The capilaism and socialism are two political-economics trends. Socialism focuses on a totally equal society, where everybody are equal, everybody have the same things, no one has more or less than others, Capitalism on the other hand focuses on the produccion of capital or money, in creating wealth and in the private property. but which is better? I really think that the two are good, but the two also have their negative part, starting with socialism, I think that the socialism is good, people are the ones who corrupt, people are greedy, bad, evil, envidious, they look for the weak point of others to take advantage of them. for example: a society that are a little poor, they live in socialism, but some people need more power, more money (because the greedy), and they begin to steal, in that moment the equal lost, and the socialism stop working, and the society can't be better, because takes two steps forward and back one (As Natalia says). The Capitalism is good, the state is the one who have to be better, the state must ensure that all people have access to education, healt, work, bassic needs, etc. If the state does not ensure that the people will be sick, illiterate, and they must not perfomr work, and thus not earn money. but I think that Capitalism is better because you have the freedom to choose if you want to work and earn money or just be a bumm. And in the Socialism you can be a doctor or a bricklayer, but both will earn about the same amount of money, because everybody have the same things that others.
I leave you with this video, is about Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Prize of Economics, with his theory of freedom of choice.
That old man only can say that because he is one of the powerful people I don’t think that the people with less recourses and with a little of conscience can say the same thing.
ResponderEliminarbut your post is not bad....
oh! yes, I think that your comment is good, but if you look at their past Milton Friedman was raised in a family of Hungarian Jewish immigrants,His father was the owner of a textile factory that went bankrupt during the Great Depression.
ResponderEliminarso, I'm not saying that he lived in the greatest misery, but neither was the son of a family with a lot of money,he had to work in restaurants and shops to cooperate with a scholarship to study.
so i think that,not because someone is a person with less recourses not have the capacity to be better.
yea, both have terrible errors that makes me cry ;_;
ResponderEliminarxD
I like how you organize the post, because is nice to read definitions first and then what you think about them!!!
ResponderEliminar