Would socialism on a large scale be worse for society than America's current form of capitalism?

I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate and thank everyone else for reading.

Economists tend to be skeptical of socialism, mainly because command economies fail to allocate resources efficiently or respond quickly to supply and demand. Socialism relies on the famously debunked labor theory of value, the assumption that the value of an item is determined by the number of hours required to produce it. This theory has since been proven false [1]. This fact is so widely accepted that I don't think my opponent will dispute it. But if it becomes necessary, I can explain in more detail why the theory fails.

Because value is subjective, a command economy will produce much less value than a free market with similar amounts of labor, as the items produced do not respond quickly to supply and demand. If a company is not turning a profit under capitalism, the owners will switch to producing something people want. But large economies are extremely complex, and most businesses fail due to lack of demand for the product produced [2]. Under capitalism, only the businesses satisfying a need survive, and millions of businesses invest huge amounts of effort into meeting consumer demand. Under socialism, the government can fail repeatedly, and competitors do not exist to pick up the slack.

Economists today are divided between the theories of John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich August Hayek. The most famous (or infamous) example of Keynesian economics was the implementation of the New Deal. It is known today that not all New Deal policies were helpful and that some even made the depression worse [3]. Under socialism, the government would be forced to regulate every market indiscriminately, even those that are better left alone. Even Keynesian economists will scoff at this.

Command economies consistently fail for the reasons I have mentioned. The USSR, China, and Cuba all failed to keep up with their capitalist counterparts, but each of these countries recovered in part when some markets were reopened. In China, for example, starvation was widespread until Deng opened markets [4].

Due to the complexity of the economy, a socialist government is forced to aim for superficial targets, such as low employment, even if the jobs people get aren't producing anything people want. Value is subjective, and optimal prices can only be achieved through voluntary exchange as businesses adjust to supply and demand [5]. Cuba can only survive by privatizing some markets and allowing limited capitalism [6]. Still, Cuba cannot keep up with freer markets in other countries.

In the centuries after socialism was first proposed, it has been repeatedly debunked. Economists tend to prefer market economies as more efficient [7] [8]. They also claim they are unable to predict demand for items or boom and bust cycles. So for socialism to work, economists must be much dumber than they say they are and much smarter than they say they are (in order to accurately predict demand). In fact, elected officials have to do this accurately and repeatedly when the smartest economists in the world claim to be unable to do so.

Under America's current form of capitalism, there is more than enough value to go around. Wealth can be redistributed through taxation. But in a socialist economy, value is in short supply and the poor cannot be helped. I will remind the audience that my opponent must defend government control of all industries, not just some. They are arguing that the government should regulate every single industry. And every time this has been tried, it has led to living standards much worse than those generated by capitalism.