The Instigator
Daffa8799
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CodingSource
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Can capitalism grow the economy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 4 votes the winner is...
CodingSource
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 86362
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Daffa8799

Pro

I'll agree that capitalism can grow the economy. Maybe put some government regulations on it. Effectively, capitalism will affect to the economy. Dynamic growth, higher employment opportunities, higher innovation, and economic development. Capitalism may effect for an Income Inequality, but that thing can't be denied. Even if we're using socialism, there will still inequality there. Income inequality is one of prospects that can't be denied in this world. Even all of the countries have income inequality in a different numbers. And mostly, countries that using capitalism as it economic system have a higher develeopment than countries that aren't using it.
CodingSource

Con

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes.

First of all, capitalism creates poverty. The level of poverty in America is alarming. Given by the Census Bureau, "more than one in every six people in the United States lives in poverty or near-poverty." How is poverty defined in America? It is defined by living on $23,000 for a family of four. Without the government"s assistance, it is nearly impossible to survive with this absurdly low and improbable figure.
"In November 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty, including almost 20% of American children, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in poverty. Starting in the 1980s, relative poverty rates have consistently exceeded those of other wealthy nations. California has a poverty rate of 23.5%, the highest of any state in the country.
In 2011, child poverty reached record high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households, about 35% more than 2007 levels. A 2013 UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world (behind Romania)." " Wikipedia
Capitalism"s part as the roots of poverty is quite clear. It was formulated to grant a small exclusive people to control most of the wealth generated by the working people (factories, machinery and tools). With management decimated and tax loopholes increased, it gives a gargantuan share of total wealth and income to a small elite and leaves the rest to be contended for among the remainder of the population.
Secondly, it only scrutinizes the prosperity of investors and not society at large. It is a system that is patterned to maximize profits, so it was only a matter of time before the system would claim itself again with effort. THE BIGGER THE S.O.B YOU ARE IN THE CORPORATE WORLD, THE MORE YOU ARE HONORED AND RESPECTED.

Third, social benefit is overlooked. A free market will forget externalities. A profit maximizing capitalist firm is likely to ignore negative expanses such as pollution from production. This can abuse living standards. Capitalist economies have a weakness to Booms and Busts cycles with painful bankruptcy and mass unemployment.

A capitalist society squabbles that it is good if people can make more money leading to income and wealth differences. However, this fails the receding marginal utility of wealth. In turn, inequality creates social division. Societies which are highly different produce indignation and social division.

(OccassionalPlanet.org, EconomicsHelp.org)
Debate Round No. 1
Daffa8799

Pro

Daffa8799 forfeited this round.
CodingSource

Con

Since Daffa forfeited this round, it should have been right for me to extend the arguments. Let me present more.

Capitalism, unfortunately, generate profits from global warming, from damaging our Mother Nature by damaging our oceans, putting chemicals into the atmosphere, and so forth. We can"t save our environment until we eliminate Capitalism.

Capitalism demonstrates the character of egoism without looking towards decency, acumen that leads to environmental deterioration, annihilation of indigenous societies, colonialism, and other types of mass destruction.

Capitalists complimented independence and individuality. However, they are the once that wrecks it. The tremendous majority of workers are daily given orders and to move as we are machines, and restrict our artistry to what produces income for the bosses.

Capitalism emboldens avarice, but it is only good for capitalists. For people who are not capitalists this is introvert and very bad for the society.

Capitalism is a structure of minority freedom and class rule depended on the private ownership through the aid of employment. This provides a few wealthy people to buy and sell jobs, which means that they have the power to create or destroy humankind that relies on those jobs.

In capitalism, in order to have income, inequality should exist, meaning that the rich cannot prevail without the poor. You have to take it from someone else. There is a regular excess resource from the wealthy that is going to be waste, if not properly disseminated.

Usually, companies will never mind health and safety limitations because the budget would be lesser to provide those needs that are more important and would generate more income.

Plus, Capitalism is undemocratic. Really, wealthy creates a greater impact to the government than "anything" else, including beliefs, dogma, and public opinion. Sadly, most of the time governments will pay attention to big corporations and banks because they supply their finance their election barnstorm. Governments will listen to huge newspaper aristocrats because they know that they can have immense significance to public opinion.

As companies ignore environmental measures because it will curtail generation of profits, they are causing pollution. Many of the wars that occurred during in the recent years are because of the battle of profit. In Iraq, the war was largely bankrolled by oil noblemen, and it was private organizations who administered most of the surveillance after the first assault. Western forces meddled in Libya when the civil war caused oil production to stop. In Iran, military interference is being menaced over the blockade of trading routes to ship oil.

It is reality: dictatorship exists in Capitalism. Haven"t we hate dictatorship in our government? Therefore, whether you like it or not, it is happening in all enterprises. The bosses, especially CEOs, who are get paid extensive salaries and verdict themselves tremendous bonuses, don"t do the work and don"t generate the cargoes we deplete. But they simply own the system of production. As for those who do, the workers don"t have any voice on how it is managed, and they were paid minimal wages. Irony, isn"t it?

If the Instigator didn"t provide any debate in the next round, then all I can do is to extend the argument.

(CounterPunch.org, ListVerse.com)
Debate Round No. 2
Daffa8799

Pro

Daffa8799 forfeited this round.
CodingSource

Con

I extend all arguments. Thank you very much Daffa for such a memorable debate.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Daffa8799 1 year ago
Daffa8799
Well, i guess you have a bad experience with the government regulations. You seem very know about what the government do to the country's economy. And if you like to visit my country, you'll know that government in my country is all corrupt and being evil to the society
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
I consider any government interference in the economy to be evil, no matter how similar to Hilter or others they may or may not be. You believe in a little slavery to the state. I do not.
Posted by Daffa8799 1 year ago
Daffa8799
Well, likely you have the experience before about the fascism. Well i mostly agree with you about government shouldn't be involved in the economy. But not all government will be like that. Not all government will be like world war germany, italy or japan. Or maybe north korea for now. So, i think not all government will do that bad.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
No, subsidies are a form of fascism with the government forcing me to help my competitors or for products I do not want.

Cutting taxes is not a regulation, but the minimization of regulations.

The government should not be involved in the economy, pro or con. Remember, fascism is bad.
Posted by Daffa8799 1 year ago
Daffa8799
Hmm, well yeah giving subsidies for any company to thrive their productivity, Cutting taxes, Monetary policies to stabilize the financial system, Fiscal policy for government expenditures.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
For example?
Posted by Daffa8799 1 year ago
Daffa8799
Yeah but what i mean the regulations is not like anti-freedom that you mention below. It's a free market but with a few regulations. And the regulations is to facilitate the path of free market. Not intervene it.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
A tax is no different than any other regulation.
Posted by Daffa8799 1 year ago
Daffa8799
What i mean the regulations is not that kind of regulations. I mean is that like tax regulations on capitalism. If we're already at free market and no tax regulations will be inefficient. Not like anti-trade that you mention or anti-choice for people
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Ahhhh, government interference in the free market is not "capitalism with some regulation", it is fascism.

It destroys capitalism because it has the government extorting people into giving up their choices. The government cannot make you engage in trade. It can only prevent you from making choices you want to make but are not allowe under some penality. It is anti-freedom and anti-American and unconstitutional.

It takes a system from volunatary exchanges to forced ones where those in the market go from trying to please me to earn my business to trying to please the government to force me to make deal with them. It is grossly immoral.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
Daffa8799CodingSourceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: 2 forfeited turns by Pro.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Daffa8799CodingSourceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Zarium 1 year ago
Zarium
Daffa8799CodingSourceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: All votes to Con - Pro Forfeiture. Conduct to Con for responding to each round. Spelling looks the same, but overall amount goes to Con (As each round he added more points), points given for this, as he made the effort to reply and format his arguments. Arguments is a given, Con is the only one to truly raise points regarding his stance. Sources - Con for stating the sources; No Links - but the sites are easy to track. *Update* Modified my Spelling/Grammar and Sources vote, a fellow debator showed my error in judement, (Volume over specific failures) - however in my unbiased opinion, I still maintain that one side actually adhearing to the rules and replying each round deems votes over a perfect 1st/2nd round followed by forfeiture.
Vote Placed by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Daffa8799CodingSourceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF