I believe capitalism forces business men to make profitable amoral decisions may not benefit our society at all. However, maybe Smith is also correct on capitalism is the best way to serve the society before other solutions appear. And with many evidences from different countries, I have to agree with Griffin and Smith that capitalism is efficient. However, I would only describe capitalism as an insensitive, bloody, efficiently machine that does not have feel and moral. The core of capitalism is still profit driven, materialistic, and money.
But ideal perfection can’t be realistic with competition. Because of competition, in my opinion, perfection in laws cannot be attained. One reason I think this is true is because of the many laws that governments of a capitalist society has; such as monopoly be outlawed. Laws are not ideal perfect because they are some people who would want to generate more money and can’t because of some law that would prevent them to do so. There might also be some ethical issues between businesses that might lead to imperfection.
The allocation of scarce resources to people’s unlimited wants is a vital aspect of life which affects both welfare and fairness, and just how much each person gets depends on the economic system in place. In this essay I aim to argue in favour of regulated capitalism and show that it is in fact efficient, fair and practicable. In doing this, I will start by looking at the extreme cases that economic systems can take on and how these prove to have short comings. On one end of the spectrum we look firstly at pure capitalism and on the other end, pure socialism. I then go on to look at the consequences of these systems to identify the morally correct one based on the consequences that the economic system brings about.
Conclusion Ultimately, Jaggar’s error theory is unsound due to the fact of a fundamental misinterpretation of capitalism in which Jaggar believes that work is generally awful under the economic system, when in actuality it is not so awful. Work is not so awful under capitalism due to the nature of capitalism that promotes competition to encourage entrepreneurship, which benefits society as a whole in comparison to socialist feminism. Although Jaggar’s error theory is unsound, the rest of her theory remains unaffected.
Punishing a firm for being efficient may harm in the end the consumers. Nevertheless, the difference between economic profit and accounting profit is important to explain when determining if market power exists. While economic profit can be a warning of dominance, it is less probable for accounting profit to lead to market power. Besides profit,
What are the other options that could be better than capitalism? We must see which would be the best for society. If one were to negatively affect it, then it is not an option that should be taken. So, we must see the pros and cons for capitalism and how it can affect the economy and our society. During the Industrial Revolution, there was a clear division between two classes, the proletariats and the bourgeoisie.
Additionally, the historical nature of his arguments is very weak point of his thesis. On the other hand while Rawls makes a compelling case for the redistribution of wealth with focus on the poor, his arguments assumes that people can be made to act as rational, disinterested individuals. While he tries to that notions is highly impractical. It may prove impossible to institutionalize a system that can force people to act out rationally. His 'veil of ignorance' can be a good way to interpret the justice of fairness but I can see no way to practical apply this principle.
Economists regard the possibility for free riding as a problem for the free market, which usually leads to government intervention. Government intervention is not generally needed in a free market society but in this case if there were no government intervention this problem would not find a solution. The free-rider issue is often seen as a serious problem because of the assumption that a free rider's best self-interest is that they interact with others by force and fraud. If they can get away with the fraud and begin to gain the benefits of others they have reached their first goal. Their next goal is to make some good money or get credit for someone else's hard work before they get caught.
When it comes to those types of practices in which are in themselves clearly more morally wrong, a company may decide that they will not stand for that practice even if it costs them money in the long run. That’s because there are some ethical values that are just not negotiable. Examples of those values that might be considered objective moral values might be the right to have economic advancement. For example, if you go to a country which has unfair wages then the ethical thing to do would be to give your employees a fair wage. A fair wage in this case might not be the same amount you pay employees back in your home country.
It has been argued that the free market fails to allocate resources efficiently according t o what the people and society needs. A major criticism of the free market mechanism is that it allocated resources based on effective demand, that is, demand back by purchasing power than on demand based on the needs of a society. The free market system is able to allocate scarce economic resources efficiently if private costs are the same as social costs, and private benefits are the same as social benefits. But in the most cases, they are not the same. It is then argued that the price mechanism fails to take into account social cost and social benefits, and therefore fails in its role to allocate resources to their optimum use.