The Price of Democracy
Democracy, while it can be beneficial, may also be complicating and difficult to balance when associated with the economy. This paper will discuss the relationship between the health of a democracy and the economic prosperity. Also covered in this paper will be the distribution of the wealth in a democracy and the justice of it. And finally, how to appropriately balance the wealth in a democracy.
In the world nowadays, the health of a democracy seems to be directly related to the economic prosperity. The reason behind this is the more wealth there is in the economy, the more likely it is that the people of that particular nation will be more satisfied with there government, thus the healthy democracy. The better off the democracy is obviously the people will most likely be better off as well just adding further to the wealth of the economy. And equally the prosperity of the economy affects the way that the people feel about their government again bettering the relationship between the two.
If wealth is an essential requirement of democracy, an unequal distribution of wealth imperils the democratic process. The way that this works is when there is too much wealth, the poor feel unsatisfied with their government because they are so impoverished while others are extremely wealthy, therefore they feel that they do not have a say in their government which is supposedly "led by the people" including the poor. When this happens the wealthy end up basically having more power because of their social class and therefore has more control in the government, which then ends up being unfair.
Finally, uncontrolled wealth has in the past and still today promotes injustice, while controlled wealth has limited freedom. A proper balance perhaps might be to establish a limit in the maximum amount of money an individual may have. Although this may put a little bit of a limit on that individuals freedom, the government obviously couldn't make the amount so low that it would take away drastically from there wealth. With the limit on an individual's wealth, injustice among less fortunate individuals would be less then before. The lower poor class would then feel that at least an effort is being made to help take away from the injustice, causing them to be at least a little bit more satisfied.
What is wealth inequality? “It is the difference between individuals or populations in the distribution of assets, wealth or income.” [1] In sociology, the term is social stratification and refers to “a system of structured social inequality” [2] where the inequality might be in power, resources, social standing/class or perceived worth. In the US, where a class system exist, (as opposed to caste or estate system) your place in the class system can be determined by your personal achievements. However, the economic and social class that an individual is born into is a big indicator of the class they will end up in as an adult. [3] What are the effects of this wealth inequality in the US and what causes it as well as some possible solutions and their ramifications will all be discussed and answered below.
Within modern society, monetary wealth is the main source of control and power; most people today see wealthy people as “more important” or “more powerful” just cause they have more money than them. Thus in turn giving the wealthy people the upper hand with no one to stand against them allowing them to do as they please. This is the case through many countries around the world. In some countries it varies slightly with the governments listening to there people but taking more influence from these wealthy people, it is on very rare occasion that these people are treated equally with the middle and lower class family’s. A study by Drs Keltner and Piff at the Universit...
There is also the damage that the inequality does to the society and the government. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.” Today that would mean that the middle class is the most important part of our society, however, the farther we move into the future the weaker the middle class becomes (Krugman, 587). The America that we live in is unequal in income and social aspects. The rich do not live the same lives as those that are less fortunate, and the less fortunate do not get to enjoy the perks that come with the lives of the rich people.
In contemporary times, the rise of capitalism as a dominant economic trend and its ravenous demand to accumulate sources from new markets, has led to the idea of merging political and economic power into one, which is democratic capitalism or otherwise illustrated as “a system where markets allocate income according to efficiency while governments redistribute income according to political demand."(Iversen, 2006). The advancements mentioned earlier, have given ground for questions concerning the possible compatibility of the political ideology which is democracy and the economic ideology capitalism and how would they affect one another. This mergence could be examined in recent times, whereas in the past around the start of the nineteenth century it was considered as inappropriate and unlikely to happen. This paper aims to demonstrate to what degree are democracy and capitalism compatible, by examining the various areas of conflict of the two ideologies, how has capitalism affected the democratic system in the United States and does actually global capitalism have an impact on the developing countries democracies.
Income inequality not only harms us fiscally, but also affects our mental and physical wellbeing; therefore, it is important to identify the right ways to control wealth distribution among people.
“The world holds enough to satisfy everyone’s need but not everyone’s greed,” Mahatma Gandhi once astutely observed. In a few carefully chosen words, Gandhi pointed out the reason behind economic tension. For example, “Poverty, hunger, homelessness, illiteracy, preventable disease, polluted air and water, and most of the other ills that beset humanity have the same root cause: the inequitable distribution of the planet's wealth and resources” (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, All social and economic problems caused by an unfair distribution of wealth). Additionally, our economic system—unregulated capitalism—advocates and defends a wantonly unequal distribution of wealth. For instance in 2010, “The top 400 people (.0000013% of the population) held more wealth than the bottom 60% combined” (Brian Rogel, Unequal Distribution of Wealth). The top 1 percent has grown richer while inversely affecting the general population. “From 1983-2009 the bottom 60% have had a decrease in both their perce...
As the old saying goes, money is power. As the statistics show, some people have an insane amount of money, yet their fellow countrymen have close to nothing. In a struggling economy, unfair distribution of wealth can create real problems and unimaginable hardships for some people. For example, millions of people pay $2 for a bottle of designer water, while millions more live on less than $2 a day. If this is to one day change, wealthy people must adopt a much more magnanimous conviction towards their money.
What is the price of freedom that was paid, and is being paid? Freedom was paid with anguish, pain, time, and lives. We, the inhabitants of America, are fortunate to see this land where we have unalienable human rights that are just basic and essential statutes. There is always a cost for something; furthermore there is a price on our freedom. We pay taxes, follow the land and society¡¯s regulations, vote, and so on. The topic of importance and eminence is how, why, and what paid for our freedom.
But the good men did not remain good: they began to make money out of that which was the common property of all. And to some such development we may plausibly ascribe the origin of oligarchies, since men made wealth a thing of honour. The next change was to tyrannies, and from tyrannies to democracy. For the struggle to get rich at all costs tended to reduce numbers, and so increased the power of the multitude, who rose up and formed democracies. And now that there has been a further increase in the size of states, one might say that it is hard to avoid having a democratic constitution”
The system we have for producing and distributing wealth is capitalist. It is organized in ways that allow a small portion (the 1%) to control most of the capital (factories, machinery, tools) used to produce wealth. This encourages the gaining of wealth and income by the. It also leaves a relatively small portion of the total of income and wealth to be divided among
In his article, Democracy as a Universal Value, Amartya Sen asserts that democracy is a universal value. In order to develop his argument Sen needs to state his definition of democracy and define what he means by universal value. In the course of Sen's argument he gives his view of the relationship between democracy and the economy. He then defends his view of democracy as a universal value against a main argument that deals with cultural differences between regions.
One of Aristotle 's version of democracy "is that which is said to be strictly based on equality."(66) In this form the rich and the poor are considered equal and above that, they have the supreme
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...
Firstly, K. Isbester mentions that democracy has a different meaning for everyone, as some can define democracy as a good aspect for development, on the contrary other believe that it is nothing more than voting after several years. Although, Latin America see democratic g...
The foundation of the modern political system was laid in the times when the world was strangled in slavery. In those moments, enlightened minds in Greek came up with the new system that was there to remain for the next thousands of years. This system, now known as democracy, is a form of government in which supreme power is vested to the people themselves. People have the right to elect their leaders directly or indirectly through a scheme of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A new democratic government is usually established after every 4-5 years, and it is trusted with the responsibility to cater to the needs of all the people irrespective of the fact that they voted for them or not. Although the minorities may not be very pleased with the idea of democracy, however, a democratic government is certainly the best because it establishes social equality among people, reduces the conflicts in the state to a minimum, gives the chance to vote repeatedly, and creates patriotism.