How Adam Smith made capitalism morally acceptable

at
Categories
Tags

 

Explain how Adam Smith made capitalism morally acceptable.

 

Sample Solution

How Adam Smith made capitalism morally accepted

Adam Smith is often identified as the father of modern capitalism. Smith saw economics as a branch of moral philosophy, and he saw capitalism as an ethical project whose success required political commitment to justice and freedom, not merely an understanding of economic logistics. Smith’s defense of capitalism, or, in his terminology, commercial society, is unambiguous but qualified. He justified commercial society for its tremendous contribution to the prosperity, justice and freedom of its members, and most particularly for the poor and powerless in society. But he was no naive ideologue for free markets and profits. He criticized the political machinations and moral character of the very merchants and manufacturers who, he acknowledged, were driving economic development, and not only told them they should act better, but also argued for institutional measures to restrict their worst proclivities, particularly by getting government out of the business of economic micro-management.

Two solutions for the company include Paakkanen staying to expand the company and creating a new structure that involved hierarchy so she can train a successor. Or, the other option is Paakkanen staying and focusing on expanding the company, and not adjusting anything else. Based on the qualities of a red quadrant company, Marimekko must stay task focused and continue to have quick asset turnover (CVA 11). They current are achieving this, but they must keep it up. They also could expand internationally, since their goal is to optimize their company (CFA 1). Either choice fits the control quadrant and can benefit Marimekko.

Paakkanen choosing to stay with Marimekko to start training a successor is a strong choice for her and the company. This still gives her control over the company, since she will be personally choosing who will take over for her. She can train her successor to manage exactly how Paakkanen desires. That way, when it comes time for her to retire, she is comfortable leaving Marimekko in this person’s hands. With finding a successor she will be adding some sort of hierarchy within the group, creating even more control for her before she prepares to retire. This boosts diversification of roles in the company, which can be used as a type of reward system. If people are accomplishing their work in a successful time frame and manner, they can hold a higher role in the company. On the other hand, if Paakkanen stays to find a successor she could fall short in a few ways. Her mentality may shift to strictly focus on finding a successor and she may fall behind on her duties with subcontractors or may miss mistakes made by designers. Or, Kirsti may fail to train her successor since she is a micromanager. She may not delegate enough work and training to her successor and then she won’t have someone who is prepared to take over for her.

If Paakkanen stays with Marimekko and chooses to focus on expanding the company internationally she will have some big choices to make. This may benefit her since she may continue to see success for herself in the company. She will continue to maintain the respect of her workers and her positive image. As for the company, it may find booming business internationally. Their designs could be adored worldwide, this will also benefit the designers since people will begin to know their names. Some big issues that may arise are the struggle to break against their group norms. By potentially having to add more men or by expa

This question has been answered.

Get Answer