A new economic model which exceeds capitalism and socialism failures
Debate Rounds (3)
I am interested in seeing where this debate goes.
I will only supply one rebuttal in his round, as I only need one.
My opponent has not followed her own stated purpose. She says in the debate title: "A new economic model which exceeds capitalism and socialism failures" She has not provided this supposed "model". Until this is changed, Pro has not fufilled her BOP in this debate. I hope this chages, as I find this topic very intruiging.
In 1930 the Great Depression happened, and this was overcome by capitalism, however government started to intervene in the economy and a new model was created: Keynesian Economics; where the Estate could take matters in their hands, because they were aware of the iniquities that could happen because of capitalism total freedom.
Now apparently everything was fine, but in 1973 with the oil crisis the neoliberalists attacked the Keynesian politic. They argued that the budget for social well being was too exaggerated and so they didn't invest too much in the market, and that was the reason it didn't grow and thanks to that the crisis came.
The consequences were: higher unemployment rate, because if more unemployed people more labor supply offer, that implies paying lower wages and more profit for the employer.
Also the taxation for the employers decreased, and the privatization occurred. Many unions were destroyed and the budget for social programs was cut. This caused a very profound gap between rich and poor.
That's why this is called economic Darwinism, because only the strongest survives.
The powerful people set the rules and the majority risks everything, that is how it works. Unfortunately this is at global scale, and the same that happens with individuals happens with nations, in a phenomenon we called globalization, where the richest countries take advantage of poor nations, making trades that are designed for making profits just for them.
Marx said that history was social class struggle, I just agree with him in this part, not in socialism. But if we want a stable economy we must make sure that the majority is in well state.
There should be a strong balance, but the priority is to give liberty and security for people, not market. Taxes should be the same for everyone. An economy regulation must be made. We must de privatize everything that was of the common people and now is just of a few who can afford it.
I'm not against market freedom, but you must put people first above all.
And the government should regulate this, because at the end the government is not a politician, but an institute that represents people.
We must be honest, capitalism right now is being treated as democratic, we should redirect it.
"It's wrong to deprive someone else of a pleasure so that you can enjoy one yourself, but to deprive yourself of a pleasure so that you can add to someone else's enjoyment is an act of humanity by which you always gain more than you lose."
― Thomas More
I agree, but once again, what is your argument? We can't debate a narrative. Do you have a model of how this will work, or is this just a rhetorical debate?
erika.danart forfeited this round.
Have a nice day.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture...
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.