Instigator / Pro
0
1474
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1027
Capitalism is the best economic system
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...
blamonkey
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
28
1677
rating
24
debates
93.75%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Forfeited
Observation
In the rules of the debate, the instigator asks that I offer
a different economic system to compete with capitalism. I can do that. With
that said, what is capitalism?
The Balance defines capitalism as the concept by which
individuals own the means of production. This includes labor, natural
resources, capital goods, and entrepreneurship (1).
Counter Plan
As opposed to a completely capitalistic economy, I suggest
that a mixed economy which takes different aspects of socialism and capitalism.
This hypothetical economic system would be able to regulate the use of natural
resources. Because the government would regulate the use of natural resources
under my CP, it runs counter to the definition that I provided.
Framework
Obviously,
we are going to weigh the pros and cons of each economic system and conclude which
economic system serves the people the best.
C1: Monopolies
Entrepreneurship, or the process of planning and creating a
business, is a net benefit for the economy. However, there comes a time in
which government needs to interfere to prevent market failure. Monopolies are
one of these “market failures” that hinders job growth and increases inequity
among businesses and people.
Post-tax
profits of companies have increased dramatically over the past decade, reaching
roughly the equivalent of 7% of our GDP in 2014 according to the Economist (2).
Since 2008, there has been $10 trillion dollars’ worth of mergers, which is one
of the main factors driving up corporate profits (2). Yet, the Pew Research
Center found that after adjusting for inflation, the average hourly wage made
in 2018 had the same purchasing power as it did in 1978 (3). The Economic
Policy Institute verifies this, finding that from 1973 to 2013, productivity
rose by over 70%, while hourly compensation of workers rose a measly 9% (4).
Businesses regularly eschew workers in favor of profit.
Make no mistake, business acquisitions that result in fatter
profit margins without a subsequent increase in product or work quality can be
comfortably labeled as monopolistic behavior.
Monopolistic behavior means that businesses can raise
prices, profits etc. without any fear of any repercussions due to lack of competition.
Barry Lynn and Phillip Longman of the Washington Monthly in the spring issue of
2010 explains how companies use the “innovation through acquisition” method
which was popularized by Cisco in the 90s when it gobbled up over 100
innovative, small companies. Google used this method to acquire game-changing
technologies that lead to Google Earth, Google Docs, and Google Analytics. This
trend pervades drug companies especially, as when Pfizer took over Wyeth and
Merck bought out Schering-Plough. The deals resulted in over 30,000 jobs being
killed off (6). When a few companies have major clout, they can then fix prices
to whatever they want. Under US law it is illegal. However, to revert to a
complete capitalistic economy with no regulation would hike prices. Cardozo Law
Review in their 2012 review of 75 cases of price-fixing among cartels, (not
drug cartels, just a plethora of key players in industry that raised prices
together a la an oligopoly,) they found that:
“For
the economic studies’ post-2000 sample, the national and international cartel
median overcharges averaged 20% and 25.8% (5).”
I don’t need to shovel stats done the voters’ throat to
demonstrate this though. ISPs in the US provide a real-world example of
behavior that the government should be able to curtail. The LA Times reports in
July of 2018 that the recent merger between AT&T and Time Warner caused the
cheapest streaming service provided by AT&T to jump by $5, a 14% increase,
as well as an increase in its administrative fee from $0.78 to $1.99 monthly to
bring in $800 million in extra revenue. As part of the “better service” aspect
of the merger, the company put forth a $15 a month plan that offered less
channels than the one that had its price increase by $5, which was previously
the cheapest streaming service that AT&T offered (7).
In a capitalist economy, there would be no mechanism to
fight the reckless accumulation of profit to inflate companies’ bottom line
through business mergers. Because capitalism asks for private control of the
factors of production, (including entrepreneurship,) any government influence
would run counter to the definition I provided. Without the threat of legal
action taken by the government, companies will not be deterred from engaging in
this type of behavior. Vote Con for a mixed economy in which the government can
prevent companies from throwing their weight around and hurting both consumers
and workers alike through higher prices, lower quality products, and stagnant
wages.
C2:
Climate Change
If people own natural resources without any government
interference, it would mean that climate change concerns would be exacerbated.
Princeton professor Albert G. Milbank, Ph.D. student at the Princeton
Environmental Institute DJ Rasmussen, and Robert Krop of Rutgers University
published a report to the journal “Science” concluding that while the US will
lose about .7% of the GDP for every one-degree Fahrenheit increase in global
temperatures. Additionally, southern states like Arizona and Texas can lose
upwards of 10-20% of their GDP if climate change goes unabated (8). To mitigate
the effect of climate change on US citizens, we need to embrace regulations
that would make a deep cut in C02 emissions. Unfortunately, capitalism forbids
this. Despite supposed cooperation from businesses in meeting climate benchmarks,
there is a dedicated lobby to fighting climate change legislation in Congress.
Because private business owners are entitled to the means of production, they
are not obligated to cede control of their coal. They can use all the coal they
want without worrying about governmental influence. On the other hand,
well-enforced climate policy would be able to decrease C02 emissions and
prevent millions from dying. If the Clean Power Plan was not repealed by the
current administration, the EIA suggests that by 2030 we could have seen C02
emissions fall 29-36% compared to 2005 levels, or by over 1,500 million metric
tons of C02 emissions (9).
The EPA still plays a major role in setting guidelines for firms
to follow without lofty, ambitious plans. The EPA is also tasked with enforcing
the guidelines as well, deterring would-be polluters and punishing those who don’t
comply to climate policies. Despite lackluster progress in enforcing climate
policy under the current EPA headed by Andrew Wheeler, (and previously by Scott
Pruitt under the same administration,) there has still been major successes in
fighting climate criminals. For instance, when Volkswagen relied on faulty software
to cheat the emissions standard test, they were fined nearly $3 billion (10).
Not only does this send a clear message to other automobile producers that such
behavior will not be tolerated, but it also prevents Volkswagen from continuing
to use the faulty software to cheat emission standards again. Under capitalism,
this could not exist because it runs contrary to the definition of capitalism.
My economic system allows the government to regulate the use
of natural resources, which is a better solution than allowing private
industries use it with reckless abandon. Vote Con because my system would allow
nations to maintain better climate conditions on Earth.
Sources
Round 2
Forfeited
Extend. Since I'm here and have nothing to do but wait for a response, here is a cool video.
Round 3
Forfeited
Since I have more free space, I might as well do something with it.
It is a comedy special called "Randy writes a novel." It is slightly pretentious at certain bits, but is definitely worth your time. Special mention goes to the last part of the video which made me guffaw like a howler monkey in a room full of laughing gas.
I don't know what else to put here. Hopefully my opponent and I will debate this later.
Oh, and extend my points across the flow.
Oh, and extend my points across the flow.
Round 4
Forfeited
Extend.
SO YOUR not going to address my points
.
Doc,
What part of my previous statement herein didn't you understand?
"Now, please save yourself further embarrassment and DO NOT respond to my posts, where you can no more address them than a flat crow on a Texas back road, understood? Thanking you in advance."
.
why is it insipid?
.
Doc,
YOUR BEREFT QUOTE, AGAIN: "Economy is different than personal deads"
Personal "deads?" Why do you even bother to make such insipid statements? Are you in a contest at DebateArt in who can post the most non sequitur and weak statements upon this forum? Okay, YOU WIN!
Now, please save yourself further embarrassment and DO NOT respond to my posts, where you can no more address them than a flat crow on a Texas back road, understood? Thanking you in advance.
.
Economy is different than personal deads
.
As the ONLY TRUE Christian upon DebateArt as explicitly shown, Jesus and I cannot promote Capitalism in any way whatsoever. Can you see the Savior of the world walking around the United States with its Satanic capitalistic ways today, and that blatantly run against His teachings? NOT! Jesus would be the true leader of any socialist society, praise!
Therefore, any Christian that promotes Capitalism in any way whatsoever is NOT a Christian that can truly believe in our Jesus, but only a fake one in name only.
The following are Jesus' Socialistic ways that equal Medicare, Medical, Obamacare, Welfare, etc. Therefore when was the last time you saw ANY Christian follow the direct inspired words of Jesus shown below? NEVER? You are sadly correct! As a TRUE Christian, I can gain solace in knowing that fake Christians that do not follow Jesus' words will burn in the sulfur lakes of Hell upon their timely demise! (Revelation 21:8)
“If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?” (1 John 3:17)
“But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” ( Luke 14:13-14)
“Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.” (Proverbs 19:17)
“Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.” (Psalm 82:3)
“For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I COMMAND YOU, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’ (Deuteronomy 15:11)
Fake Christians NEVER follow this Jesus inspired passage: Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:21)
.
If the prices and quality of the products stay constant, and the workers aren't paid less because they have no alternative, I think a monopoly in these conditions should be allowed to exist.
When ramshutu thinks you're a tryhard you have to take offence, he will even refuse to give you points when you flawlessly thwart your opponent.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/776/vote_links/1752
Thanks. I don't take offense to it. I do 'try hard' at debate because I like it.
Cartels raise prices by upwards of 20%. That's a problem. This is especially true if product quality is cheapened and worker pay doesn't keep up.
no offense..but damm you do your research
shit you got the tryhard
I have extreme opinions, but I doubt it's propaganda. What wrong with regulated monopolies being allowed to exist?
Hahahaha Alec, you define right-wing propaganda.
If monopolies are maintaining jobs and not raising prices too much, what's wrong with them existing? I think regulated monopolies ought to be allowed to exist.
I think individuals should own the means of production, but the government should regulate those individuals. Pure 100% capitalism is awful.
FYI, I did a similar debate before. I will be using the information from that debate to make this case. It will read similarly, but I though I should let you know so that people don't cry foul.
Just capitalism? No socialization at all?
Expect to get someone with comedic answers.
There is none, you win
What definition do you give for economic?