Primary Arguments Against Socialism
Capitalism has proven to be the the premier economic system chosen by some of the most prominent leaders in history. Winston Churchill once said “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries”(Churchill,1945). Socialism is appealing to the present generation and society as it provides a promise of equality amongst all citizens. What many fail to consider is that the equality promised by socialism only gives equal misery and tyranny. Capitalism is loosely defined as a free market system where the supply and demand of the country is derived from the private property of the owner. On the other hand, socialism consists of public ownership in the name of production.While
…show more content…
However, it is the exact opposite for the upper class to make a significant profit when they have supplied society with a benefit that will last generations. Everyone has been there. Someone falls ill, the doctor provides them with a medical prescription from the local drug store with an insurmountable price. The average person would be quick to call the company out on their lust for a quick buck. Contrary to popular belief, many of these companies are not greedy in any way. Simply, everyone involved in the production of the prescription is looking to reap from the challenging work they have accomplished. “Bringing a single drug to market costs a major pharmaceutical company anywhere from $800 million to $1.5 billion”(Forbes 2009). In regard to the gigantic amount of profit, many think that pharmacists should not be allowed to collect such a large profit. Despite this opinion, much of the profit will go towards research for other life changing drugs. The same ideals go for similar groundbreaking industries. “The road to recovery runs through markets, not …show more content…
Both systems have their positives and negatives, but a mixed system with an emphasis in capitalistic beliefs is the one that will thrive in the near future; take the United States of America. Socialism while good for promoting a stable economy, is no way capable of keeping up with the capitalist powerhouses in the world. “They've opened their public schools and health care to more competition, and Sweden partially privatized its pension system. They may not be free market quite yet, but they're no socialist—or even liberal—utopia,
However, it is the exact opposite for the upper class to make a significant profit when they have supplied society with a benefit that will last generations. Everyone has been there. Someone falls ill, the doctor provides them with a medical prescription from the local drug store with an insurmountable price. The average person would be quick to call the company out on their lust for a quick buck. Contrary to popular belief, many of these companies are not greedy in any way. Simply, everyone involved in the production of the prescription is looking to reap from the challenging work they have accomplished. “Bringing a single drug to market costs a major pharmaceutical company anywhere from $800 million to $1.5 billion”(Forbes 2009). In regard to the gigantic amount of profit, many think that pharmacists should not be allowed to collect such a large profit. Despite this opinion, much of the profit will go towards research for other life changing drugs. The same ideals go for similar groundbreaking industries. “The road to recovery runs through markets, not …show more content…
Both systems have their positives and negatives, but a mixed system with an emphasis in capitalistic beliefs is the one that will thrive in the near future; take the United States of America. Socialism while good for promoting a stable economy, is no way capable of keeping up with the capitalist powerhouses in the world. “They've opened their public schools and health care to more competition, and Sweden partially privatized its pension system. They may not be free market quite yet, but they're no socialist—or even liberal—utopia,