? What are the reasons for it?

    Since the 1980s, India did not only open-up and liberalise its economy, it did it in a way that was very favourable to top income earners and capital owners.

    Tax progressivity, which is a powerful policy tool to contain the rise in inequality, was reduced progressively reduced. Top tax rates, which were very high in the 1970s (up to 98%), decreased to 30% in the 1980s and after. Wage inequality dispersion also increased in many sectors, as privatizations removed government-set pay scales, which were less unequal.

    On the other hand, growth at the bottom of the distribution was notably lower than average growth rates since the 1980s.

    Is this finding unique for India?

    To better understand the rise in Indian inequality, let’s look at other emerging countries. China also liberalised and opened up after 1978, and in doing so, experienced a sharp income growth as well as a sharp rise in inequality. This rise, however, halted in the 2000s. Today, inequality is currently at lower level there than in India (top 1% income share at 14% versus 22% in India, according to our estimates).

    In Russia, the move from a communist to a market economy was extremely brutal, in a few years, Russia moved from extreme equality to extreme inequality. Today Russia has similar level of inequality as in India. Interested readers can go to our open-access website, WID.world to check all this data by themsleves! We will also release at the end of the year a World Inequality Report focusing on the most recent findings in global income and wealth dynamics

    Our data shows that there are different strategies to transit from a highly regulated economy to a liberalised one. In the arrays of possible pathways, India pursued a very unequal way but could probably have chosen another path.

    There have been counter arguments to your thesis?

    Some commentators argue that without extreme growth at the very top of the distribution, there wouldn’t have been high growth in India. There is, in fact, little evidence supporting this claim. The top 0.1% (today, this corresponds to a population equal to that of Delhi's IT suburb, Gurgaon) captured more total income growth than the poorest half of Indians since 1980. Would all income growth have disappeared if the situation had been reversed? We can also doubt this. The highest growth period in Western Europe, after the second world war, was also a period of equitable redistribution of the fruits of growth. Put it simply, Europe grew as a market economy but did not become a market society. It had institutions, rules, norms limiting the power of capital accumulation and of income concentration.

    What do these findings mean for India?

    There are many options and we do not claim to put an end to debates but rather to trigger them. As written above, more tax progressivity is a very handy tool to limit rising income inequality at the top. Now looking at the other end of the social ladder, government investments in transportation, health and free, quality education are indeed crucial to raise bottom 50% incomes. Land ownership concentration is also an issue in India, where agriculture remains a key sector and where land reform has been only very partial.
    http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/int...-highest-level-since-1922/article19645881.ece
     
  12. InfoWarrior

    InfoWarrior Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    507
    Country Flag:
    India
    India surely needs land reforms, instead of reservations(pocketchange). all underclasses in India should aggressively push for land reforms.

    Land Reforms Fail; 5% of India’s Farmers Control 32% Land

    By Sumit Chaturvedi, INDIASPEND.ORG on 04/05/2016Leave a Comment
    Share this:
    The average land given to the rural landless is small and falling, from 0.95 acres in 2002 to 0.88 acres in 2015 – a 7.4% drop over 13 years – and a slowdown is evident in the process of taking land away from rich landlords.
    [​IMG]
    Credit: Reuters

    Almost three decades ago in 1990, Radheshyam, 49, was given half an acre of farm land free, taken away from a landlord as part of what was then a 40-year-old state law that allows distribution of such land to the poor.

    One of 5.78 million beneficiaries of land redistribution nationwide, Radheshyam–he uses only one name–got his land within 45 days of being shortlisted by the gram sabha (village council) in his village of Bebar in the western Uttar Pradesh district of Mainpuri.

    For the next five years, Radheshyam grew foodgrain on his half acre, which yielded about eight quintals of rice and six of wheat every year. After buying fertiliser, pesticides, manure and water, the land provided mainly enough for his family of eight.

    In 1995, rainwater filled a nearby pond and flooded his land. Since then, Radheshyam moved to Agra, 113 km to the west, and worked whatever job he could find. In this time, his family grew and he borrowed money to get by
    Steeped in debt, he now believes that the land he—and others in his village, of about 310,000 statewide—got after the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was too little to change his life.

    Radheshyam’s situation reflects the general failure of a 54-year-old Indian programme to take land from the rich and give it to the poor.

    Why it is difficult to reverse more than half a century of land-reform failures

    Five facts, gleaned from the 2011-12 agricultural census and 2011 socio-economic caste census and this correspondent’s data, summarise the failure of India’s land reforms:

    • No more than 4.9% of farmers control 32% of India’s farmland.
    • A “large” farmer in India has 45 times more land than the “marginal” farmer.
    • Four million people, or 56.4% of rural households, own no land.
    • Only 12.9% of land marked–the size of Gujarat–for takeover from landlords was taken over by December 2015.
    • Five million acres—half the size of Haryana—was given to 5.78 million poor farmers by December 2015.
    What has largely failed nationwide—with the exception of West Bengal—over 54 years since a land-redistribution law was passed is not likely to improve, according to data in a response this correspondent received to a right-to-information (RTI) application filed with the Department of Land Resources of the Indian government’s Ministry of Rural Development.

    The average land given to the rural landless is small and falling, from 0.95 acres in 2002 to 0.88 acres in 2015—a 7.4% drop over 13 years–and a slowdown is evident in the process of taking land away from rich landlords, the RTI data reveal.

    As of December 2015, land declared “surplus” (meaning, it could be taken away from landlords) across India stood at 6.7 million acres; the government took over 6.1 million acres; and distributed 5.1 million acres—less than half the area of Haryana, or five-and-a-half times the area of Goa—to 5.78 million people.

    [​IMG]
    (*The data for 2006 was sourced from the website of Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, from the hyperlink titled “Other Land Reform Programmes”, as accessed on 5th February 2016. However, the link was recently removed)

    [​IMG]

    Similarly, the land declared surplus has fallen over the years. Between 1973 and 2002, an average of 150,000 acres was declared surplus, and an average of 140,000 acres was distributed every year. In contrast, between 2002 and 2015, the land declared surplus every year was 4,000 acres, while land in government possession and distributed declined by 29,000 acres and 24,000 acres per year, respectively

    This means that there is less land declared surplus every year over the past 13 years and what was once a growing trend of government possession and distribution has reversed.

    [​IMG]
    Source: 1973, 2002, 2007, 2015
    (*The data for 2006 were sourced from the website of Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, from the hyperlink titled “Other Land Reform Programmes”, as accessed on 5th February 2016. However, the link was recently removed)

    The slowdown and fluctuations in land-distribution data over the years are usually because of disputes over how much is to be taken away; courts restored some land to original owners; and some land was unfit for cultivation, according to this 2009 report from the Centre for Rural Studies, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA), Mussoorie.

    The surplus land under litigation increased by 23.4% by 23.4%, from 920,000 acres to 1.14 million acres between 2007 and 2009. Some states, such as Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Gujarat and Maharashtra, created land tribunals to quickly settle such cases.

    Irrespective of the fluctuations, the land declared surplus, up to 2015, is 12.9% of 51.9 million acres—almost the size of Gujarat—the land that should be taken away from landlords, the LBSNAA estimated as cited in the report of the Committee of the Committee on State Agrarian Relations and Unfinished Task of Land Reforms from 2009. The land in government possession and land distributed is 11.7% and 9.8%, respectively of the 51.9 million acres that should be declared surplus.

    [​IMG]
    Radheshyam, at age 49, has been working in Agra for past two decades to support his family.

    Why land is important to further economic progress

    As many as 570 million Indians, or 47.1% (including 6.7% in urban areas), still depend on agriculture, which contributes 15% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), according to this 2011-12 National Sample Survey Office 2011-12 2011-12 report and 2011 census data.

    South Korea and Taiwan—and Japan before them—implemented sweeping land reforms before transforming agriculture and moving their people to manufacturing, Jayati Ghosh, a professor at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, wrote in this 1997 column in this 1997 column for the Economic and Political Weekly. As agriculture’s importance diminished, agricultural productivity kept rising.

    “This was not only because of the institutional changes which released productive energies, but also because of the role of the government in increasing public investment levels in agriculture, providing subsidised fertiliser and pesticide inputs, supporting agricultural research and extension services, assisting in the organisation of co-operatives, and similar measures,” Ghosh wrote.

    [​IMG]
    Source: Agriculture Census 2010-11: Phase 1

    But as India tries to ramp up manufacturing–through programmes such as Make in India–the failure of land reforms may worsen rural poverty.

    India has 101 million landless, equivalent to populations of Germany and Sri Lanka

    As many as 95.1% of Indian farmers are called “marginal, small and semi-medium”, meaning they own up to 2.47, 4.94 and 9.88 acres of land, respectively. These farmers own 68.2% of cultivated land, while 4.9% “medium and large” (owning up to 24.71 and 49.42 or more acres, respectively) farmers own 31.8% of cultivated land, according to the 2011-12 agriculture census.

    A “large” farmer on average has 45 times more land than a “marginal” farmer, as we already said, and 101.4 million people—equivalent to the population of Germany and Sri Lanka combined—or 56.4% of rural households, own no land, according to the socio-economic caste census 2011.

    A national law that guides the land a farmer can own was passed in 1972. It recommended that that farmers should own between 10 and 18 acres of irrigated land with two crops, 27 acres of irrigated land with one crop and 54 acres for dry land.

    The surplus land was to be taken away by state governments and distributed to the rural landless, identified by village panchayats. Land ceilings varied by state and land quality.

    West Bengal—land-reforms champion—gives rural landless area larger than Goa

    State Area Declared Surplus (Acres) Area Possessed (Acres) Area Distributed (Acres) Number of Beneficiaries
    Andhra Pradesh 791,638 643,948 561,717 466,803
    Assam 613,405 575,337 545,875 445,862
    Bihar 523,504 431,310 353,358 461,136
    Chhattisgarh 75,081 72,183 60,681 27,452
    Gujarat 237,976 182,447 165,350 38,360
    Haryana 105,783 101,932 101,166 29,351
    Himachal Pradesh 316,556 304,895 6,167 6,259
    Jammu and Kashmir 8,836 0 0 0
    Jharkhand 0 0 860 1,316
    Karnataka 174,087 166,793 235,458 57,667
    Kerala 133,700 100,186 70,834 168,912
    Madhya Pradesh 223,264 190,449 134,202 47,061
    Maharashtra 725,078 670,815 634,158 139,755
    Manipur 1,830 1,685 1,682 1,258
    Odisha 180,935 171,268 157,530 143,485
    Punjab 11,086 87,207 82,609 77,570
    Rajasthan 595,152 554,693 453,171 77,629
    Tamil Nadu 208,452 200,322 190,713 150,905
    Tripura 1,995 1,994 1,599 1,424
    Uttar Pradesh 371,323 343,047 267,248 305,394
    West Bengal 1,408,877 1,318,159 1,052,269 3,137,662
    D&N Haveli 0 0 0 0
    Delhi 1,132 394 394 654
    Puducherry 2,326 1,286 1,070 1,464
    Data provided is upto December 2015. Information for the remaining states and union territories not given.
    Source: RTI Response from Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India

    The RTI response received by this correspondent reveals that West Bengal has outperformed other states.

    It has declared the most land “surplus” (1.41 million acres, or nearly one-and-a-half times the area of Goa), and accounts for 21% of such land so declared nationwide.

    West Bengal has taken possession of 1.32 million acres, 93.6% of land declared surplus statewide, and distributed 1.05 million acres, 79.8% of the land in the state’s possession. West Bengal also accounts for more than half (54.2%) of India’s land-reform beneficiaries. As many as 3.14 million of the rural, landless got free land over 60 years.

    The Draft National Land Reforms Policy has credited West Bengal, Kerala and Jammu and Kashmir for having performed best in surplus land distribution.

    Jammu and Kashmir is the worst performer, according to data from the RTI reply, which is also riddled with inaccuracies.

    • For Jharkhand, it says no “surplus” land was declared and taken over—yet it shows 860 acres distributed among 1,316 beneficiaries.
    • For Karnataka, land distributed is more than that declared “surplus” and taken over by the government.
    • For Punjab, land taken over and distributed is more than land declared surplus.
    These inconsistencies raise concerns over the reporting and verification of surplus land declaration and distribution nationwide.

    The draft National Land Reforms Policy, prepared in 2013, suggests policy policy correctives:

    • Stopping land-holding exemptions to religious, educational, charitable, research and industrial organisations beyond 15 acres;
    • Allowing smaller land-holdings in states where the existing limit is more than five to 10 acres for irrigated land and 10 to 15 acres for non-irrigated land;
    • A “single-window” to redistribute surplus land within a specified time;
    • A crackdown on benami—in someone else’s name—land;
    • A database of land inventories available for public scrutiny.

      https://thewire.in/33523/land-reforms-fail-5-of-indias-farmers-control-32-land/
     
  13. A_poster

    A_poster Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    1,573
    Country Flag:
    India
    You have comprehension problem.

    And you are a fucking idiot.

    Land ceiling has made all farms unviably small. Even supposed landed big farmers have so small plots that they are barely middle class, and every rich farmer is into money-laundering.

    Only morons wail for land reforms in current circumstance, and even 12 plan report dismissed them as retarded lunatics who want to make every farmer piss poor.Every economist is suggesting a completely opposite route as in relaxing land ceiling & farm renting/leasing laws for making agriculture viable and lowering rural poverty.

    Also if you want government to take away farms from farmers who are not piss poor, why should it not take away all spare rooms of your house and give it to homeless?

    And finally both you and the author of this article failed his basic mathematics and logic class. The surplus declared land is falling because land is not a renewable resource and once declared surplus and distributed, it cease to be surplus. When land ceiling act was imposed, excess land was declared surplus, but two generation down the line, only land that could be declared surplus is of farmer who died without an heir, or forest and wetlands.
     
  14. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,408
    Likes Received:
    3,642
    Country Flag:
    India
    only idiot here is you who is replying to the post which was posted after my reply...
     
  15. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,408
    Likes Received:
    3,642
    Country Flag:
    India
    Top 10 Greatest Benefits of Capitalism

    While likely to be a very controversial list, we are in the middle of one of Capitalism’s favorite seasons: Christmas, so it seems fitting to publish it on Christmas Eve. After the death of feudalism in the 19th century, a choice was presented to the world: would the new politico-economic system be capitalism, communism, the “Third Way” or an obscure alternative? Communism sounded great on paper but never really worked as intended, and the most well-known group within the Third Way movement was the Nazi party, whether the rest of the movement liked it or not.

    Fortunately, the country in which you are living today is almost certainly capitalist, and in this article we will investigate the numerous benefits that democratic capitalism provides: an equal, happy, healthy society where you can have almost anything you want, for a price.

    10 .Health
    With capitalism, more choice is provided than ever before. You can eat low fat food, organic food, free-range food… and you know exactly what you’re getting due to the statistics on the packet. There are plenty of diets easily accessible and gyms with top of the range equipment, unparalleled in other countries. There is greater awareness than ever of the importance of fitness due to government campaigns. All of these contribute to an extremely fit society, and, in desperation, one can always resort to liposuction or some other sort of surgery. Which is why everyone is thin and healthy – on the front of magazines, at least.

    9. Social Good
    It might seem at first glance that everyone is selfishly working for their own money, but dig a little deeper and it becomes apparent that every job has a benefit for someone else. Factory workers produce the products that we can’t live without; hairdressers perform a service that benefits us body and sould; and the police work to protect us and make sure we live in a lawful society. Even unpopular and ‘overpaid’ professions such as city bankers and sportsmen have a positive effect on society, whether it be helping us manage our money, entertainment or something else. The bottom line is that no matter the job; highly or poorly paid, glamorous or dirty, competitive or ‘easy’; everyone can have the satisfaction that they, as much as the well-known public figures, are doing their bit for society.

    8. Equality
    No matter where you start in life, everyone has an opportunity to make it big. The basic principle is that the harder you work, the greater your reward. Arguably no-one epitomizes this better than Li Ka-shing, who fled China in 1940 and entered Hong Kong with next to nothing. His father having died, Li left school at the age of 14 and labored 16 hours every day in a plastics trading company, where his sheer hard work and attention to detail allowed him to found Cheung Kong Industries in the 1950s, after which he never looked back. Li’s net worth today is $26.5 billion.

    7. Human Nature
    One of the most common arguments that capitalists use is that capitalism works perfectly with human nature or, more specifically, greed. And it does. Greed is rewarded duly with large amounts of money and the entire economy is fuelled by people working hard to furnish their own needs. In addition, greed causes competition, which is an essential part of advancing the human race. The power of competition is shown during wars, where huge technological achievements are made. For example, the Jeep was invented by the Allies during WWII. Though greed and competition often damage society, one cannot deny that these traits have moved forwards mankind at a rapid pace.

    6. Being the Best
    But what about the other aspects of human nature: altruism, patience and kindness? These have their place, too, in the capitalist world. Left-wing politicians like to claim that an extensive, expensive welfare system is the only way to provide a safety net for the poor, but in actual fact there are tens of thousands of registered charities providing not-for-profit activities, from The National Alliance to End Homelessness to Save the Rainforest. Centrally planned altruism is completely unnecessary and, in fact, limits what people would otherwise give on their own initiative.

    5. Freedom
    Most of you reading this list will have grown up in a world-class education system and taken it for granted that you can choose whatever career you want. At school you selected your favorite subjects and could study them as far as you wanted, followed by applying to a job you chose from the widest variety ever seen in history. This is capitalism at its finest: freedom to live your life the way you want.
    However, some argue that advertising infringes on one’s freedom. Don’t like advertising? Don’t switch on the TV or the radio and don’t walk around large towns or cities and you will never meet any. That is the beauty of freedom.

    4. Built on Democracy
    One of the greatest things about capitalism is that it works perfectly with democracy: everyone gets 1 vote, and thus equal power politically, whatever their race, political views or gender. In Britain, recent legislation has even allowed some prisoners to vote. Once you reach a certain age, you have as much power to choose the new government as everybody else above that age – whether that be your father, your boss or Bill Gates. Right?

    3. Growth
    Capitalism allows the economy to grow exponentially. It is a basic fact of economics that the more money a firm makes, the more it can invest in production, and the more it invests in production, the more money it makes. So long as no unfortunate events befall the firm, this growth can, obviously, continue indefinitely. Many see a problem arising with this: there are only a finite, or ‘scarce’ amount of resources on Earth, so this huge growth of production will one day run to a halt.
    However, as argued by Julian Simon, the rarer a resource, the greater its monetary value, which leads to innovation. For example as oil begins to run out we are seeing significant increase in prices, which has increased the reward and made it economically viable to search for new oil fields. Sites which were previously too expensive to profitably drill have now become available; and we are also developing new methods of harnessing alternative energy such as wind, solar and nuclear power. The oil scarcity isn’t particularly our problem, anyway, since by the time it is depleted, our generation will be long gone.

    2. Viable Alternatives
    Perhaps the strongest argument working in favor of democratic capitalism is that there is no alternative politico-economic system which has proved itself to work in our modern age. Almost every attempted implementation of communism has failed (for example, look at China – they abandoned total communism long ago and are slowly creeping towards capitalism) and any central government risks large amounts of corruption. What’s more is that if, for example, America became socialist and imposed many strong measures on corporations to regulate their behavior, the largest companies (Trans-National Corporations) would most likely move their industry elsewhere, and potential entrepreneurs would be scared to invest in capital, irreparably damaging America’s economy. So as you can see, changing the economic system isn’t even an option.

    1. Happiness
    If you look at this happiness map published by scholars from the University of Leicester, you can clearly see that the foremost democratic, capitalist countries like the USA, Canada, New Zealand and the whole of Europe are the happiest in the world. This is because in these countries, thanks to the free-market, whatever products people want, they can get. Where do all these thousands of products come from? Well, the less happy countries like the Asian Tiger economies tend to be the main exporters of consumer goods. In conclusion, all these unhappy countries need to do is start consuming more than they produce, like Europe, and the wealth and happiness will start flowing in.
    http://listverse.com/2010/12/24/top-10-greatest-benefits-of-capitalism/
     

Share This Page