Yes, Capitalism makes societies prosper, yet at what costs, and possibly to what extent. Free Market Capitalism, as much as it called a "free market," from another perspective creates not a bit of freedom of choice for some sectors of the society. It creates Inequality. Yet Capitalism thrives on apart from all other forms of economies. Despite furthering inequality.

On the other side, there is Sustainability. One that offers options for societies, people in all strata of living. The rich and the poor; more importantly, heeding the deprived, the less-unfortunates, by giving opportunity for an improved and secure condition of living. Promising. Yet only on one exception, Sustainable Development could never arise as long as Capitalism prospers - prospering to make the affluent more well off than ever, and the poor at the expense, is getting poorer - getting nothing else but the exact opposite of a sustainable living. Yet Capitalism thrives on... What makes Capitalism powerful?

Capitalism is an economic system wherein certain individuals and groups can produce and operate for profit, by trading goods, services, and money mostly through privatization and "free market" production, distribution, and pricing - [again - for producing profit]. (Capitalism, 2007, para.1). This "Free Market" Capitalism works through a "free pricing system," meaning, it is not planned and regulated by the government (Market Economy, 2007, para.1) - supposedly, "Free Market" is not controlled by any kind of sovereign. In a Free Market Economy, the government is not given the decision what to produce and how much to produce. (ibid.). So who is it who has that control? - Certainly not the masses and the middle class as current evidence of poverty and inequality shows.

Free Market Capitalism is not supposed to yield poverty and inequality - in fact, these are the exact opposite of profit - the objective of free market economy. Ideally, theoretically, this is not how it should be. The father of modern economics conceived that the production, distribution, and pricing of society's supplies and demands work through "self-organization" - [the "invisible hand."] In his "Wealth of Nations," each and every individual, [rich or poor], unconsciously creates a flourishing economy by freely pursuing their self-interest in a Free Trade Market. In effect this brings about a "spontaneous order" working in the most predictable and efficient way and therefore creating a generally prosperous society. (ibid.). That is, it ought to distribute prosperity, or profit - to all, considering that it should be a "self-organizing" and with no control by any kind of sovereign.

Adam Smith considered an ethically justifiable Free Market. Originally, the "self-interest" system of Free Market Capitalism automatically leads to benefits for the entire society and not just for specific individuals - as long as it is paired with "sympathy." (Adam Smith, para.18). Particularly, in his "Theory of Moral Sentiments," Adam Smith made the psychological explanation that the "self-interest" method of Free Markets does not [and should not] include "selfishness." By this, he means that the "self-interest" of individuals in market exchange considers the self-interest of the whole society. This is possible since social interests, such as moral sentiments, justice, expected norms in society, affect the personal interests of all of the members of society. (Adam Smith, para.20). This kind of "self-interest" then should give way to "sympathy" because pursing the self-interests of individuals [should] also include seeking the approval of "impartial spectators" or other people, [other members of the trade]. In truth, the sympathetic "self-interest" system in free markets upholds "selfishness" as dissolute [and destructive for a Market Economy]. (Adam Smith, para.18-19).

Yet what is it that happens now in society? - The reverse of the theory - the other kind of Free Market wherein the sympathetic self-interest structure is overturned by selfish agents who use the weakness of a lenient openly regulated free economy. How do they do it? - By force and by fraud.

"While a free market necessitates that the government does not dictate prices, it also requires the traders themselves do not coerce or defraud each other, so that all trades are morally voluntary... The key idea of a free market is voluntary exchange." (Free Market, 2007, para.1&3). Manipulation of price, demand, and supply factors should always be transparent most especially to those people who have lesser purchasing powers. By principle, if supply for goods and services are low then it is only then that prices should rise. Yet look at poverty now. Poor people become poorer by being forced or lied to. Even the prices of high-demand commodities like food are on the rise. And even though there is a great demand for such necessities, the supply is restricted only to some regions.

On the other hand: Do you buy imported goods? Are you sure you don't? How about buying products not originally local? Imported banana chips? Most people cannot resist Pepsi right? It is not a demand by need but we buy it anyway. Are there still locally made fruit juices? It seems nobody anymore produces them. Workers are required to produce expensive goods that are not really demanded but are deceptively promoted - in a garb that these are the Free Market benefits that developing nations should also get a hold of. True, yet only if it comes without a charge. Sure, laborers could sweat-and-tears produce massive pieces of the same item as long as they get the equivalent wage, if capitalists would produce only those products that are most needed to spare abusing mother nature's remaining available resources, if buyers would buy quality goods produced locally - healthier, closer to their preferences, and cheaper, and if the poor could loan for their vital needs without excess interest to make the rich richer.

Why has the free market worked against the interest of the many - the many poor - and the many poor that become many and many. Where are the true benefits of a Free Market system?

Free Market Capitalism produces more economic freedom and furthers efficient distribution of goods and services, yet it could have also been producing higher incomes, available employment, better health conditions and greater rates of life expectancy, advancement of child labor rights, improved literacy, public transport and housing conditions, more per capita food supplies, access to clean water, and more effectively utilized richer and protected environments. More importantly, all could have been obtained in all areas of the globe as part of the big international "globalized" free trade economy. Equity and Equality.

Generally more people would have been living happy lives in contentment if not in comfort, with the prospects of a secure economy and environment in the future [left] ahead for our next generations. These greatest needs are what the Market Economy that our world has right now - could not supply of all things. Sustainable living. Rather, Free Market Capitalism puts Sustainable Development at the expense of producing free trade advantages only for the select powerful few - presenting political demands instead of purely economic ones.

To what extent should Free Market Capitalism be allowed to run free? We can all watch how free market could go on a rampage, exhausting everything on its way...

... Unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism, various forms of economic exploitation; and phenomena such as social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability... state use of military power to defend capitalist interests abroad - an inevitable corollary of monopoly capitalism... [inevitable depletion of] the finite natural resources of the earth, and other resources utilized broadly... environmental costs to all of society... impact upon ecosystems and the biosphere at large... un-free labor - the use of a labor force comprised of slaves, indentured servants, criminal convicts, political prisoners and/or other coerced persons - [These are all] compatible with capitalist relations. (Capitalism, 2007).

~Ae Dechavez

Related Articles

What else would you like to know about? Request a hub.