1. Malthus was the one who examined the ideas of population and plants and felt that as long as the population grew faster than the food supply, the world would run out of resources to adequately feed and clothe and warm that population at the comfort level they had come to expect. If things didn't change, people would die off, and countries might go to war over existing supplies of resources.
3. With Ricardo, he also believed in laissez-faire too and opposed any help for the poor. The free market should help the poor and that they need to learn how to save, work hard and limit their family size. Ricardo's big idea was the Iron Law of Wages: the working class could not escape poverty b/c the wage increases won't cover enough of the necessities (food, shelter, clothes) to escape poverty since the prices will go up too.
Then there are the utilitarians.
4. Jeremy Bentham.
5. John Stuart Mill
How about socialism?
6. Main ideas of socialism -
7. Karl Marx -
Please answer these two questions:
1. Which of these philosophers' ideas appeals the most to you? Why?
2. Which of these ideas doesn't appeal to you? Why not?
Blog due Tuesday 5/4 200 words
43 comments:
Kaylee Brown
W. History 9B
May 3, 2010
1) The idea that appeals most to me is Adam Smith's because I think that the government needs to stay out of the economies way and allow everyone to make their own decisions. Also I don't think that everything should just be handed to poor people and with the government getting involved that most likely will happen. If we can learn to help ourselves and make money on our own than we will be better off. I think that government guidelines are important however we cannot have too many or else we will be suffocated.
2) The idea that would least appeal to me would be Ricardo's because I think that though poor people need to learn to support themselves we need to help them get up on their feet too. I also think that if you want help you need to prove that you've earned for example if a poor person wants welfare than they should have evidence that they are looking for a job and have gone to interviews, etc. I think that it is only fair to earn help like that or at least show that you care and you will continue to try hard after receiving the help.
Audrey Landgraff
5.3.10
4th Hour
1. I’m not sure if I agree with any of them, but if I had to choose I would Adam Smith, because his ideas of a self regulating market, Laissez Faire, were very understandable. If the market is just flowing on its own, without the gov’t interference, it will be fine.
2. To me it is a close tie, but Thomas Malthus is probably the worst of the two. I mean he studied plants, this is not biology. I don’t think his thoughts are very accurate, and I don’t really understand it. I also don’t think it’s true because we have millions of people living in America alone and, although we are running out of natural coal and gas, we are innovating to make things safer and better for the environment. So I don’t really think we are dying, even though we are overpopulated.
In my opinion, Adam’s Smith philosophy of the laissez faire and his concept of the invisible hand are well thought out. I think that the government shouldn’t always take care of the economy because they might influence in a bad way. The liberals believe that the society is free and needs to take care of itself depending on its needs. He also believes that the nation’s wealth arrives by the participation of the citizens with their hard work. I agree on this concept because every man is part of its country’s prosperity by working and they are equal.
I do not believe in Ricardo’s philosophy which was following the laissez faire principles and not helping the poor in the society. On the contrary to Smith that believed that the poor could work harder and longer to get a raise, Ricardo thought that even with the hours added of work no raise should be given to them at that basically anyone poor could never gain a higher role in the society. I think this is incorrect, the philosophy shouldn’t put tags on the people forever and make them work hard for nothing more. Ricardo is basically framing the poor and doesn’t give them any possibility to ever succeed.
Im picking Ricardo's Philosophy because i find it interesting. I do and do not agree with him. I agree that we shouldn't be helping the poor tremendously, but i don't believe we should totally be opposed to any help for the poor. I agree with Ricardo's idea that we should teach the poor how to save, work hard and limit their family size, because if family size is the case, thats their own issue. If the family knows they don't have enough money to afford a big family, than the answer is easy, don't have a big family. Although their are the families that do not make smart decisions with their families, their are also families who want to escape poverty but cannot because their pay wont cover enough of the necessities. This is why i mainly agree with Ricardo and the Iron Law of Wages.
Leah Cohen
4th Hour
Philip Johnson
5th Hour
5-3-10
Jeremy Bentham’s idea of utilitarianism is the best philosophy in my opinion because its overall goal is the happiness of the majority of the population. He strived to increase the happiness of all citizens rather than just increase power and focus on less important issues. I feel like the main goal of the government is to make everyone’s life as happy as possible with society still functioning in a great way. If the people of the country are not happy, then I think that the government is not doing the best job that it could and needs to make some major changes so that there is approval from most people. Socialism does not seem as good of a philosophy in my opinion because its goal is not as big. Karl Marx just wanted to end social divisions which were just one part in happiness. With utilitarianism, all areas of happiness were filled, not just one area that caused unhappiness. The goals of the utilitarians would be more beneficial and work for longer. Socialism wasn’t realistic because I think there would be somewhat of a social class difference even if the government did own all of the businesses. It’s impossible to just make everyone in one social class.
I agree with Adam Smith’s philosophy that states people should be able to have more power than the government. As well as free markets should be left alone to fix the economic problems without government interference. I agree with this because back in those times it would have worked great since the government didn’t have the ability to help the problems in the businesses, the government was having too many problems of their own. There was a better chance of the business fixing both their own problems and the government because when the business did well they paid more taxes to the government.
I disagree with the philosopher David Ricardo who believed in free markets and not helping the poor. I do agree with the free market but I strongly disagree with not helping the poor. Poor people are humans deserving dignity for their lives. They may need just a little help to get out of the cycle of poverty and improve their family’s life and the generations after them. By helping the poor we end up helping ourselves because they become productive members of society, purchasing products for daily life, paying taxes and help the nation become a stronger nation.
Lianna Schmidt
5th Hour
Asha Brown 5th hour
The philosopher that didn’t appeal to me was Ricardo because of the Law Of Iron Wages. This made it hard for the working class to escape poverty. And one of the good reasons was that the poor would realize that they should save. I disagree because if prices keep increasing than that means they will never be able to afford anything.
The one that did appeal to me was Malthus because it made perfect sense. A population only can survive off of what it has. For example, food supply is something we can’t force to make food grow quicker. For other countries to get certain resources they might choose to go to war.
Another that appealed to me was Adam Smith he thought that the government should not have anything to do with the economy. If the government had a say, it would have a negative impact on the economy by having them control prices.
Another that appealed to me was John Stuart Mill argued that pleasures differ in quality as well as quantity and that the highest good involves the highest quality as well as quantity of pleasure.
1)I like the idea John Stewart Mills in particular has. I think his opinion is opened minded. Even though I do like Bentham’s ideas, I like that Mills wants a government a hand in addition to individual freedom. I think that in a way it’s the government’s fault the working class is failing. They barely have rights and it’s causing the economy to drop sufficiently and nothing would change unless the government had more representatives from the working class to be able to make some reforms. So, I think it would be their responsibility to help out the working class even just a little. I also like the ideas because the individual freedom makes sense. If we focus on the individuals of the working class and the upper class perhaps we can find a way to make everyone happy.
2)I completely disagree with Ricardo on his ideals. The idea that the government just stops helping all together and leaves the economy alone while making the working class sort it out by buying less and having less kids is absurd to me. They can’t do everything themselves while the upper class baths in money! They need to learn to care about the little people and maybe they wouldn’t have revolts or protests or complaints. The government needs to get off its high horse and give them a little push in the right direction and guide them to a better life. So, in my opinion they should start with some reforms.
KENNETH O'HANLON
1)The ideas of David Ricardo appeal most to me because I think that if the government were to let the people run the economy just as the people rule in a democracy then the “free” market would prosper and thrive just as the United States has with a constitutional democracy. I also am driven to his ideas countless time and time again because he said that the poor need to work hard, learn to save, and limit their family size. My mother always told me that I would be an Oakland Community College graduate and I keep refusing because I want to be greater than that, I know I can do better than that. I believe that David Ricardo was saying that a person could be or achieve almost anything in life as long as they’re determined and give 200% effort. His Iron Law of Wages is sensible because if the wages were to increase then it would cause the value of currency to drop because inflation would cause all the prices of necessities to rise.
2)All of the philosopher’s ideas appeal to me because the philosophy that each made is perceptive and sensible, but I would have to say Thomas Malthus’s philosophy is the least appealing because it is sad to believe that if humans continue our current lifestyle that we will pass the population limit of the Earth and that all humans will eventually start to fight wars with one another over the remaining resources. His philosophy is ingenious, but is also the cold, cruel, hard truth.
The ideas of philosopher Adam Smith most appeal to me. They all seem pretty positive, and true. The economy grows and shrinks and influences everyone when it does. Particularly now in Michigan, as the auto industry is struggling everyone else is affected. The water is going down and as people leave, other industries are suffering as well. The autoworkers who used to live here and buy products from other companies are no longer here or making enough money to buy these things and so other companies aren’t doing so well either. This causes a ripple effect that can move the water all over the world.
Ricardo’s idea of the Iron Law of Wages does not appeal to me. I believe that it is true in many cases, but it’s pretty harsh. The inescapable destiny for the poor to remain poor no matter how high the wages go is just cruel. They work so hard for that small amount of money, but it wouldn’t matter if the money was even more because the price would just keep rising with them. It’s like a hole that they can’t get out of unless they suddenly are pulled up into wealth. They just can’t break out of their class simply by raising the wages for everyone, individuals have to rise up. There will always be a poor working class because of this and it just seems unfair. I can understand why socialists would want to eliminate this lower class by sharing everything, but that doesn’t seem right either. There doesn’t really seem to be a solution that makes everyone happy. So I guess we just have to try to get the most happiness for the greatest number of people.
Donovan Hertz
1. Thomas Malthus philosophy was the best to me because his makes the most sense. I mean if you run out of food and water the people will die off, that is true. If you do not have enough warmth or anything such as clothes, you can not survive very long. You would also need a home or a place to live, and that goes along with Malthus’ ideas. This is saying that if the human race became so big that we used up all the food and warmth and shelter then we would not have anything to keep us alive or survive.
2. Ricardo’s ideas are very unappealing to me. It is just plan out rude and mean to make a law saying that the rich remain rich and the poor remain poor. It is like making rich people feel like they are the best and do not have to do anything. I think that the poor people should have a good say in this. I think that they should not have to pay as much as the rich people. That is just not fair. That is like saying that when Donald Trump when bankrupt he had to stay bankrupt for the rest of his life. Well that did not happen and look at him now.
Molly Sovran
4th
1. The one that appeals most to me is Adam Smith’s way of thinking. When he used the boat as a metaphor which was the concept of the invisible hand. When he describes the boat metaphor, he saying that no matter what your class is, the government will help you. It is a good way of thinking because he is thinking about everybody as a whole, and he is not missing anyone. He uses the invisible hand to show that a big hand, can lift anyone from financial ruin and that they will hopefully be okay, and they won’t be in ruin anymore.
2. I don’t like Ricardo’s philosophy. He is saying that the lower class shouldn’t be helped. He also says that the lower class needs to learn how to save and earn their way up, but not most people have the opportunity to do so. Maybe one day that could save up, but there is no way they could because they have to feed themselves and a family, and it just gets too pricy and you have no money saved. He also said that they shouldn’t have many kids, but that doesn’t mean anything to me. It doesn’t mean anything because yes more kids mean more food, money and such, but it doesn’t matter. No matter what, you need to buy food and it doesn’t matter the quantity or quality.
Emily 4th Hour
I agree with Malthus. He said that the world would run out of resources if we used them up too fast from population growth. The population could easily use up our resources, especially if we have a fast burst of population. With the new medicines and machines we have these days people our expected to live longer. We use oil, coal and other natural gases every day, and at this rate, they will be gone. I don’t completely agree that there will be a war; I think it could bond humans together in search of natural resources. It’s human nature to bond with someone if you are in a similar situation, and if you need each other to get out of it. It seems that bombing each other wouldn’t help anyone, so I don’t agree with the war.
I disagree with David Ricardo. The Poor does need help. They worked very hard, but their wages were terrible and no matter how much they worked, they still couldn’t reach the level of the upper class, which didn’t need to work. The iron Law of Wages seems like I horrible idea, why couldn’t they at least have a fair shot at overcoming poverty, not cheating them out of everything but still making them do all of the hard work.
1. I support the ideas of utilitarians Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
I agree with the utilitarian belief that the goal of society should be the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and I share in our support of individual freedoms and moderate government intervention in the economy. The economy should still be a free market with limited governmental involvement, but too loose of governmental restrictions can cause economic disaster. This was shown in the recent global collapse of the stock market and financial institutions. I, like Mill, also believe everyone of a certain age should be permitted to vote, members of the middle class should be taxed to assist the poor, the government should only intervene in economic affairs to improve the lives of its citizens and every person is entitled to happiness. I also agree with the utilitarian ideas that laws should be judged on their functionality and utility, and should provide happiness instead of preventing unhappiness.
2. I oppose the philosophies of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and socialism.
Adam Smith and David Ricardo both supported laissez-faire, which encourages the government to keep its hands off the economy, or let it be. Smith argued that government regulation artificially and negatively affects the economy. However, if the government doesn’t control the economy enough, the results can be catastrophic. As mentioned before, this was shown by the recent failure of the stock market and financial institutions. The United States government eased its regulations and people became greedy, immoral and corrupt, causing most financial institutions to fail and the stock market to plummet. Ricardo also opposed poverty relief, which I don’t agree with. I believe wealthier people have an obligation to assist the poor. Ricardo stated that the poor should use the free market, work hard, and save to escape poverty instead of relying on charitable handouts. This approach is logical, but also very greedy (as the wealthier Ricardo does not want to give up his money to help the poor), and, in my opinion, should be utilized along with governmental aid to improve the lives of the impoverished.
I dislike socialism because it involves excessive governmental control of the economy. I believe the means of production should be privately owned, in contrast to socialism in which they are controlled by the government. If the government is charge of the means of production, an indestructible monopoly is created. The government can dictate production and prices and there is no larger authority (such as a government in a free market economy) to break it up.
1. I like Thomas Malthus’ philosophy the most. The more people there are in the world, the less there is available, therefore, the death rate would be increased dramatically. People could potentially start fights over food, water, shelter, and other things. Clothing would also be gone. People would start stealing things from stores. Wars would then break out throughout Europe. Countries could be annihilated. I don’t mean to sound bleak like this, but it’s plausible. Like Thomas Malthus, I would have also encouraged families to have less children and use money to bring their own social class upwards in the system.
2. I dislike the idea that David Ricardo had. He opposed help for the poor. I believe that for a country to be successful, everyone needs to contribute. No help for the poor may encourage more work, but then the country itself doesn’t look “good” or prosperous. Although the poor may work, that means the “supply” of workers will go up, and the “demand” will go down, therefore the workers won’t get paid very much at all. That would mean, according to this “Law of Iron Wages,” the poor would not be able to rise in the social order.
Andrew Alder
Adam smith, being my favorite philosopher, said one of my favorite quotes of the year. “The Invisible Hand in which a growing economy lifts all boats, using the metaphor whether you're in a yacht, a canoe, a life raft, or a speed boat.” This is completely true if the market does well then everyone will be better off, both the rich and the poor. The hand is predigest to no one, it lifts all. Whatever can be done to help this economy must be done for the good of everyone.
Ricardo was my least favorite philosopher because he claimed that there was no way anyone could escape poverty. I never like to believe the something isn’t possible, no matter how extreme. I like the unexpected, the thrill that runs through you body when the underdog wins. Now he says that something as trivial as a” Iron Law of Wages” can’t stop someone but crushing their hope and letting them fend for themselves , saying that the market should do it is wrong. The truth is Ricardo’s success is completely dependent on the poor working class, as is the success of many other profitable people in this time period..
Andrew Alder
1. I think Adam Smith’s ideas appeal most to me because they promoted a “hands-off” approach from the government. He also heavily supported laissez-faire economics which allows the people of the nation to control the economy without any government interference, allowing the possibility to move up in society for the lower class. I also agree with Smith because he says that government influence would artificially influence the economy and make people think they are richer or poorer than they actually are. This theory was called the “Invisible Hand”. This was where the government makes reforms to market and the way the economic system work to artificially give people money that doesn’t exist, in an attempt to jump start the economy. All history has told us that when the government does this, they most likely will fail.
2. The idea of socialism in itself doesn’t appeal to me because it creates a gigantic gap in economic status and income between the rich and the poor. The system of socialism proposed that the government owns the means of production, which are factories, transportation, and large businesses. Socialism condemns private, individual businesses and private belongings. In a socialist society, the people are treated as “the people”, not as human being individuals who want to be individual and unique and chose their own path and such. This is one of the main reasons why socialism isn’t anywhere close to appealing for me.
M. Allen
5th Hour
1. When I am limited to the specificity of this question, it is fair to say that I share views with Thomas Malthus. If someone was to thoroughly scan his section of the blog, they would see that what he is saying is completely relevant and logical. If a number representing needs sky rockets above the number representing supplies, a shortage is nearly impossible to avoid. The negligence of the issue that was so noticeably present back then, and now, has without a doubt summed up to the hardships, famines, people without jobs, poverty, etc. Although nearly everyone is aware of the population issue, they choose not to take any action to improve and later get rid of the situation altogether.
2. David Ricardo’s views contradict everything I believe in economy-wise. Help for the poor should be the highest priority, not the middle to upper class. True, some people that are experiencing poverty choose the lifestyle because of their laziness, but those people should not be able to ruin the opportunity of gaining for the people who deserve it, but someone cannot try to run an economy with that type of mindset. It’s cruel, not thought out, and utterly unethical
Blog # 20
Declan Gibbons said-
1) Adam Smith’s policy appeals to me the most. I feel this because the lower class shouldn’t just have everything handed to them they need to work for it. Because if the poor go to school and do well and get a good education are country can compete easier with others. I also think Adam Smith is right about not wanting the government to get involved because it would badly influence the economy.
2) I think Ricardo’s is probably the worst. I think this because he refuses to help the poor. To help the poor you don’t have to give them welfare. You can do things that improve schools because where it starts is education. A lot of poverty rarely even show up to school. If you make the schools nicer more people are more likely to come. I also don’t think he’s right about the “Iron Laws of Wages”. I think he’s wrong because I feel that wages depend on inflation. I think this because the more prices go up the more money people will be needing to be able to buy everyday necessities. Also he’s wrong about the working class escaping poverty. There are people now with blue collar jobs who are well off and aren’t poor.
Brad Sloan
1. I think Adam Smith's policy is the best. I think this because the poor should not be giving what they have not earned. If they worked hard then they could prevent the trouble that they are in. If they all went to school they will help keep up with other countries.
2. I think Ricardo's policy is the worst because he does not even want to help the poor in any way. The poor need some help in some way. If they are not helped then the country will fall behind others in education. Also the poor will grow in population and they will be not as wealthy as others.
The one I thought appealed me was the philosophy of Ricardo because he offered to help with the poor with laissez - faire, also because the free market helped the poor and they needed to learn how to save the jobs and lower the family's in sizes because it was getting to expensive to pay and get jobs for big family's. Ricardo had a idea of iron law of wages which ment the classes couldnt stop poverty because the wages of food, homes, and clothing would raise in prices. This is the one that i think mostly appealed to me.
The one that didnt really appeal me was Adam Smith the philosopher because theres nothing better then helping the poor, also i dont find it as interesting of writting books. Adam Smith published his book that he wrote which was called The Wealth of Nations, in the book talked about the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Adam Smith also discussed one of the books called The Invisible Hand. Also in the economy lifts all boats no matter in your in any type of boat canoe yacht life raft and or speed boat. Adam was involved in the concept of laissez -faire which the gov't had to leave the economy alone because it was so bad. This idea of the philosopher didnt appeal me as much as Ricardos idea.
Grace F
I think all these philosophers had great ideas about the world and how it works. But Thomas Malthus was the best. He was right when he said if the people increase faster than resources there will not be of the resources for all the people. When the people’s population eventually does exceed the available amount of supplies such as land, water, and food, there will be havoc. Riots will break out, Crimes rates will raise, and an increased death rate. His Idea is good advice, even to the modern world leaders of today.
The idea I do not support is David Ricardo’s. I oppose his idea of no hope for the poor. As I do believe the poor need to be taught to limit family size and save money, I think they first need money to save. They need to get government grants to go to school or open a business. This would help them become successful members of society. His iron wage thought is also wrong. I do believe that with enough hard work, the working class could escape poverty. This has already proved itself as factory workers, and other members of the working class, live in houses with enough food and water.
Alan P.
The philosopher that appeals to me the most is Adam Smith. He appeals to me the most because he believed in freedom of the people the most. He didn’t think that people should limit young or that they are stuck in whatever class they land in but he thought that if people worked hard they could do whatever they wanted. Another reason that I like Adam Smith is that he believed that the people should control the economy, not the government. Although this idea of laissez-faire hasn’t worked very well for the American economy lately it was a revolutionary idea that helped many in the 1800s both financially and possibly even mentally.
The philosopher that appeals to me the least is David Ricardo. I like him the least for several reasons. The main reason is that although his ideas that inflation will always occur made sense he never believed in the thought that people could rise up in the class system even though many people (the new money especially) did during the industrial revolution. Another reason his ideas don’t appeal to me is that he said the government shouldn’t help the poor. The idea of government is to serve and protect the people of a certain nation. The government needs to help the poor, just not too much or the poor will become reliant on them.
Michael N.
Ben Hafen, 5th Hour
1. Given these three choices, I would have to say that I agree the most with the ideas of Adam Smith. The government should not be given power to control private industry; isn't that why we have a free market economy? When they do interfere (which seems to be quite a bit lately, despite the free market), it only hinders the progress of our industries. The market should be regulated by the market, and the market alone.
2. All three of the main philosophies featured had glimmers of truth and reason, the other two also had some unsavory factors in them. Thomas Malthus's theory on the world's resources was realistic and applicable to today's society, I found it too pessimistic. Might this philosopher have studied up a tad too much on Thomas Hobbes? David Ricardo's ideas just didn't sound right to me. Yes, the poverty-stricken do need to work instead of wallowing in self-pity and begging like a good fraction of them seem to do, but they won't be able to do it by themselves. The government, despite my ideas, could at least involve themselves when needed. One of the ways that they could do this is by at least giving those in poverty a small push in the right direction to get them on their feet.
Cassidy Cyr
4th hour
1. The philosopher who’s ideas most appeal to me is the British economist, John Stuart Mill. Mill’s opinions were influenced by Jeremy Benthem who was also a British economist. These gentlemen believed in individual freedom along with a degree of government intervention when needed to improve the lives of the poor working class. While they were of the opinion that middle class business, and factory owners were intilited to increase their happiness, the government should not allow this accomplishment at the cost of harm to lower class workers. Mill also favored the right to vote among workers and women in this way they would have a chance to win reforms using their political power. The modern day result of the Mill theory pretty much sums up a democratic government.
2. The least appealing philosophy would be that of Karl Marx. Along with a Germen socialist, Friedrich Engels they authored a pamphlet titled “The Communist Manifesto” which gave equal power to the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The proletariat (have- not’s) would at some time take control over the bourgeoisie (haves) and create a classless, equal society.
These Philosohies all have a good purpose and have a good point to them, i would have to agree with Thomas Malfus and Adam smith the most. i think that smiths and thomas' made the most sense and had the best meaning to it. the idea on how when the population increases you will need much more resources to feed them and cloth them and house them. the more people that are in a population the more crimes and things to that sort will happen. Smith was so correct on how the citizens should have control of the government and waht happens because THEY know what is good for THEM not the rich government officals.
The philosophy that i would have to say was my least favorite, and the least useful whould have to be
Ricardos because he was so focused on the wealthy and could care less about the poor people. the poor people make up most of the population so if they arent ahppy then you arent doing your job right. those are my favorite and my least favorite philosophies.
Chase TUrner
Nick Morley
If I had to pick one of the two then I would probably pick utilitarianism. I think that they have the right ideas about how they should treat the people. The problem that they would run into is raising taxes to make the public services better. If you do raise the tax the people will be mad but if the country doesn’t do anything then they won’t be happy if they can find a perfect balance then it would be the best solution even though I don’t know any countries that have it.
Socialism seems like the worst way to go because the government wants to help the people just like utilitarianism but they try to do it by taking all businesses and controlling them. I think that it just sounds like the government taking power away from the people and keeping it for themselves. Socialism also makes it so if you are in the lower class you can never get out of it because you can’t have a business to yourself but you can work for one. The upper class would also be smaller because it would only be people that are in the upper government. People may think that free healthcare or something owned by the government sounds good but you still pay for everything in taxes.
The Idea of Adam Smith's definition of utilitarianism appeals more to me. It is designed to cater to individual needs, rather that majority, however, a democracy would still be better than a monarchy. With Utilitarianism, a free market would allow an entrepreneur to realize his ideas without limitations on what the government already owns, or having to depend on a government-owned materials supplier to stay in business.
My least favorite philosophy is Socialism. Public ownership of the means of production is not good for the anyone looking to rise much in their clas, as the government supplies you. If the government needs money, you are paying for something they did. however, in a free market, there are bound to be competitors in every level of production, so prices will be regulated amongst themselves and you will have an option(usually) on price, rather then the gov't deciding for you.
Wickersham
4th hour
I think that Adam Smith’s beliefs of a free market and laissez-faire government are something I agree with. He thought that the government should not be over powering, and interfere with the economy. He believed that it should be allowed to run itself. I agree with this idea. I think that without government interference people will be more willing to help the economy, and more willing to get involved. If the government is always giving the economy bail outs, and always helping people when they get into financial trouble, than other people will not step in to help. They will become reliant on the government to fix the problems, and not their own investments.
I disagree the most with Ricardo’s ideas. He believes that it would not be possible for the working class to escape poverty, so why try to help them. He thought that eventually they will figure out a way to fix their problems. I think that if you give them the right skills, they can get better jobs. The poor working class also have to learn how to become self reliant. We need to give them a boost, instead of leaving them alone to sort out there problems.
1.) The philosopher whose ideas most appeal to me I guess would be John Stuart Mill. I picked John because he doesn’t like slavery at all, and he believes that an individual ought to be free do as they wish unless they harm others. I agree with that because people now and days don’t have any concern about hurting others, whether it to get something or to have a cheap laugh, people will hurt others in the process. Many people don’t feel guilty about it and may do it because they want attention or that they are listening to the devil on their shoulders. I think some people may take the First Amendment a little too seriously sometimes.
2.) The ideas that don’t appeal to me are I guess would be Ricardo. I chose Ricardo because I agree that the free market should help the poor, but I don’t really agree with the whole limit their family size, because so what if they want a biggish family? The free market should be able to help no matter what size. I do agree that since the prices always seem to get higher and higher, that the working class can’t escape poverty. It’s happening now as well, with the whole Economy problems.
Christina Lieder
5th
1. I don't necessarily agree with any of these ideas, but if I had to choose one it would be Adam Smith. I choose this because he doesn't try to help only one class, he is thinking of everyone from wealthy to poor. He thinks the people should take care of themselves, without the government butting in. I like the idea of everyone being satisfied, not singling out one class. With Adam Smith's philosophy it will benefit everyone in some way.
2. The idea that doesn't appeal to me is David Ricardo's view. He was against helping the poor. He thought that the free market should help them and that they need to learn how to work and save and limit their family size. I completely disagree with that. If anything, we should help the poor the most because they need help the most. Not everyone grows up wealthy and once you grow up in poverty, you most likely stay in poverty even if you work really hard. I feel thats not fair.
Brett Bernhardt
The philosopher Adam Smith appeals to me the most because a laissez-faire government is limited and does not pick winners or losers in the economy. A rising tide rises all boats which means the better the economy does, the better all people do. Capitalism and a free market system has proven to provide the best economy. The government should not help the poor, providing this help should be done through private organizations, like the Salvation Army, Red Cross, and Church Groups to provide food and shelter. Because when the government provides everything, there is no incentive to get off the programs. Like food stamps, aid to dependent children, cell phones, and 99 weeks of unemployment. The governments only function should be to secure the borders, provide a climate for economic growth, and defend the country.
The philosopher Karl Marx does not appeal to me at all because Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Look at Greece, they provided their people with everything and now they have nothing. For example, the government tried to provide social equality and now the government is bankrupt. Socialism provides no incentives to its people to advance themselves or inspire creativity. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have." Rights come from God not from Government.
Out of the three philosophers, the one with the ideas that appeal the most to me is Adam Smith. I agree that government involvement in the economy should be excluded. This will let the economy develop itself and find out ways to prosper. If the government intervenes, it might benefit only some groups of people and give others a disadvantage. It could also benefit them for a short time, but then wear off and cause the whole economy to decline. I also agree with the concept of laissez-faire and that we shouldn’t really help the poor. They should learn to work hard and reap the rewards by themselves, not expect their country to give them everything they need to live.
Out of the three philosophers, the one the appeals the least to me is David Ricardo. While he also believed in laissez-faire, which I agree with, he believed that the economy should help the poor, which I don’t agree with. A proverb that could explain this is: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. If we teach children at school, eventually they will be able to learn to be successful in the world.
I agree with the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham that the goal should be the greatest hapinees for the greatest number. The goal is that actions or laws should provide more pleasure than pain. The philosophy that does not appeal to me is the idea of Socialism. Socialism and the ideas of Karl Marx were to eliminate the classes. One person would not be able to achieve more than the other. I believe that this idea is the opposite of Democracy and Democracy is what allows us to have freedom.
Mack
Steve Attard
1) I agree with what Malthus said because I think that the same thing too. If the world becomes over populated then we will go mad. The would will not be able to support all the people that are living in it and we would run out of food water and shelter. Every country in the world would go mad because we wouldn’t know what to do and they would be fighting over good and foods and shelter and land which will be very hard to come by.
2) I don’t really agree with what Ricardo had to say because I think everything it said in the description would have a negative effect on the economy and would not be good for the society. He said things like not helping the poor, I think that’s wrong because if you want to better the economy you will need people to be able to run farms to grow the agriculture. It wsounds to me that he is also saying the people wont be able to up what social class they are in because whenever there wages grow so will the prices on the goods that they buy so they will never get out of poverty.
Zach Boinais
4th hour
1)The idea that appeals to me the most is Adam Smith’s because i think that the government should stay out of the economy. When the government gets to involved in the economy it artificially lifts it up, when the economy is fixing itself the government breaks it down again. The metaphor that says in which a growing economy lifts all boats. Meaning that a growing economy will bring everyone up.
2) The idea that doesn't appeal to me is Thomas Malthus’, because he says that if the population keeps growing faster than the food supply that people would die off. I don’t necessarily agree with that and that people could contend with difficulties like a little less food or maybe not so many dresses and jewels and such. Also he says that countries would go to war for resources, but their have almost always been wars over resources. The people would solve the problems and if they had to return to primitive manners to survive.
I’d have to say that Malthus had the best Philosophy because it was very well thought out and it made a lot of sense. He was right when he said that the population could only survive and strive off of the things you have. You can’t use what you don’t have. So this was really smart and just the thought of countries starting to go to war over every day needs and supplies would not turn out so good. That would also mean more people would die off. So his philosophy was smart and really gives you something to think about and/or watch out for.
The philosophy that I didn’t like was Ricardo’s. I believe were all people and no matter what type if working class were in, we all need financial help every now and then. So many people would die off if the poor remained poor and the wealthy didn’t even help. I just thought that philosophy was very selfish and mean.
-Karly Montgomery’
Aaron Lewis %th hour
I Like Malthus Because he examined ideas of population and food supply and said that if the population grows to much over the food supply people would die off until the population was back under it. This could cause wars between countries for food and supplies which is bad. The reason why I like him is because he is right and wants to help people survive by telling them what could happen if the population were to increase past the level of food and supplies. I also like John Smiths Philosophy on the laissez-faire which is basically where the government has no hand in small business. I like this philosophy because it stands up for the little business owners and helps them make more money. These two philosophers helped there time with these ideas on how thing should be and what can happen if they don’t change. There ideas might of scared people in ways but it will help them in the long run.
1) Of these philosopher’s, I would have to say that the ideals of Adam Smith appeal most to me. Adam Smith’s idea of Laissez Faire, allowing the market to go its course without government interference or help, was a very well rounded economic strategy. He wrote a book about this idea of Laissez Faire, called The Wealth of Nations. In it he discussed how if the government left the economy alone with no help to the poor or anyone else, then when the economy is good, it’s good for everyone, no matter what their financial status is. I think that if the U.S. took up Adam Smith’s policies, we would be in a much better position, without a debt of 10 trillion dollars.
2) Out of these ideas, those of Thomas Malthus don’t appeal to me the most. I don’t like Thomas Malthus’ viewpoints and ideals because they are very negative, and glass half empty. He says that everyone is going to starve, and not live a nice life if things don’t change. I think it’s actually true, but the negativity of it does not appeal to me, and I would not want to think that is how things will end up.
Jack Arvai 4th hour
Adam Smith's ideas appeal the most to me because his ideas are all fair to everybody--the poor, middle-class, and wealthy. He is also not against population growth, because although an EXTREMELY large population is bad, I believe that population growth at a steady pace is a way of life. His concept of laissez-faire is good because it keeps a solid separation between the government and economy, and that is, in my opinion, important to economic growth.
The ideas that don't appeal to me are Ricardo's. Although I do like the laissez-faire policy, I do not like that he does not support help for the poor. I think that if a country is going to get stronger economically, you have to start from the bottom up, which makes helping the poor a priority. Also, the idea that reducing family size will save money is an absurd idea, because if people began to accept that idea our population would decline and more and more couples would not have children, which in the future would HURT our economy.
Calvin Greer
My favorite philosophy was the one that Adam Smith stood behind because it had the chance to make life better for everyone no matter what social class you were in. Also it was a way to make a more stable and better economy for everyone. When he used the metaphor: good economy lifts all boats no matter if you are in a yacht or canoe. This philosophy was for the common good of the people and that’s how I knew it was my favorite.
My least favorite was the third one because it didn’t help the poor. In my opinion the reasoning for a new philosophy was to help all people in need and the philosophy that David Ricardo stood behind was helping everybody but the people in need. Ricardo believed in the iron laws of wages. I don’t like this idea because it doesn’t help everyone, we all should be equal.
Jason M.
Brad Sloan
1. I think Adam Smith's policy is the best. I think this because the poor should not be giving what they have not earned. If they worked hard then they could prevent the trouble that they are in. If they all went to school they will help keep up with other countries. They need to keep up with other countries to create more powerful weapons to fight against them if needed. Also they need to get an education to be able to negotiate with other countries if needed. An education will help gain all of these.
2. I think Ricardo's policy is the worst because he does not even want to help the poor in any way. The poor need some help in some way. If they are not helped then the country will fall behind others in education. Also the poor will grow in population and they will be not as wealthy as others. These will possibly lead to losses in wars or no industrial revolution which will put them way behind the other countries.
Tom Power
Blog 20
1.) the philosopher Adam Smith ideas best appeal to me because of his concept of the invisible hand and the boat metaphor witch is saying no matter what your class is, the government will help you. Witch is a good thought because the government needs to help the rich people and the poor people and all the people in between not just on class. I also agree with Adam Smith because he agrees with the concept of laissez-faire where the government leaves the economy alone Because if it did not it would and negatively influence the economy. I like the idea of little limited government.
2.) The philosopher Thomas Malthus ideas don’t appeal to me because I feel that his idea that if the population keeps growing then we will run out of food is common sence and it is not really that genius.
Post a Comment