The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A capitilist societs is better then a socialist one

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,085 times Debate No: 19205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

16kadams

Pro

This debate will be about the economic system mostly. You prove my system is broke, and I prove that mine is better, so come socialists.

1st round show the definition of your system.

Capitiasm: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth Dictionary.com
imabench

Con

Ill give this a shot, even though I am for capitalism and that the voting period lasts only three days....

Socialist economy - A system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. - Dictionary.com

I agree that I must argue that Capitalism is flawed,
Pro is to defend capitalism

State your case :)
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

As you know capitalism makes free trade. Here is milton Freidman on capitalism:
First of all, capitalism is better for an economy. How you may ask? Because it creates competition. Competition makes better quality goods for cheaper. Here's why: My neighbor is selling widgets for $5, im selling them for $10, and his are better. People are going to buy from him more then me because he has better things for cheaper then I do. So I will make mine $2.50, and I will improve them so I get the money, then he will turn around and make his $2 and better then mine. Obviously this takes time, but it makes better goods faster.

In a socialist society the government owns most of your things, That violates a right in my mind. Also having this right makes you responsible, and lets you plan your future. Do you want Someone to say "well I think you need a new house, I hope you like shacks" Also it lets you provide for your family better.The lack of private property rights in much of Africa makes such borrowing and investment impossible, and is one reason for the continent's lack of economic growth.

You earn more than in socialism. YOU GET REWARDED! You get more for success, in socialism growth is scarce because a doctor gets paid as much as a cashier. So people don't stride to do their best anymore.

In america society is generally the people rule, not the government. This means freedom. More rights, more privileges, and better economy. Socialism is all around worse. your rights under a socialist rule are almost none, because the government overrides you.

You will bring in monopolies because I said competition. Well that is false, because under my system there are going to be basic regulations, not huge ones, but basic ones that insure that a person in a small business protection from the big ones.

Here's a site that you can use to imabench:http://www.idebate.org... It shows pros and cons of both.

Also the majority agrees with my view, 60%. If you believe this is untrue then here's this:http://www.rasmussenreports.com...

Socialism is an uncompetitive economy which will lead to products not improving as much. Why? because the government owns that business. If they like my company better then my neighbors then all they have to do is come to me and say "your new job is a janitor" and I will obey. So competition decreases.

Capitalism, on the other hand, isn't perfect. But it creates prosperity for individuals and for the economy. It gets businesses and individuals investing for the future. (1)

Ronald Reagan was dead on when he said:

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." (1)

Also you probably agree, communism isn't always good, or my view is never good. So did you know socialism turns into communism if you look at Marxist theory.

Once again the main arguments for me include 1. I earn more and keep what I get 2. Freedom 3. Basic economics prove my point 4. Your socialism makes it almost total government control.

sources:
http://jayperoni.com... (1)
http://expertvoter.org...
imabench

Con

You offer some good points against socialism, let me first offer some points against capitalism.

Capitalism results in two things, competition (which the pro mentioned), and profit

Look in the news in any site and you will find a story of how a company went to extreme lengths to obtain profit. Banks handing out loans guaranteed to fail, other banks foreclosing on homes where the owners paid off their mortgages long ago, individuals constructing elaborate Ponzi schemes to take billions away from innocent investors, the list goes on.

The pursuit of profit does have many set backs on a corporate level. In the early days of the industrial revolution many companies produced such an excess of goods that it drove mom and pop stores out of business because they could produce the same goods they were selling 10x faster and 10x cheaper. One cannot simply protect such family owned businesses from all large corporations, imagine defending 20 family businesses from losing profit against the massive Wal-mart that opened up just down the street. Capitalism creates competition that can be very unhealthy and wipe out smaller more honest businesses.

There are two ways to keep costs down of an item in a capitalist society with the same number of workers, one is invest enough available resources to increase productivity, the other is too use less safe materials and lower working standards to maximize profit. Laws such as the minimum wage and allowing unions and overtime had to be implemented just to keep ravenous companies from going to extreme lengths to become profitable. Capitalism drove this because it drove the desire for more profit and when the needs to increase production have been reached or cannot be expanded, companies wont stop looking for ways to score. They will exploit every loophole they can find if it helps them make a buck.

Consider the Occupy wall street movements. This exemplifies how greed for profit can go too far in a capitalist society but some of the other messages that the same group is campaigning against also show the woes of capitalism. Recently in this great country a law was passed that allowed corporations to make unlimited donations to political candidates of their choice under the idea that money = speech. If you look at the Congress we have in session right now, it is now the best Congress that MONEY CAN BUY. Corporations will fund candidates if their views means more profits for the company donating money to him/her, often companies driven by greed will make donations to try to influence their policy decisions that could affect their own wallets.

Remember when global warming reports were at its zenith? Oil companies and Coal companies paid thousands of dollars to try to show that they were making an honest buck and in some cases paid scientists to denounce global warming to protect the slandering of their image. Capitalistic countries will always house companies that will go to extreme lengths not only to maximize profit, but to defend their revenue if they feel it is threatened.

Capitalism can drive economies into huge recessions if all of a sudden a number of bank loans fails or prices suddenly go up, etc. The economic crisis during the Carter administration was triggered by an Arabic boycott of oil exports to the United States, and even though it was just one resource the process soared, people couldnt get gas, productivity suffered, inflation started to affect other goods, and Carter himself couldn't fight it. Recessions and depressions can be triggered by a multitude of things out of the blue and that gives capitalism a very risky outlook on the present and the future. If you remember the 2008 recession you could recall how even today it isnt quite understood just how it started.

Socialism now is the missing link between Capitalism and Communism. It is usually a transitional phase and no country except maybe Sweden today has ever based an economy off of it because all the previous nations before that were socialistic became communist and meet their ends. But wait, what about China? Last I checked they were super communist and they are rumored to match the US economy in a matter of years now. So capitalism maybe risky and proven but socialism in its normal state and extreme state do have success stories. When Soviet Russia was at its height it was a purely communist country and they put up a terrific fight against capitalism during the Cold War

In a socialist economy, the government owns most of your belongings. That is very true but they are still yours arent they? The government owns them but they could never actually burst into your home and start seizing what is theirs to pay for a war effort or something..... If the government owns your house but your the only one living in it then you could own your home in a figurative sense.

As for Africa they are doing poor economically for a number of reasons. Civil war, under development of infrastructure, inflation, poor economic systems, military takeovers, unnecessary wars with their neighbors, high birth rate, Aids and Malaria, religious extremitism are a number of reasons. However I distinctly learned about a time in history when Africa was colonized by a number of European countries during the 1900's, a number of capitalistic countries that is. Capitalism and Imperialism collided and drove nations themselves to annex distant lands they knew nothing about just for exploiting resources.

Capitalism does not bring out greed in companies or people, it can bring out the greed in a country or even an entire continent to occupy another continent.

In some cases doctors are paid as much as cashiers, this is to prevent a disparity in income between classes of society, the income gap of America is so bad that in terms of income equality the US is tied 52nd in the world for MOST income inequality, guess who else is tied with us at 52.......... Ghana and Turkmenistan......

http://www.nationmaster.com...

Whose at the top of the list with the most income inequality? the top 10 are
Nambia,
Lesotho,
Botswana,
Sierra Leone,
Central African Republic,
Swaziland,
Bolivia,
Haiti,
Colombia,
Brazil

Countries that have the least income inequality
Denmark,
Japan,
Sweden,
Czech Republic,
Slovakia,
Norway,
Bosnia and Her.,
Uzbekistan,
Finland,
Hungary

By the way Germany, the largest economic force in Europe, who was a key player in the Greece bailouts,
Germany ranked 113 in income inequality (14th for equality)
Greece ranked 85 in a tie with Ireland and Indonesia

Point is: capitalism leads to a lot of income inequality where in its extreme rarely works out
socialism creates income equality and there are many success stories behind socialist-leaning economies

In a perfect world and only in a perfect world does work equal success. Capitalism though is a very dirty system where people can climb to the top through inheritance, illegal deals, bribery, merging with their competition, etc. to climb to the top. The idea that no increase in salaries causes people to not be their best but consider this....

How many people do you think became doctors or lawyers or business men simply because that is where the money was? If incomes are fixed and at a reasonably close rate then that could allow for people to strive for what they truly want to be. If the income were the same then people could pursue their passion without fear of economic setbacks. If people pursue the carrers theyve always wanted then productivity would not wane as the Pro suggests.

In a socialist system the government controls the production and price of almost all goods. This system does not spawn individual wealth or prosperity, instead it freezes the economy in a state of little growth just to bring balance. It does have flaws but in a socialist economy the greed for profit is removed from the system and everyone earns the same wage for pursuing their own passions.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

Basically most of your argument reviles around fairness and failure. Banks doing dumb things, Sweden etc. Here's the beauty of a capitalist society, if you fail it is still possible for rising. If you fail in a socialist society the government turns around and helps you. That sounds good at first, but until you find out the government is incompetent in doing that task.

"One cannot simply protect such family owned businesses from all large corporations"
That means you are arguing against yourself because that is one of the ideas that is proposed in socialism, protection.
Also capitalism makes wealth, so you saying big corporations kill of small business, then that's business. I wish that never happened, never ever, but socialism is not the answer. Since I believe in free markets then the government can only prevent monopolies in my opinion, they should not do anything else. Under the system that you are arguing the government owns it all. The government usually doesn't pass bills that are economically sound, and are inefficient. So do you want incompetent bureaucrats that work ineffeciantly choosing how an economy works?
"There are two ways to keep costs down of an item in a capitalist society with the same number of workers, one is invest enough available resources to increase productivity, the other is too use less safe materials and lower working standards to maximize profit."
Link source? Also you need to add in competition. And Milton freedman shows you the benefits of my system=stem, and disproves yours.
"This exemplifies how greed for profit can go too far in a capitalist society "
This is what I am talking about. The people in wall street earned their money, the protesters want the money without working. That's like me getting a Ferrari for free. The protesters are MOOCHERS! Like in atlas shrugged. These socialists want to get money like the rich without the work. That IS NOT FAIR. I believe if you want something that you need to work for it, not get a free ride like socialism advocates.
"Remember when global warming reports were at its zenith? Oil companies and Coal companies paid thousands of dollars to try to show that they were making an honest buck and in some cases paid scientists to denounce global warming to protect the slandering of their image. Capitalistic countries will always house companies that will go to extreme lengths not only to maximize profit, but to defend their revenue if they feel it is threatened."
Good! That case is people showing there opinion, that's like saying that I cannot pay someone to advocate my belief's, even if it is for personal gain. Once again, capitalism means you work hard, or in this case defend your self, to get money, or don't try and be a worthless lump. You still don't deny the fact that is there is income equality is leads to more miss happenings. If I'm a doctor and the hobo that just sits there and he gets paid as much as me then I will work less. Why work hard if there is no gain?
"Capitalism can drive economies into huge recessions"
If you look at it, people in this recession are still richer then any one country. So capitalism does make downturns, well not by itself, but even in a downturn you are still richer then other people. Socialism is even worse then this. North Korea is a communist/socialist state, and they experience famines and all sorts of things. They are 4 inches shorter to their capitalist brothers to the south, and they have the same diet. Have you heard of the Nazi Socialist Party? They killed millions of people, so socialism makes ad economy's and helps evil people take control and abuse the power.
"But wait, what about China? Last I checked they were super communist and they are rumored to match the US economy in a matter of years now."
It is not super communist anymore, they have differences. They are communists but are weakening their hold. The allow entrepreneur ship and certain small business. And even if they didnt they may be pretty well off, why? 1 billion people in a workforce is HUGE. For a Communist country, China is not without capitalist luxuries.
How communist is China, really?

Not very. Since the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976, China has all but abandoned the tenets of classical Marxism, including collective ownership of the means of production. (1)
Nowadays, just about everything is at least partly privatized. (1)
Politically speaking they are communist, and they still own the banks, but they prosper because of the allowed capitalist ways, and the allowance of private entrepreneur ship. They do this in 2 ways, 1 say if you come here we will treat you like it's your business, and 2 have a worthless currency, so company's all swarm and flock there. So their GDP grows not because of communism, but because of those 2 things.
"In a socialist economy, the government owns most of your belongings. That is very true but they are still yours aren't they?"

Um yes and no. In socialism you succeed many of your right, you dont have a constitution anymore to say hey government stop. So if they wanted to take it away to pay a debt they could. So it is yours to use, their to take.
Any government that is capable of giving you everything you need is also powerful enough to take away everything you have. In socialist countries, you may be given so much food a day, blankets, etc. However, in socialist countries, you often find leaders that are omnipotent and will take over everything if you’re not careful. Let me re-state that-even if you are careful, they will take over. (2)
You talk about Africa, and you put bad political systems, not most countries in Africa are socialist or totalitarian. Case closed, and the civil war is also made people vs totalitarian or socialist state. Case closed.
"Capitalism does not bring out greed in companies or people, it can bring out the greed in a country or even an entire continent to occupy another continent."
Do you have any proof on this? If so show a SCOURCE!
"In some cases doctors are paid as much as cashiers, this is to prevent a disparity in income between classes of society,"
So heres what you are saying here, You save lives heres 10,000 bucks, hey you say 'your change is .75 cents ma'am' so heres 10,00o bucks. Does that sound fair! I will quote one of my sources:
You can work your rear end of in a field and make 10 thousand pounds of cotton in a year, and some dude that is a failure at life makes nothing, but you each get paid 5,000 dollars a year. Is that fair? I think not! And that is most certainly not perfect. (2)
Germany is in fact the largest economy via Europe. Call, they are not socialist. They work hard for their pay. YOU TALK ABOUT THE BAILOUTS, THAT IS THE GOVERMENTS CASH NOT THE ECONOMY. Whoops caps, I don't feel like fixing it now. Also there is another reason for Germany's success, under the Nazi rule Hitler made bonds with BMW Mercedes, and Audi or Volkswagen. So even though under his rule they didnt do as well as ford, now they are still in germany and face freer markets then an average place and flourish. Also your other list shows countries that are always poor. Like Haiti, it isn't that reason they are poor, and Switzerland has a great economy for its size, so there you help me, Columbia has drug wars which affect it, and Brazil is rich too. Botswana is in africa, so that is invalid Nambai doens work either. Bolivia is doing pretty ok last time i checked. Centeral african republic... We staed other reasons for africas problems, so still invalid.
"capitalism leads to a lot of income inequality"
True, you are rewarded for your success. I am running out of room so I will post a link to finnish this argument:
http://socialismdoesntwork.com... Just read it it proves the wealth thing wrong and brings up other points.
imabench

Con

Nobody wants to see big corporations kill small corporations and Socialism would not fix that at all. I concede that but I reinforce my point that It is a woe that affects Capitalism far more than it affects socialism

Why do I have to provide a source for something that is common sense? If you want to improve productivity with the same amount of workers you only have two options, invest in expensive advanced technology or use lower quality materials at a cheaper price. You dont need a website that people wont click anyway to prove something everyone can understand.

The Wall Street protests are not the poor wanting the rich's money..... The Wall Street protests exist because people who do work very hard for very little (in a capitalist system) are only protesting how greedy corporations and banks are exploiting a system and a government to get billions in aid during times of economic recessions. During the bailouts many banks that got billions in bailouts blew it all on employee bonuses instead of overhauling their system and bringing profit back to the original investors.

The movement is protesting how corporations have such power and influence over everyone else in a capitalist system, they are not protesting because they want their money back....

http://www.yesmagazine.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Pro thinks its good that oil companies and coal companies are paying billions for scientists to try to prove that global warming does not exist..... I wont go into that but I just want to reinforce that such things happen in a capitalist system....

Capitalism drives countries into recessions. The Pro admits this is true but argues that just because America is 4x richer than any other country we should disregard this. As for his remarks about North Korea and Nazi Germany,

1) North Korea is run by an insane dictator who spends all his countries money on the military. The country is facing severe trade sanctions from the outside nations and that is why they are in such bad shape, it is not because of socialism...
2) Nazi Germany was a Facist state run by an even crazier leader.

"socialism makes bad economy's and helps evil people take control and abuse the power."
Socialism had nothing to do with the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany. Hitler came to power because he inspired fellow Germans to rally to his cause because they were living in horrid conditions following WWI. He came to power and became the complete Dictator and the rest we all know.

1 Billion people in the workforce may explain China's economic power, but if you look just to the left on a globe you'll find India which is in such bad shape that half their population lives in borderline poverty.

The Pro has shown that China is not die hard socialist. I cannot offer a counter argument to challenge they are not somewhat capitalist but let it show that both capitalism and socialism can exist together peacefully and work well.

In my references to Africa it is true that most of them are socialist, in fact most of them are CAPITALIST and they are still doing very poorly economically, thank you for proving my point.

Capitalism drove European countries to occupy almost all of Africa, Indonesia, Australia etc. because they were capitalist countries looking for more resources to get an edge over the other and be number 1:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.pvhs.chico.k12.ca.us...
http://africanhistory.about.com...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
http://www.aljazeera.com...
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

When I showed a list of capitalist countries with the biggest disparities between incomes the Pro tried to negate this by arguing that the countries at the top of the list that prove my point do not count by arguing that,
"Since they are in Africa.... they do not count"....

Why do you keep yelling for me to give sources when out of your three sources,
1) is a facebook link
2) is a biased site devoted against everything socialist
3) is the one source that does work proves that China is only partly socialist

Let me just end here on the woes of Capitalism and some of the benefits of Socialism

1) Capitalism promotes greed which push corporations to the extremes just to make money
2) Hundreds of laws exist to protect workers and consumers from corporations willing to exploit them for more profit
3) There are many capitalist countries that are in terrible economic shape
4) Capitalism does cause countries to suffer recessions from time to time that could destroy nations
5) In capitalism corporations can lobby to buy politicians to support their businesses
6) Capitalism causes big companies to smite smaller companies much more frequently than in socialist ones
7) Corporations will try to ignore science if it reveals they are doing something that could result in them losing money or credibility
8) Capitalism leads to a great deal of income inequality which could result in class warfare in extreme cases
9) Capitalism if unregulated could result in complete monopolies of markets by behemoth corporations
10) Capitalism can lead to the exploitation of people, nations, and entire continents

As for Socialism
1) Its not the ideal system, I just want to emphasize that point right here
2) Socialism prevents huge corporations from having a bigger say i how politicians do their jobs then the average person
3) In a socialist system production is driven by demand, not profit
4) In a socialist system, greed is almost entirely removed from the system
5) in a socialist system competition between companies is still present, but on a much smaller scale than in a capitalist system
6) Almost equal wages allow people to explore different careers and not choose ones based on pay
7) In a socialist system the rich would not take advantage of the poor as much as a capitalist system does

I may be wrong about some of those points, I still do not know how socialism works inside and out, but if you find a point that is wrong just leave a comment about it to bring it to my attention Please dont invalidate my entire argument over 1 missed point....

Thanks, Vote Con :D
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
lol Con starts off by naming two things caused by government policy:

"Banks handing out loans guaranteed to fail, other banks foreclosing on homes "

The cheap money from the federal reserve dissolved the responsibility of lenders.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
thanks
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Well You start a lot of good debates :P
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
imabench, we debate a lot :P
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
WHoops I didn't know it was a 3 day voting period, forgot to change it to a week.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Are we talking about a theoretical society? Because both sides like to fall back upon the "there has never been a true [insert political society here] nation to compare." So if we are focusing on historic nations, this will pose a major problem, of course, theoretical societies come with problems of their own. If we can theoretically impose personal motivators upon people, than any society can work.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Sorry for the typo in the title
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Thanks
Posted by DoctorZhiva90 5 years ago
DoctorZhiva90
should be very interesting to see. good luck to you, being a capitalist myself i cannot debate you, but hopefully you'll find a worthy opponent.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by E.BurnumIII 5 years ago
E.BurnumIII
16kadamsimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't effectively explain why competition is bad
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
16kadamsimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I think con could have won if he showed why competition was bad. Socialism prohibitably excludes competition. Profit seeking is pretty universal under any system (it is how you personally choose your wants)