MA. CRISTINA A.

LABAY, MM, SPBE

Doctor in Business Administration
CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy is a book on economics (and in other levels,
on sociology and history) by Joseph Schumpeter, arguably the most (or one of the
most) famous, debated and important book by Schumpeter, [1][2][3][4] and one of the most
famous, debated and important books on social theory, social sciences and economics,
[5]
in which he deals with capitalism, socialism and creative destruction. First published
in 1942, it is largely unmathematical, compared withneoclassical works, focusing on the
unexpected, rapid spurts of entrepreneur-driven growth instead of static models. [6]

Part I: The Marxian DoctrinE

Schumpeter devotes the first 56 pages of the book to an analysis of Marxian thought
and the place within it for entrepreneurs. Noteworthy is the way that Schumpeter points
out the difference between the capitalist and the entrepreneur, a distinction that he
claims Marx would have been better served to make (p. 52). The analysis of Marx is
broken down into four roles that Schumpeter ascribes to the writer (prophet, sociologist,
economist, and teacher). The section Marx the Prophet explains that if nothing else
Marx would have been received well by people who needed a theory to explain what
was happening in their society. The section Marx the Sociologist focuses on how Marx's
theory of class fits in with the larger intellectual traditions of the day and how it
superseded them in at least its ability to synthesize sociological thought. The section
Marx the Economist focuses on Marx's economic theory and judges it excessively
"stationary" (pp. 27, 31). He also deals with the concept of crisis and business cycle,
two economic theories that Marx pioneered (p. 39). The last section, Marx the Teacher,
evaluates the usefulness of Marx's thought to interpret the events of his time and those
between his death and Schumpeter's time. Schumpeter claims that any theory of crisis
gains support when crises occur, and points to some areas where Marx's theories have
failed to predict. On page 53 he argues that the theory better predicts English and Dutch
colonial experiences in the Tropics but fails when applied to New England for example.

Part II: Can Capitalism Survive?[edit]

Schumpter answers "no" in the prologue to this section. But he says, If a doctor
predicts that his patient will die presently, he wrote, this does not mean that he desires
it. The section consists of 100 pages with the following ten topics: The Rate of Increase
of Total Output, Plausible Capitalism, The Process of Creative Destruction, Monopolistic
Practices, Closed Season, The Vanishing of Investment Opportunity, The Civilization of
Capitalism, Crumbling Walls, Growing Hostility, and Decomposition. Of these, Creative
destruction has been absorbed into standard economic theory. This section constructs a
view of capitalism which ultimately tends toward corporatism which, he suggests, will be
its own undoing.
Part III: Can Socialism Work?
In this section comparative analysis of known theories of socialism are explored. The
five sections in this Part are: Clearing Decks, The socialist Blueprint, Comparison of
Blueprints, The Human Element, and Transition.
Part IV: Socialism and Democracy
This section debates how well democracy and socialism will fit together. The four
sections of this Part include, The Setting of the Problem, The Classical Doctrine of
Democracy, Another Theory of Democracy, and The Inference.

Part V: A Historical Sketch of Socialist Parties

This part develops five periods of socialist thought. Before Marx, Marx's time, 1875 to
1914 (Prior to WWI), The interwar period, and Schumpeter's contemporary post-war
period.

Capitalism and socialism

Schumpeter's theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form
of corporatism and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism, especially among
intellectuals. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to
thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by socialism in some form.
There will not be a revolution, but merely a trend for social democratic parties to
be elected to parliaments as part of the democratic process. He argued that capitalism's
collapse from within will come about as majorities vote for the creation of a welfare
state and place restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and eventually
destroy the capitalist structure. Schumpeter emphasizes throughout this book that he is
analyzing trends, not engaging in political advocacy.
In his vision, the intellectual class will play an important role in capitalism's demise. The
term "intellectuals" denotes a class of persons in a position to develop critiques of
societal matters for which they are not directly responsible and able to stand up for the
interests of strata to which they themselves do not belong. One of the great advantages
of capitalism, he argues, is that as compared with pre-capitalist periods, when education
was a privilege of the few, more and more people acquire (higher) education. The
availability of fulfilling work is however limited and this, coupled with the experience of
unemployment, produces discontent. The intellectual class is then able to organise
protest and develop critical ideas against free markets and private property, even
though these institutions are necessary for their existence. [7] This analysis is similar to
that of the philosopher Robert Nozick, who argued that intellectuals were bitter that the
skills so rewarded in school were less rewarded in the job market, and so turned
against capitalism, even though they enjoyed vastly more enjoyable lives under it than
under alternative systems.[8]
In Schumpeter's view, socialism will ensure that the production of goods and services is
directed towards meeting the 'authentic needs' of the people of Hungary [9] and
Albania[citation needed] and will overcome some innate tendencies of capitalism such as
conjecture fluctuation, unemployment and waning acceptance of the system. [citation
needed]
According to some analysts, Schumpeter's theories of the transition of capitalism
into socialism were nearly right [10] except that he did not anticipate the obvious recent
failure of socialism in Eastern Europe nor the role of technology to actually foster
innovation and entrepreneurship in western society beginning in the 1980s. This was in
contrast to Schumpeter's theory that technology would only serve to concentrate
ownership and wealth towards large corporations.

Creative destruction[edit]
Main article: Creative destruction
The book also introduced the term 'creative destruction' to describe innovative entry
by entrepreneurs was the force that sustained long-term economic growth, even as it
destroyed the value of established companies that enjoyed some degree
of monopoly power. Because of the significant barriers to entry that monopolies
enjoyed, new entrants would have to be radically different: ensuring fundamental
improvement was achieved, not a mere difference of packaging. The threat of market
entry would keep monopolists and oligopolists' disciplined and competitive, ensuring
they invest their profits in new products and ideas. Schumpeter believed that it was this
innovative quality that made capitalism the best economic system.

The challenges

Challenge 1: The Constitution

The pace of change in our world brought about by technological advances, is near
exponential. If the US Constitution is the foundation of our philosophy of democracy,
then can it be as dynamic as the rapidly changing situations within our country, a living
document?

On one hand, many people today are unaware of the oppressive religious situations in
Europe that compelled the writers of the US Constitution to guarantee us freedom of
religion. Like zealots, they would label the US a "Christian" country and lead us toward
a theocratic state. Many are unaware of the unjust legal processes that existed in
Europe and compelled the writers of the Constitution to spell out legal freedoms. Today
the right to a speedy trial is nearly meaningless with people hauled off to jail to wait up
to a year for a hearing because they can't make bail - we have allowed rights to slip.
There is a need for the US Constitution to be a bedrock foundation that isn't dislodged
by poor memory. There is a valid case to be made for the Constitution to be carved in
stone (Constitutional Conservatism).

On the other hand, the writers of the Constitution were not bothered by such problems
as drug addiction; Internet crime; diseases and environmental damage caused by
smoking and pollution; automobile accidents; and a myriad of other unforeseen modern
problems. Problems aside, does the Constitution continue to reflect our collective
values? As people see needs within our society that can be addressed collectively, does
the Constitution permit us to do that? Can the Constitution grow with us, or does it
legally handicap us by coming face to face with the Supreme Court and the Legislature?
There is a valid case for the Constitution to be more easily adapted to the changes in
values in our society.

For example, the recent legislative health care reform mandated that everyone
purchase insurance. Subsequently the voters in Missouri passed a ballot initiative that
stated that the Federal Government cannot force individuals to purchase insurance.
Without near 100% participation, we go back to rapidly increasing health care costs for
everyone and millions without access to health care. In a similar initiative, voters in
California passed a ballot initiative banning same sex "marriage." Both issues will likely
go to the Supreme Court where the public will of the moment will be endorsed or
quashed by its ruling. Both issues might ultimately be resolved only by amendments to
the Constitution, and may face constitutional challenges even then.

Challenge 2: Over-reliance on law

Every law made by the legislature puts restrictions on someone besides the offenders
the law was intended to stop. You can't have enough laws. Really. To prevent every type
of abuse of others, and there are new ways every day, and to regulate everything so
that it can't be abused, you have to create endless laws. And each one of these laws
puts restrictions on people who don't need them. And there is no way that anyone can
learn and remember that many laws. The law is an endlessly growing burden on people.

As examples: I have noted the burdens placed on citizens by the states, in their mania
to get everyone legal and paid. A few years ago I licensed a vehicle that I purchased.
The State required that I drive to another county to get a receipt that said I had paid my
property taxes in that county - they couldn't communicate with that county - and then I
had to go to a city office to get a receipt that confirmed that I had paid my taxes in the
city. The inspection for the vehicle noted items that weren't required for safety or
inspection, but the dealership swore that they were - the government gave them a
license to steal. My daughter recently had the identical experience at a national chain
and simply went to an independent business which found fewer real problems.

Another example: Another person recently wanted to apply for a business license
because she ran an Internet business out of her house. There were no people going
there, no retail, no manufacturing or shipping - just a lone computer. The city wanted to
query her neighbors and get a building inspector to inspect the site. The kinds of
burdens placed on people by city governments make no sense. They are bureaucracies
devoid of responsibility and accountability, free to run their own fiefdoms. A few people
might fall through the cracks when it comes to paying their share, but basically the city's
cure is worse than the disease. Is it any wonder why people don't want the government
involved in their affairs?

In yet another situation, a friend recently moved and had to deal with the new city's
sewer department. It demanded that the landlord sign the sewer agreement, not the
renter. They absolutely refused to allow the landlord to fax a signed copy of the
agreement to them - it had to be signed and mailed to them. So I guess if the landlord
lived out of state the renter would have to track them down through the intermediary
agency, travel to them, get the agreement signed, and bring it back. Whatever disease
the sewer department was addressing, the cure was worse.

Would it be better to have uniform principles that guide cities, instead of endless rules
for the whims of fiefdoms? In legal matters, is it important to have millions of laws that
address every situation, built on case law? Or would it be better to have guiding
principles over which intelligent people can make rulings? Case law is built on the ever
expanding group of laws.

One of the results of innumerable laws is that we have become a very litigious society.
Everyone sues everyone at the drop of a hat. Companies and lawyers have thrown in
the towel on fighting this. A lawyer sues everyone in sight, no matter how ridiculous the
situation, because he knows the other lawyers and the people they represent will settle
rather than get into expensive litigation.

For example, one residential contractor was recently sued over a garage fire. The
resident went on vacation, and as he was leaving pulled a garbage can full of
smoldering grill ashes into the garage. A fire started directly above the garbage can, as
attested to by the fire inspector. The contract work was not even close to where the fire
started and there was no evidence of the contract work being a problem. The lawyer
sued the contractor and got a settlement from his insurance company. This happens
every day.
Is it better to rely on settlements? Or would it be better to require every civil suit to go to
court, and possibly end the endless civil litigation that is plaguing our country?

Challenge 3: Communications freedom

Communications freedom is essential to democracy. Communications freedom

safeguards the public from an out of control government, censorship, and powerful
companies and individuals. Changes in technology have created problems with out of
control communicators. It has raised serious questions about the need to regulate
communications, which could be the end of true communications freedom.

The world of communications changed with the advent of the Internet. Broadband
brought a communications superhighway to homes and businesses. Social networking
sites put millions of people in constant contact with each other. People are in contact
with each other and the world 24/7 through cell phones and computers. News travels
instantaneously. News is ubiquitous. All knowledge is instantly available. Education is
available to all from any place in the world. People can watch movies on demand and
go to college and religious services in 3D environments. The entire world has changed,
but not without raising complex issues.

Google sent a shock through the entire world when an unauthorized announcement
said that Google had made an agreement with Verizon to supply communications at a
faster rate for a price. Internet freedom was suddenly at risk from a company whose
motto is "Do no evil." Google later denied the arrangement. Large corporations are
poised to snatch any opportunity to make a bundle of money for nothing by charging for
Internet services. So far that has not been permitted, and companies that supply
services and individuals who purchase Internet service have not found it necessary to
upgrade to more expensive bandwidth providers. Such an arrangement would further
limit access to communications. Like the interstate highway system, infrastructure that is
used for trucks, busses, and cars, the world benefits greatly from the communications
superhighway for all.

On that same day, someone posted a tweet on Twitter that Bill Cosby had passed away.
I saw it and informed my wife. The twit wasn't true, and caused grief for a number of
people.

Not long ago a woman posed online as a young man, with the purpose of developing a
romantic relationship with a young woman she didn't like and then destroying her. The
woman's plan worked so well that the young woman killed herself. In another evil plan,
mature adult men pose as younger men in social sites to gain access to teenagers for
the purpose of meeting them to have sex with them. We greatly appreciate the freedom
of the Internet, but it is also a land rife with outlaws.

Recently a blogger posted a 20+ year old film on YouTube in which today's Agriculture
Secretary, Shirley Sherrod, appeared from the narrow story focus to be a racist, when
she was actually talking about how she was transformed into a person who helped a
white farmer. In a rush to head off problems, the Obama administration fired her without
a hearing or without reviewing the facts. Also recently, Wikileaks released classified
documents on the Internet from the military that placed US soldiers, Afghanistan
soldiers, and Afghanistan civilians in danger. Today anyone can be a journalist and
spread news, misinformation, and make ill-considered decisions about journalistic
actions.

Cable news has created a competitive environment in which sensationalism and "who is
first" reporting have dwarfed sound journalistic principles. Stories such as the Shirley
Sherrod story, are often reported before they are checked with primary sources and fact
checked.

Is it possible that we need a rating agency that will certify news agencies and journalists
so that the public knows which ones to view with considerable skepticism? While there
is an excellent role for bloggers and for news entertainers, should they be given the
same respect and authority as a news service like NPR? And do we need laws about
impersonating others on the Internet? Do we need consequences for leaking classified
documents that put people in dangerous positions?

Challenge 4: Economics and job security

Democracy affords us the ability to choose our economic system. Overwhelmingly the
US continues to choose capitalism. In capitalism the role of the state is de-emphasized,
while private ownership and free markets are emphasized. Capitalism dominated the
world from ancient times. It did not work well up until the 20th. Century. Prior to the 20th.
Century, the unemployment rate in Europe was around 30%, and in the US often up to
25%. Keynesian economics revolutionized employment, reducing unemployment to
under 10% in both the US and Europe. The difficulty with Keynesian economics is that it
gives the government a larger role in creating bureaucratic style corporations that are
not competitive and tend to be inefficient and unresponsive.

Regulation also came into existence in the 20th. Century, and prevented abberations in
the system such as monopolies that pushed other companies out of competition and
mercilessly drove up prices. Banks also became regulated so that people could save
and borrow without high risk. Regulation kept the "playing field" level so that businesses
could flourish and consumers would benefit.

Supply Side economics, introduced by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s,

emphasizes de-regulation, pure free markets, and stimulating business to reduce
unemployment. Business is more competitive and more responsive to consumers.
Supply Side economics was also revolutionary in impact on the economy, and worked
well world-wide for 20 years, but in the first decade of the 00s, it failed to work as
predicted. Business flourished, the stock market flourished, business failed to be
responsive to consumers (quality diminished), wages lost ground, and unemployment
did not keep pace with the rise in population. The movement of money through the
economy slowed. Government debt skyrocketed.
During this recession, much of business has recovered and is doing well, but has failed
to produce jobs in numbers that even approach the rise in population, let alone reduce
unemployment to pre-recession levels. It is basically new industries promoted by
government through economic stimulus during this recession that is producing new
jobs.

Job security, which flourished during the first 60 years of the 1900s, has disappeared.
Old companies such as DuPont that had never laid off workers during their previous
~200 years, suddenly started laying off people in the 1980s. Competition became
intense and companies couldn't sustain marginally profitable ventures. Wall Street went
into the mergers business, buying companies, reducing them to skeleton staffs, and
then selling them to companies doing similar business, in the name of efficiency and
stock inflation. This stripped geographic areas of jobs, while lining the pockets of
investors. The flight of companies to foreign countries for cheap wages accelerated.
Overall in the economy, people who had good wages have been tossed out and have
had to accept jobs elsewhere at lower wages, wrecking their lifestyle and robbing their
children of educational opportunities.

Unrestrained capitalism has sewn destruction of livelihoods in many geographical areas

because of overly intense competition, and crowded out entire cottage industries in
Third World countries, destroying national livelihoods. It puts a constant downward
pressure on wages. Since the 1970s, people have gone from having some savings to
primarily having debt. Basically people have supplemented lost wages and increasing
expenses due to family size, by borrowing, which has created a perilous situation for all.

During this same time, the ranks of the wealthier have grown, and they have become
even wealthier. The ranks of the lower economic class have swelled as the middle class
has fallen into it. Economic disparity has grown substantially.

This recession was created primarily by Wall Street and Banking firms that gambled
very loosely and irresponsibly with our money on ridiculous CDOs, Credit Default
Swaps, and other financial instruments traded only by financial market insiders. When
the housing bubble burst, the financial firms realized their precarious position and
immediately requested "bank" status to get government protection, even though that
meant additional oversight. The larger banks were also way over-leveraged because
they were packaging and selling these primary packages of mortgage loans to
investors, knowing that they had a lot of bad paper in them. No one seemed to suspect
that the American Dream of home ownership was cyclical.

The result of financial institution misconduct has been the realization that government
regulation is essential to safe-guarding our financial system, otherwise greed becomes
reckless, as it was for Savings and Loan associations, companies such as Enron (the
company that used deceptive accounting procedures), and for banks and financial
companies.
Some want to say that government sponsored programs are poorly run compared to
private companies. They like to cite Fannie May. Fannie May and Freddie Mac have
been excellent government sponsored programs that made housing affordable to
millions of Americans, since the 1930s, becoming the largest lenders and package
buyers. Recently these profitable companies became insolvent because of the housing
crisis. They fell victim to some of the bad mortgage paper floated by the banks, since
they purchased those packaged mortgages so small banks could loan more. Does this
mean that government should not be in the business of promoting private market
programs? Or does it mean that private market programs are themselves suspect? Free
Market purists claim that only the private market should be doing this, and that
government should be completely out of the picture.

Knowing what we know now about free-market economies and their dangers, how do
we adjust the economic system to prevent millions from losing wages, jobs, and homes,
and put people back to work? When people are at the mercy of global economic
movements, and private market profiteering (or privateering), should employment
security be a goal of democracy? Free Market purists would say no - but they don't
provide an alternative for keeping people employed. Business always acts in its own
interest (which is how it probably should be), and does not act solely in the public
interest. Interestingly the European countries, which have more government sponsored
wage security, recovered faster from this recession, and they have equivalent or better
living standards (with exceptions to both economic recovery and living standards).
Should this factor into democratic philosophy?

Challenge 5: Polarization impeding legislation

In a democracy people vote on representation. Perhaps they should vote on issues, and
they do this often through ballot referendums on major issues. But most generally it is
the legislature that makes the laws by which we are governed. What do you do in a
democracy when the legislature fails to take responsible actions for decades?

During the W. Bush administration when Republicans controlled the Congress, for four
years Republicans refused to bring the Democrats legislation even to the floor for a
vote. Democrats filibustered. During the first two years of the Obama administration,
Democrats have refused to bring Republican legislation even to the floor for a vote.
Republicans became the "party of no," to all Democratic legislation. Of course the
opposing party's ideas did influence the legislation. But the cry by both parties is that the
other side doesn't allow them to make legislation. Finger pointing excuses inaction and
helps them win elections.

Lack of representation is the issue that fostered the American Revolution. Yet this is the
very place the political system has gotten us. When one party wins a slim majority, their
stance becomes, "Winner takes all," and they turn a deaf ear to the other party and the
people that it represents. Parties in Congress do their best to stop the other party's
legislation by consistently voting as a unanimous block against the other party's
legislation.
Polarization is one likely major problem that led to the Civil War - people would not
come to an agreement on slavery and with heated rhetoric they secedded, bringing a
war. Today both parties seem to actually represent about half the voters, with
conservatives making up around 60 percent of citizens, so one side or the other
constantly gets ignored. For decades at a time we have a one party system that doesn't
represent half the voters. When the power actually is relatively balanced, they are
typically in gridlock, so nothing gets done. Politics ceases to be about representing
people and their needs, and instead becomes about partisan fighting and ideology.

In watching democracy in action for over 50 years, I see a number of problems:

Congress is typically either deadlocked or tyrannical - unable to govern

effectively. This is because of either having too small a majority to pass
legislation, or having such a majority that they can pass whatever they want.
Neither side is listening to the other. Congressional approval is in the teens.
We have increasing polarization that prevents our legislators from acting in our
best interests - most of them act simply to get re-elected. People are so polarized
by false rhetoric that they don't understand issues at all.
Congress does not understand economics, and I haven't seen much
improvement in this during this major recession - which means Congress can't
find the answers. Economics is a very complex subject, and even if the
congressmen do understand it, they can't translate it to the public in
understandable terms.
Congress should be accountable, and have minimal conflicts of interest.
It isn't clear at this point whether our current representative system works or
needs to be scrapped, which isn't something I want to see happen. With an
approval rating in the teens, that's not a vote of confidence. It depends on
whether we can get control of polarization, and prevent corruption and special
interest over-influence.
Our US Constitution gives us the authority and power of "We the people" to reap
the benefits of self-governance and address the common good. It isn't we the
businesses, or we the government, or we the anything else, although these
things are important.

The omnibus spending bills that Congress votes into law are obscene examples of
legislative irresponsibility. They exceed 3000 pages and no one reads them before
voting on them. One year they voted that Congressional committees could look at
individual tax records - an unlawful activity. A Congressional Aid took the fall for that
"mistake." These bills typically have enough pork in them to make ham salad. They are
irresponsible and lack accountability. Congress has cracked down some on pork, and
money should go back to the States, but Congress should never pass legislation without
it being reviewed and voted on.
Polarization is an insidious and very destructive problem. President Lincoln said,
paraphrasing Christ, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The Civil War
followed. Polarization is not just a public interest issue. Politicians use polarization as an
effective messaging tool to create solid voting blocks that will put them in office term
after term. Polarization avoids addressing issues. Polarizing messaging simply selects
divisive issues and paints them in "no compromise" terms. Polarization, fear mongering
and mud-slinging have become the tools of choice for getting votes in tight elections,
and the American people fall for it every time.

There might possibly be solutions to these problems, but not from what is seen in other
countries. Both Britain and Israel end up with ineffective coalitions that last for years.

You potentially could require that up to 2/3 of Congressional Houses be independent.

This would allow the two extremes, liberal (if there is such a thing) and conservative to
present their arguments to a body that could vote effectively and not as a block. But with
the current polarization in our society, the Congressmen would be responsive only to
the coalition of voting blocks at home that would put them back in office. This would
require a constitutional amendment.

Another answer is Public Oversight Boards. These would not create legislation or
solutions, but they would be given the authority to set legislative agendas, established
by voters, and insist on responsible and accountable legislative action. If there was
deadlock, they might have the power to break it. They would also educate voters on the
real issues and poll voters to make sure the legislation was to their liking. This would
require a constitutional amendment.

Another potentially helpful solution is to require special interest groups to only be

allowed to televise their positions, and not have direct contact with Congressmen.
Another requirement could be to require the same exact funding go to the rebuttal (or
confirmation). This way, issues, and their sponsors, would be completely in the open
and fully addressed. This would require congressman to pass a law enacting this, which
isn't likely. It could also be done with a constitutional amendment.

Conclusion

The once all powerful Christian Roman Empire fell because of a decline in values,
health and environmental problems, political corruption, an ineffective economy, urban
blight, and military spending. The Barbarians moved in. Today we have values declining
(unbridled greed in financial and corporate markets destroying the economy), health
(lack of access, soaring expense) environmental (global warming) problems, political
corruption (special interest influence, polarization to buy votes, selling seats, tax
evasion... a "swamp of corruption"), urban blight (look at any inner city, like St. Louis,
and uninvited immigration), and military spending (decade long war in Iraq and
Afghanistan). The barbarians (Al Qaida), are knocking at the gates. The hazard lights
are blinking.
Democracy requires the responsibility and participation of its people. Countries with
weak governments where there is no consensus of opinion and no interference in their
citizen's affairs, like Somalia, live in anarchy. There is no safety, no medicine or other
social programs, and no wealth. Life is futile and then you die. In a democracy, together
we find ways to make it work for us through our government and our economic system.

Despite its potential problems, we have found that in democracy where people are
allowed freedom of choice, most people mature into responsible and caring people
without having to be shaped, broken, or destroyed by strict laws, close monitoring, and
strong enforcement. Unlike those who are autocratic, we don't cane offenders, we don't
make people clothe from head to toe, we don't report people to the police who don't
pray often enough, we don't exclude those who don't look and talk like we do, we don't
execute homosexuals... and we thrive. Democracy works. A little wiggle room, a mistake
here and there, is necessary to growth for both individuals and society. We learn from
our mistakes and our plurality of differences, and they make us stronger.

SYNTHESIS/CONCLUSION

Our country need a better government to win this fort coming election. A better
politician to rule our country. Whom will I vote? Yes, being a democratic country, we
have the right to vote. We have also the right to choose whom are we going to vote.
Yes, I will exercise my right, I will vote for the coming presidential election. But are the
candidates capable of being in the position they will run for. Are we going to have a
complete change in the government. Or are we will just experience the same agony as
we have with our previous government. What if, the one I choose will not win? Of
course I will not be satisfied if that will happen.

According to Winston Churchill, Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of

ignorance and the gospel of envy. That its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of agony.
While according to Herbert Spencer, All socialism involves slavery. Every time I saw
some of our brothers and sisters slept in the sidewalk with their children, I am thinking
that socialism will be better in this country. When we have socialism or the
communist form of government, everybody can eat the same food, can work at the
same time and have room to retire for the days work. There is an equal opportunity for
everybody. But of course, the rich will disapprove the idea because; they have already
what they need without working. The issue is that, are these rich people really earned
the money they have or they are just the same with some of our politicians who get the
money in some sort of corrupt practices in the government.

According to Joseph Schumpter, entrepreneurs is transforming capitalism,

entrepreneurial capitalism creates destruction. Well for me, destruction here is
somewhat on the positive side of the coin. Because, yes, it killing the old product for a
better product, an old company for a new one, a quality products for a less quality
products. Because of this, consumer will benefit because, they will be provided with a
good quality products at an affordable price. The end produce will be for the benefit of
the majority of people.

Inculcating our young to become an entrepreneur not an employee who works

eight hours a day with just a minimum pay. Family should teach their children to sell
something or even invent some items that can turn to profit. Even a small amount of
profit that they can generate will mean something to them. When I am still young I of
dreamt of working in Ayala, Makati because I think working there means something.
Well, I followed my dream, I became an employee of Manulife Insurance Company. But,
when I am already there, I soon realize that we have the same problems, and that is
money. When you work, you need to invest in clothing, food and of course
transportation. Instead of riding in a jeep, I preferred taxi because of my corporate
attire. So that is the life the workers. We manage small business, but it turned out to
be a loss. So again, I look for another company, but the time as academe. My passion
of molding and teaching the young to become what they should be made me decide to
be where I am now. I have no regret of becoming a teacher. Now, that I am not
getting any younger, I am conditioning my mindset to start a small business that will
help others to get employed and be a well known entrepreneur in the future.