Capitalism can be defined ideally as an economic system in which the major portion of production and distribution is in private hands, operating under what is termed a “profit” or “market” system.
Socialism is an economic system characterized by public ownership of property and a planned economy.
Capital, as an economic concept, is closely related to private property.
When traditional restraints are removed from the sale of goods and from wages and when all individuals have equal access to raw materials and markets the doctrine of laissez faire, from the French meaning “to let people do as they choose”.
Oligopolies—a concentration of property and resources, and thus economic power, in the hands of a few.
Corporation—an artificial being, Invisible, intangible, and existing only in the contemplation of law.
Limited liability is a key feature of the modern corporation.
Consumer sovereignty: the idea that consumers should and do control the market through their purchases.
Dependence effect: as a society becomes increasingly affluent, wants are increasingly created by the process by which they are satisfied.
Moral vegetarians are people who reject the eating of meat on moral grounds.

2 In my opinion, Wal-Mart is an example of a morally bad corporation. There are three reasons to improve that:
(1) Unfair competition. Our textbook describe it like this: “Some critics of capitalism maintain that capitalism breeds oligopolies that eliminate competition and concentrate economic power that a system of corporate welfare protects many businesses from true marketplace competition, and finally that competition is neither generally beneficial nor desirable in itself.” Through the case 4.5, in order to eliminate other competitors and concentrate more economic power, Wal-Mart puts pressure on suppliers to lower their prices, so that it can offer its customers lower prices than others supermarkets. This action force local rivals out of business, for example, within five years after a Wal-Mart supercenter opens, two other supermarkets close. As Wal-Mart grows and grows, its competitors fall by the wayside, consumer choice narrow, and it exerts ever greater power as a cultural censor. It chooses the products by its own reason.
(2) The bad treatment of employees. As it talked about in case 4.5 Wal-Mart is anti-union and pays low wages. Its labor costs 20% lower than other unionized supermarkets, and most of its 1.4 million employees must survive without company health insurance. Especially in China, it hires labors as very low wages like 1 dollar per hour.
(3) The outsourcing of jobs. Because of the low wages, warm art likes to build more factories in China to reduce their costs, but this way may decrease the job opportunities of Americans. On the other hand, Wal-Mart’s hard line on costs has forced many factories to move overseas, which sacrifices American jobs and holds wages down. However, every coin has two sides. Wal-Mart can become the world’s largest company; its corporate philosophy is still worth to learn by other companies, like respect individual, prefect customer service and the pursuit of excellence.

5 Some who defend advertising argue that the images of glamour, sex, or adventure are used to “sell products” but that these images are also what we, the consumers, want. That is, besides the products themselves, we also want romance or sophistication or status. As such, by connecting products with important emotions and feelings, advertisements can satisfy our deeper needs and wants. Theodore Levitt has drawn an analogy between advertising and art. Both take liberties with reality, both deal in symbolic communication, and neither is interested in literal truth or in pure functionality. Rather, both art and advertising help us repackage the otherwise crude, drab, and generally oppressive reality that surrounds us. They help us modify, embellish, enrich and reconstruct the world around us. Advertising helps satisfy this legitimate human need. It produces the “elevation of the spirit” that we want and need. Levitt argues, is to overlook the real needs and values of human beings. The purpose of utilitarian is to max. the greatest happiness. The handsome packages and imaginative promises of advertising can make people happy; remember this time and share with others which can make more people enjoy the advertising. This is what utilitarianism means. The argument is about whether advertising can bring happiness to people or not, and it is the same as a utilitarian argument. Yes, I agree with Levitt. Because of the ingenious advertising, we can not only remember the product, but also enjoy the laughing or crying it brings to us. Human beings are visual animals and with the development of the society, except for the bread, we still need the spiritual needs which the advertising can give.

7 I don’t think that factory farming is morally justifiable. There are many disadvantages of factory farming. (1) Animals won’t get well treatment. In this factory farming form, pigs, grain, and chickens are in the space as small as possible, no light and no care. (2) American agriculture society is destroyed by factory farming. Thousands of independent farmers bankrupt because of they can’t compete with the companies which are capital-intensive industries. (3) They can't guarantee the health quality of their products, food health problems occur frequently, like the BSE. I agree the farmer’s suggestion that the way a person treats an animal is similar to the way he or she treats humans. In the movie, Protagonist interviews an independent farm, the farmers treat the animals as nature, though finally they may kill them as food, but they still give them a better life. I believe these loving men can treat people kind. But what about the factory farming, they won’t care about animals’ life, ill or not, only they care about is the benefit. These people are ruthless, they will not treat their labors well, even their families. In my opinion, I do think a corporation has some moral responsibilities to the environment and to nonhuman animals. (1) Corporate Ecological Responsibility. a. The rational use of natural resources b. The fair use of natural resources c. The sustainable use of the nature resources (2) Corporate Social Responsibility. They must be responsible to consumer who purchase their products.(3) Humanitarian responsibility. Though animals will be killed or eat, they still need to take care of them.

3 The debate over corporate responsibility can be understood along two possible lines: (1) A corporation’s responsibility should be understood narrowly to cover only profit maximization (2) It should be understood more broadly to include acting morally, refraining from socially undesirable behavior, and contributing actively and directly to the public good. Frideman’s view shows a basic misconception of the character and nature of a free economy. In such an economy, there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits. Friedman’s view is very similar to the laissez-faire operation of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”. Friedman believed that if the market is allowed to operate with only the minimal restrictions necessary to prevent fraud and force, society will maximize its overall economic well-being. Pursuit of profit is what makes the system do. Anything that weakens this incentive or inhibits its operation will weaken the ability of the “invisible hand” to deliver the economic goods. According to the broader view, it maintains that a corporation has obligations not only to its stockholders but also to all the other constituencies that affect or are affected by its behavior. Earning money is not just the only social responsibility; corporation has to be responsible to the people who work for it, and the society which support it. This is how an enterprise achieves positive development I agree with the broader view. In my opinion, Social responsibility is the foundation, and if it lost social responsibility, the profits of the business will be transitory. Both are very important, but social responsibility is more important than the pursuit of profit. Social responsibility is not just paying, with the promotion of the enterprise image; more and more people will choose your products. Enterprise will get more interest and faster development.

6 Galbraith argued that the process of production today, with its expensive marketing campaigns, subtle advertising techniques, and sophisticated sales strategies, creates the very wants it then satisfies. In other words, producers create both the goods and the demand for those goods. Thus, Galbraith rejected the economist’s traditional faith in consumer sovereignty: the idea that consumers should and do control the market through their purchases. Galbraith noted two consequences of this. First, our system of production cannot be defended on the ground that it is satisfying urgent or important wants, for the system itself creates those wants. Second, we are preoccupied with material consumption and thus neglecting important public goods and services. Manipulative advertising is “advertising that tries to favorably alter consumer’s perceptions of the advertised product by appeals to factors other than the product’s physical attributes and functional performance.”

1 Another way of defending capitalism: this argument focuses on the many economic benefits the system brings, claiming that the free and unrestrained market system that exists under capitalism is more efficient and more productive than any other possible system and is thus to be preferred on moral grounds. This is a utilitarian argument. Adam Smith holds this view. Smith argues that when people are left to pursue their own interests, they will, without intending it, produce the greatest good for all. Each person’s individual and private pursuit of wealth results—as if guided by an invisible hand—in the most beneficial overall organization and distribution of economic resources. Again, note the view of human nature that this entails. We are motivated by self-interest and personal advantage. And we have a natural propensity for trading. Two types of criticisms: theoretical and operational There are three responses to this criticism. Capitalists reply that the market, if left alone, can solve this (doubtful). Others say that government policies can correct these tendencies. Others say that, in spite of the rich-poor gap, the well-being caused by capitalism outweighs the negatives. (see Rawls’ difference principle)