Dat inequality

[rong]

I don't agree that more luxury should be a primary goal of human beings. How about living in sustainable harmony with the planet and each other. It seems capitalism is at odds with that which I think is kind of sad.

[Renton]

I don't agree that more luxury should be a primary goal of human beings. How about living in sustainable harmony with the planet and each other. It seems capitalism is at odds with that which I think is kind of sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow'...archy_of_needs

Pre-industrial societies and nascent developing economies are comprised of people who struggle to achieve the bottom levels of need. As the wealth of an economy grows, its people are able to spend their time and resources fulfilling needs higher up the pyramid. We can see examples of this in modern society as people with middle class incomes are able to afford psychiatry, while people in struggling countries of Africa struggle to stay fed and sheltered.

So, no, being able to afford cinnamon flavored edible panties isn't necessarily the goal of human beings, but that would be a crass example of ascending the pyramid. In poor societies marriages are often arranged solely for financial gain and out of mutual financial necessity. By contrast, wealthier people are more readily able to marry for love.

Also, isn't industrialisation more of a reason for the increase in living standards than capitalism, although I agree the two have developed hand in hand.

Industrialization happened during a period of time that that is referred to as the "gilded age" or the age of robber-barons. This is also generally agreed upon to be the closest thing to unfettered capitalism that has ever existed. These so called robber-barons did more to enrich the lives of the people of their day than a hundred Steve Jobses. Yet this is an age of history that is looked upon with great disdain by collectivist-leaning scholars and economists.