THIRD READING

The main point of this paper is socialism, which consists of a theory, doctrine or
social practice that proposes the public appropriation of the means of
production and the suppression of differences between social classes. This
system suggests a gradual reform of capitalist society, distinguishing itself from
communism, which was more radical and defended the end of the capitalist
system and the fall of the bourgeoisie through an armed revolution.
The idea that I liked the most was the following: “In one way or another,
socialists now seem more interested in bringing the free market under control
than in eliminating it completely”.
Free markets have some advantages. In a free market, producers produce what
consumers want, at a reasonable price, giving the consumers a larger range of
choice; Free markets reduce cost, lead to more innovation, research and
development; Guided by the invisible hand, entrepreneurs take a risk to fulfil
consumer demand. Those entrepreneurs who succeed are rewarded with
profits; Resources in the market are better distributed and allocated and it also
encourages firms to be more efficient as they seek to produce at the lowest
price possible to maximize their profit.
In this way some of the advantages of a free market are still present, despite
under control.
On the other hand, I did not agree with the following statement: “the third way
reduced equality to an equal chance to compete in economies in which the rich
were growing ever richer and the poor were increasingly disadvantaged”. In my
opinion, this statement is taken to the extreme because it does not have into
consideration that this current of thought defends a "necessary State", in which
its interference is neither, nor maximal, as in socialism, nor minimal, as in
liberalism. It also defends, among other points, the fiscal responsibility of the
rulers, the fight against misery, a tax burden proportional to income, and also
the State being responsible for safety, health, education and welfare.

FOURTH READING
The topic of the chapter that we were supposed to analyse is “Spirit Capitalism”,
where they try to formulate the best conceptual formulation of what we
understand by this name.

In this reading I especially liked two ideas stated by Benjamin Franklin “Money
can beget money, and its offspring can beget more, and so on. The more there
is of it, the more it produces every turning, so that the profits rise quicker and
quicker.” and “Remember that credit is money. If a man lets his money lie in my
hands after it is due, he gives me interest, or so much as I can make of it during
that time. This amounts to a considerable sum where a man has good and large
credit, and makes good use of it.”. To justify both, I will use a counter-argument
stated by Aristotle, who formerly argued that:” money, unlike production, is
barren and money does not beget money”. In his opinion, the exchange of one
good for another good was natural, because it was a necessity; but the
exchange of a good for money, for the purpose of gain, was unnatural. Also, he
rejected the payment of interest on the grounds of morality. The problem with
his position, was that he was viewing money from a consumer’s view and not
from an entrepreneurial one, where gains can be equally beneficial. As so,
money begets money and payment interest can be justified as fairness.

FIFTH READING
This last paper approaches Pension systems, which main goal is to provide an
income to persons whose capacity to work is weak due to age, a disability, or
the death of a wage earner in the family. It is used, in the majority of the cases,
to provide a mechanism whereby the individual might insure himself against the
loss of future earnings.
By analysing this reading I especially sympathized with the system of some
countries: “most high- and middle-income countries with contributory systems
also offer minimal benefits for those people who do not qualify” – page 6. In this
way, all the groups that are at risk of poverty in old age, for example self-
employed or farmers, that are not covered by the national pension system
because it is difficult to assess income and collect contributions from these
groups, are then helped by these minimal benefits.
Nevertheless, I do not agree with one of the arguments used to justify the use of
a pension system, which is the following:” Second, a pension system tries to
smooth consumption between the working years and the retirement years so
that an individual does not suffer a huge drop in living standards when old age”
– page 2.
First of all, in my opinion, I think it is up to each individual to know when and
where to spend their hard-earned money. Different people have different
philosophies about this topic. Thus, some believe that money should be spent
when younger due to, for example, the better capacity of physical movement
and/or the mind spirit at these ages. Also, following this idea, people who earn
more and consume more during their working years, should continue to receive
and consume more during their retirement years. This creates disparity, that is
richer people get a higher pension than poor ones.