[WDT] On balance, The Command Economy is superior to the Market Economy.

The biggest problem with this debate is that it gets to bogged down in the back-and-forth on specific arguments that it largely doesn't go anywhere after the first round. There are additional arguments sprinkled in and further rebuttals, but the cases are made at the outset and neither side does a whole lot to expand on the essential points of their side, since you're both so caught up in the line-by-line. I think the opening rounds by both sides are good, but until the last round, neither side really takes a step back and evaluates the bigger picture.

ME and CE are clearly defined in the description. The distinction is solely on one level: who should control production and pricing - the government or the people? There's a lot tangled up in that, but as this is also limited to two countries with known systems (Cuba and Vietnam), there are pretty discrete limits to what can be discussed. So it's good that both sides talked a lot about where these countries are right now on that sliding scale and why elements of ME or CE have been helpful or harmful to them. I thought there would be a lot more discussion of what it would take to push each of these countries in either direction, but that was surprisingly limited. Instead, a lot of the discussion moves to other countries and their implementation of ME and CE, which seems to complicate things more by introducing a variety of other factors that might explain those differences. If one side had really focused their on what this shift would look like within these countries - talked about implementation and weighed the harms and benefits of both directions - I think that would have been an easy way for me to decide the debate.

As it stands, though, there's not actually that much for me to mention. There's surprisingly little acknowledgement by either side of the failings of the system they're defending, especially after R1, since both sides spend the rest of the debate focusing on hyping up their system and attacking the other. It makes me question whether a lot of the positive points apply to absolute ME or CE, but that's just a general frustration. The back-and-forth largely favors Con, since he sources more of his rebuttals and those support more specific points that apply to how these affect economies. One of the bigger examples of the contrast between the two sides is Pro's consistent claims of financial collapse juxtaposed with Con's focus on poverty, income inequality, economic growth and capacity to rebound from crisis. There's just a lot more steps present in Con's points that, while not always effective in turning Pro's points, at least introduce enough doubt that none of Pro's points come through unscathed. By contrast, the comparisons to other countries and, in particular, the authoritarianism argument emerge relatively unscathed and while their value as a Kritik is... questionable (I don't see voters specific to buying the Kritik and it largely just morphs into a disadvantage with a distinct link story), it's also the strongest connection we have to how countries behave when they are pushing towards a CE structure.

I don't think either side runs away with this debate, but while I'm not fond of the "add up impacts and give them a score" RFD structure, it's hard to ignore just how many rebuttals and counter-rebuttals Con is employing and how the responses to those from Pro lack the specificity and support to match them. It's also the only basis I have for voting in this debate, as neither side provides a framework that would make certain points stand out. It's just a straight up "who's winning on the flow" situation. As such, I vote Con.

As you all know I have a legal background, so when it comes to debate, I think/treat it as if we are in a courtroom and whomever provides the more convincing argument (and evidence to substantiate it), shall prevail. That being said, I offer the following analysis for voting:

When I first read PRO's initial R1 post, I immediately had a lot of questions that were not answered. Why begin defending Cuba with antiquated data so far removed from the present that the foundation of the argument immediately crumbles upon itself? The 1950s? That's 70+ years in the past, and what may have worked in the past is clearly not working in the recent years of that nation. Hence the mass exodus and influx of migrants fleeing on boats, often overcrowded, setting sail for North America, a predominately (near absolute) Market Economy. I bore witness to this myself in the mid-1990s as I served a tour at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where we held many of those Cuban refugees as they were being processed for entrance or denial into America. If the CE in Cuba was so fantastic, why were so many fleeing? Among them were not just the poorest of the poor, but professionals in medicine to athleticism.

When PRO says there is a lower rate of inequality in Cuba, my immediate thought is (based on the aforementioned experience), that's because their government sees their citizenry the same...all poor and all subject to their control. Which is precisely why everyone gets the same things as housing, food and transportation at the same cost/value. If everyone gets the same and has the same, it stifles desire to work harder to get more or just better things.

In the initial listings between Cuba and Vietnam, it would have been nice or more appropriate to compare the two equally. PRO compared life expectancy, inequality, basic services, and education in Cuba but didn't match it to Vietnam where PRO listed foreign investments, infrastructure, poverty rates, and increased GDP. Not the same list as the former, so it felt a little disconnected.

CON's initial response was nearly point by point, which given my legal background, I can appreciate. Especially when kicking it off, more or less, making it clear that this debate should be centered around inherency. And knowing what I know about both countries, and the foreign investments Vietnam has obtained (namely with Hasbro, among other major corporations), it is hard to argue that Cuba is better off than Vietnam given the disparity in economic policies. And I agree, there is no "absolute" economic system, at least any successful one, in my lifetime, or the past, that I am currently aware of. So the argument for an actual "absolute" command or market economic system is a tough one to argue.

CON's analysis of how far V or C went in embracing some measures of a market system was enlightening, but not hard to guess or surmise. And CON is correct on the competition and stagnation aspect. That's more or less a given with what us educated people know. Competition forces innovation. Status quo just carries on as usual. And this was pointed out within.

I have to agree with Athias on PRO's argument of the ME being a causal or instigating factor in increased crime. An economic system has nothing to do with criminality. Criminal behavior has absolutely nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the lack of a nuclear family structure and the obvious nature vs nurture psychological issues inherent with human development, growth and subsequent behavior. Not economic systems or theories.

PRO contents that a CE provides safety, security and stability but really doesn't clarify how each is established let alone maintained in order to substantiate a CE. Even under ME damages PRO lists loss of employment talent; again, given my experiences in the mid-90s, that has already been an issue that continues present day, and Cuba hasn't moved anywhere close to a ME. As such, I cannot help but agree with CON's analysis that the negative impacts were not convincingly linked to a ME.

Okay, I think I have rambled enough. I could go on as I am a long-winded writer when I choose/need to be...that being said, both PRO and CON performed admirably in this debate. Both sourced their arguments well, but I felt "context" could have been more firmly established for some of the cited sources rather than just merely providing a link to them just because they fit what was discussed. The conduct of both were respectable, both followed the parameters outlined, and both stayed on topic (i.e., on the merits of the case). Kudos to you both! I always find economics dry and boring, but the individual takes presented were a pleasure to read. Thank you.

I award my vote to CON.

According to PRO's stipulations, we as Judges are to consider the set of arguments that convincingly demonstrates which of the Economic Systems--i.e. The Command Economy or The Market Economy--produces the superior and more fitting system, economically speaking, for the countries, Cuba and Vietnam. PRO's case is centered on what he alleges a command economy produces: (1) Higher Life Expectancy as a result of universal healthcare, (2) Lower Rates of Inequality, (3) Affordable Pricing for Basic Needs and Services, (4) High Literacy Rates as a Result of Free Education, (5) Low Poverty Rates, (6) Easier Transportation, and (7) a GDP of 6%. PRO also supplements this with alleging that Command Economies produce Safety, Security, and Stability. PRO's contention against the Market Economy as far as its fit for Cuba and Vietnam is that both countries are designed for command economies and that the transition to Market Economies would not only be lengthy time wise, but also disastrous/catastrophic. PRO supplements his contention further by alleging that the Market Economy would produce: (1) Monopolization, (2) Environmental Catastrophes, (3) Low Demand for Essential Services, (4) Wealth and Equality Gap, (5) Unemployment & Poverty, (6) Industry Collapse, and (7) More Crime & Less Accountability.

CON's case centers on a juxtaposition between what Cuba and Vietnam represent, i.e. Cuba's being a mixed economy which trends more toward State control and regulation, where as Vietnam is a mixed economy which trends more toward free-market principles. CON alleges that Vietnam has benefited from its trending toward market-based principles through increased economic growth, increased efficiency and innovation, increased consumer choice, and increased competition. CON supplements this point by extending this list to include stronger democracies, less bureaucracy and intervention, increased foreign investment, increased employment attraction, better conditions for citizens, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, better environmental quality, higher literacy rates, lower poverty rates, lower inequality, better education quality, more entrepreneurship, greater corporate accountability, better economic prosperity, more resilient economies, and better ability to adapt in a crisis. CON's contention against the command economy which he argues is exemplified by particular trends in Cuba is paltry growth, little-to-no motivation resulting in decreased efficiency and innovation, and decreased competition resulting in decreased consumer choice.

I'd be remiss if I did not mention the following: I dismissed CON's "Kritik" because PRO stipulated that the debate would focus on which system was superior in the context of Economics. By that very same token, I dismissed PRO's attempt to associate market economies with increased crime.

Ultimately, CON's arguments were superior because he provided tangible references in his analysis, i.e. the very countries PRO cited. CON demonstrated that Vietnam's economic growth as a result of its market-based approach, as opposed to central planning, would indicate that a Market Economy would suit Vietnam just well. CON also adeptly juxtaposes this with Cuba's meager economic growth, even ranking 104th in the prosperity index, which he argued to be a product of Cuba's trending toward central planning. PRO does a good in Round Two by pointing out that despite Vietnam's growth, inequality has only worsened--resulting in basic services being unaffordable. However, PRO imputes a bit of a contradiction. PRO has argued that the command economy in Vietnam has resulted in Foreign Investment, while also arguing that this Foreign Investment as part and parcel is unsustainable because of Vietnam's Economy being overdependent on them. The very source to which PRO alludes does not recommend reversing this policy, but instead mitigating this vulnerability by shoring up domestic investment by private enterprises. CON also does well to point out that the negative impacts PRO alleges are associated with the Market Economy has not been shown to be exclusive to just the Market Economy. One such example would be monopolization--i.e. the command economy is the epitome of monopolization, as CON pointed out in Round Two. PRO also did not demonstrate how the supply of essential services at affordable prices was exclusive to just the command economy. CON adeptly rebutted every point on which PRO had premised his argument, so I award my favor to CON as far as arguments are concerned.

Both PRO and CON sourced their arguments well. Both were legible. And both PRO and CON were respectful of each other as well as the process of this debate. I would also like to add that this was a very enjoyable read. I would like to applaud both Sir.Lancelot's and AustinL0926's diligence and meticulousness (especially in their clear outline of their respective points.) Well done to the both of you.