 To answer that question, we must first look at a little history. In the pre-capitalistic ages, a nation's social, order, and economic system were based upon the military superiority of an elite. The victorious conqueror appropriated to himself all the country's utilizable land retained a part for himself and distributed the rest among his retinue. Some got more, others less, and a great majority nothing. In the England of the early Plantagenets, a Saxon was right when he sought. I am poor because there are normans to whom more was given than is needed for the support of their families. In those days, the affluence of the rich was the cause of the poverty of the poor. Conditions in the capitalistic society are different. In the market economy, the only way left to the more gifted individuals to take advantage of their superior abilities is to serve the masses of their fellowmen. Profits go to those who succeed in filling the most urgent of the not yet satisfied ones of the consumers in the best possible and cheapest way. The profits saved, accumulated, and plowed back into the plan benefit the common man twice. First, in his capacity as a wage earner, activity of labor, and thereby real wage rates, fine jobs. His capacity as a consumer meant the product, the additional capital, at the lowest possible prices. The characteristic principle of capitalism is that it is mass production to supply the masses. Big business serves the many. Those outfits that are producing for the special tastes of the rich never outlaw medium or even small size. Under such conditions, those anxious to get the joint interest in the prosperity of the business enterprises. For only the prosperous firm or corporation has the opportunity to invest, that is, to expand and to improve its activities by the employment of ever better and more efficient tools and machines. The better equipped the plan is, the more can the individual worker produce within a unit of time. The higher is what the economists call the marginal productivity of his labor and thereby the real wages he gets. The fundamental difference between the conditions of an economically underdeveloped country like India and those of the United States is that in India the per headquarter of capital invested and thereby the marginal productivity of labor and consequently wage rates are much lower than in this country. The capital of the capitalists benefits not only those who own it but also those who work in the plant and those who buy and consume the goods produced. And then there is one very important fact to keep in mind. Then as we did in the preceding observations, one distinguishes between the concerns of the capitalists and those of the people employed in the plants owned by the capitalists. One must not forget that this is a simplification that does not correctly describe the real state of present day American affairs. For the typical American wage earner is not penniless. He is a saver and investor. He owns saving accounts, United States saving bonds and other bonds and first of all insurance policies. But he is also a stockholder. At the end of the last year, the accumulated personal savings reached $338 billion. A considerable part of this sum is lent to business by the bank's savings banks and insurance companies. Thus the average American household owns well over $6000 that are invested in American business. The typical family stake in the flourishing of the nation's business enterprises consists not only in the fact that these firms and corporations are employing the head of the family. There is a second fact that counts for them to win that the principal and interest of their savings are saved only as far as the American free enterprise is in good shape and prosperity. It is a myth that there prevails a conflict between the interests of the corporations and firms and those of the people employed by them. In fact, good profits and high real wages were hanged in hand.