The Instigator
Patriot4USA
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
ScottyDouglas
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Capitalism benefits an 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 2 votes the winner is...
Patriot4USA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,271 times Debate No: 24283
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Patriot4USA

Pro

To anyone here who wants to have a friendly debate with about whether or not Capitalism can benefit the economy of a economically-crippled nation, I can open to whoever accepts.

Stage 1: Accceptance
Stage 2: Providing your arugments
Stage 3: Providing your arguments
Stage 4: Conclusion
ScottyDouglas

Con

I accept!

Capitalism does not benefit an economy!

GL. I wait your reply!
Debate Round No. 1
Patriot4USA

Pro

I'd like to thank ScottyDouglas for accepting my challenge. This is my first debate on this site and I hope I can do well on it.

First off, I'd like to give the basic definitions of both Capitalism and Socialism to prevent any bias and have the two of us start on an equal ground.

Capitalism is defined as an economic system which consists of private property and private ownership over the means of production and distribution of goods and resources, voluntary exchange by individuals, and the prohibition of force, fraud or coercion.

Socialism is as an economic system which consists of public (or government) or common ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and resources and the prohibition of force, fraud, or coercion.

I'm for a Capitalist-dominated mixed economy.

Now I feel inclined to admit that Capitalism has a massive flaw in its overall plan where if you make one mistakes you could end up ruining yourself ten-fold. Yet Capitalism is probably the only, if not one of the very few, economic system where you are able to pick yourself back up, so to speak. There have been many instances where a person has joined the ranks of the jobless and homeless and used available opportunities and abilities to build their lives together, even more so than it was before.

People who are generally opposed to Capitalism usually claim that the rich are the real ones in charge, that they make all the decisions. But as someone who sees the pro in Capitalism, I have to deny that claim. In my eyes it's the people who are in charge because they control the money flow of a business (i.e. if a number of people simply stop supporting a corporation, that corporation could see a potential downfall without the customer buying their product. The loss of money eventually leads to the end of big business. Easy as that!).

Now how does this all tie in with the economic benefits of Capitalism?

Well if you look in the past, Capitalism has benefited a number of countries like the United States. We may have a large deficit, but we have the largest economy in the world and the U.S. Dollar still holds top spot among other currencies in other nations, and its been that way since the 1920s.

Capitalism provides free, fair competition between businesses -- both big and small -- which in turn can benefit society because the people can look towards better and more efficient products; lower prices; and better deals that come with such promotions as sales.

The money that goes to manufacturing firms which make these products can be used to build more Manufacturing jobs in a country and in turn, not only reduce the rate of unemployment, but also expand the tax base so a government can be able to pay for benefits like Social Security and Medicare. And jobs will always because of that.
ScottyDouglas

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for giving this challenge.

I will give my point of view and remark on my opponents claims.

==Against Capitalism==

One problem I have with capitalism is that it promotes marketing yourself (or your product), which promotes consumerism, which promotes the sense of "I need it" entitlement that is prevalent in western society, which degrades living in balance with the natural world.

Capitalism is a great system, very crafty and clever. However, people in power tend to abuse their power in almost every situation imaginable. There is no market mechanism to make sure that things like Enron don't happen, there is no market mechanism to stop factories from blatently polluting entire cities. Capitalism is a philosophy, and like all philosophies, it isn't perfect, so you need to mix it in with other things to make it really work.

In short, PURE capitalism promotes greed at all costs. Who cares if you destroy the environment, make people work 15 hour days w/ no benefits, or pay workers 15 cents an hour as long as you make $1 more in profits right?? There are serious flaws with unrestricted capitalism.

So who should control this Humanity aspect? The corporations? The fact is they cant! Not because they "cant" but becuase they wont, Money drives the bottom line, not Humanity. If you dont have a frame work in place internationaly that stops expolitation then buisness will expolit, its simple really. This is a problem with Capitalism.

I also beleive that with Captilalism consumer choice is not as great, because with this market structure you end up with a Monopoly (in the long run) and a oligopoly in the short term. Look at the IT Sector and you will see this happening already. What do you want Goverment or Big buisness?

This leads to a selffisn nature as less are concerned about thier nation and more about themselves. Why should they? They can move out of thier country and move into a country more stable for them leaving thier country in ruin.

==Rebuttal==

My oppoent himself admits to there being major flaws in capitalism. It is true that if you are not prepared with a plan then you can be destroyed in the capitalisits world. My oppoenet then claimed that your are able to pick yourself back you after you fall, can you not do this in many other systems?

Can you not build a strong life in many other systems?

There is age-old saying,"It takes money to make money." This saying is part of the capitalist world. This is proof that you need money to suceed in the capitalist world.

To Close I say thanks to my opponent and await is next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Patriot4USA

Pro

Off-note: I'm liking this debate. It's actually a great way for me to help kick-start my life as an political/social activist and I thank my opponent for this opportunity. Now, let's see how I can counter his statements.


I see my opponents statement about their needing to be a mechanism to make sure things don't go haywire, but in my first round, I said I was for a Capitalist-dominated mixed economy where Capitalism has more of a voice in society but not enough to actually call it PURE CAPITALISM (which is just a form of Anarchy, right?). The government's role in such an economy is to be an innovator and provide a framework where monopolies are prevented to preserve the nature of competition that is predominant in Capitalism but also still keeping the system intact.

Too much government restriction, on the other hand, ends up being a horrible outcome because they become more and more corrupt through kleptocracy. Remember the worst ten words a single person can say: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

(In my honest opinion, I can't actually consider PURE CAPITALISM to be the actual Capitalism that we all know because since the rich ultimately control everything, so has to be considered a type of Corporatist plutocracy. There's no real economic freedom, and no real political freedom, and no real social freedom, and no competition; all four of which are seen in the old-style - 20th Century - Western Capitalism. Maybe I should've rephrased the topic more before we started. Shame on me.)

Anyway, I would like to go back to my opponent's previous statement: "It takes money to make money". Necessarily this is true to some aspect but that is not all you need to succeed in the Capitalist world. You are hired based on your skill and education in the field you're hired at, regardless of your social status. You coould be down-right poor and living on the streets with nowhere to go, and someone could still offer you a well-paying job, as seen with Mr. Chris Gardner and detailed in his memoir, the Pursuit of Happyness. After all, no business hires someone who ends up making the place worse off than it started.

To close, I say that I have to idea how to end things and I await my opponent's next argument.
ScottyDouglas

Con

I'm glad my opponent is liking this debate. I thank him as well.

I will start off by given some more arguements against capitaism while discussing my opponents claims. On to the debate..

I think that Capitalism, by its' unnatural constraint on the free flow of wealth, decreases the quality of life for most, while only increasing it for the few. Does capitalism actually improve any of these things?

Every human necessity from food to health care is taxed to the limit by profit-mongers, a process that taints and corrupts even the best of intentions. Around the world today poor people sit idle and hungry, waiting for the promised miracle of industrialization to deliver them jobs manufacturing useless consumer goods for export, while their farms and fields go to waste. Is there no one driving?

My opponent emphasized that too much government restriction ends up being a horrible outcome because they become more and more corrupt through kleptocracy. Though I agree that too much governmental control is more harm than good, though capitalism also gives much restrcition to the less fortionate.

Consider the structure of our capitalist society. People are conditioned to be consumers from the earliest. They are given a minimal education -- learning just enough Math to work for someone else, and just enough English to know what consumer items to spend their paychecks on.

Consumerism does not represent the highest ideals of mankind, but the lowest common denominator of man's most base desires and outlets of personal despair, disappointment, or frustration. The economics of consumer-based corporations are unbalanced equations that ignore the most vital aspects of both mathematics and human existence.
The tobacco industry kills millions but denies their product is responsible and spends a fortune feigning innocence and garnering political influence to protect them from their disparate and disorganized victims. The alcohol industry kills as many or more and does untold damage to families, but none of their balance sheets mention or account for the cost their products incur to society. It is only deceit and irresponsibility that keeps many of them in the markets.

Can a barter economy work, that is, one that ran on pure credit? The idea was to assemble working people of diverse skills such that anything anyone needed could be provided by someone else. Credits would be defined for the value of work or goods, whether carpentry, milk, health care, tailored goods, or whatever. Defining the values would not be diffficult, after all, we do this with dollars already, except that instead of receiving flat rates they would receive true value.

In such a system taxes could not be collected in terms of money, but only in terms of credit dollars towards human labor. Nor could interest be collected, since this also represents profit. The capitalisation of wealth, which holds human labor in suspension and diverts it to the whims of a few, rather than the needs of the many, would not be facilitated.
Obviously, if every company that manufactured essential goods (i.e. food, housing, health care, etc) increased production to either the maximum or the limit of consumer need, the benefits would be synergistic and possibility of eliminating poverty comes into focus. Without poverty, crime drops to natural levels, whatever those may be.
Anticapitalism can be implemented in at least three ways and to varying degrees. It can be implemented at a personal level, at a business level, and community-wide. Practicing anticapitalism at a personal level means abandoning the paradigm of profit, eliminating expenses on nonessentials, and minimizing expenses on purchased essentials. It can mean accepting poverty but it maximizes free time. The time is spent bettering one's living environment, health, and education. It is necessary for one to become educated regarding economic matters so as to understand the difference between nonessentials and essentials, and the difference between being paid for honest labor on essentials and wasted labor on nonessentials funded by profit motives alone. Personal anticapitalism can be the most difficult to implement due to the lack of economic synergy and the existing system.

Anticapitalism can be implemented in a business environment. Thee are many precedents for profitless businesses and many examples of successes and failures. Although such businesses may be non-profit, they rarely, if ever, implement true anticapitalist economics. Many are dependent on donations or outside funding sources, and those that are economically self-sustaining are often interwoven into an fabric of economic exploitation by other corporations. A business intent on going nonprofit can accomplish this within the existing corporate environment easily, especially if it already operates at or near break-even and maintains some nominal profit. Prices are cut to increase sales volume. Advertising is eliminated, as is wasteful packaging. Any continuing profits are reallocated towards expansion. Increasing quality is essential to expanding sales and this becomes the focus of worker's continuing efforts. The pay scales must be adjusted such that the distribution of salaries forms a normal bell curve with about three standard deviations. This may mean the chairman and top executives must reduce their salaries to bring them into line with employees, but it may also mean a pay raise for employees. In the long run, as volume increases, the executives salaries may even surpass their original levels. Obviously, a company needs to own itself so that all involved are actualy working. A company that is not self-owned needs to buy out absentee owners and investors, and this may reqire a period of operation during which the stock is bought back using company profits. Financing may also come from an employee ownership program, and these kinds of programs have worked in the past.

Profit is the icon of the modern economic world, leaving the quality of life a casualty of mindless competition. It's time for the US, as de facto leader of the modern world, to consider abandoning capitalism and taking the first step towards a future where the entire human race, not just the privileged minority, could be wealthy enough to solve our more important problems. Perhaps until all diseases, social and otherwise, are cured, this should remain a non-profit world. Since most of us are bonded into non-profit employment anyway, the only differences we'd notice would be of the profound kind.

I think I have shown that capitalism can be avoided and is in fact a hinderance in society. Thanks and I send it back to Pro.

http://www.aerobiologicalengineering.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Patriot4USA

Pro

Sorry I'm late. Thanks for bringing the call back to me. Welp, this is my conclusion. Let's see what I've got.

===

"I think that Capitalism, by its' unnatural constraint on the free flow of wealth, decreases the quality of life for most, while only increasing it for the few."

I'll have to disagree with Con on this notion. Yes Capitalism is notorious for its unequal flow of wealth, but I seriously doubt it decreases the quality of life.

Nations that have been introduced to Capitalism has seen an increased growth in quality of life -- whether through its significently increased economy; better and cleaner prooducts like food, especially in fruit and vegetables; or all of the above. With all the competition seen in a Capitalist society, you need these things in order to actually get people to buy what you have to offer. And like I said, through stuff like sales and reduced prices, both of which can benefit in giving more people more jobs, how can people not see an improvement in life?

You have nations like China and India, two nations that have already begun implenting Capitalism in their lives, where a new middle class has emerged and the people have learned to love it. Raw materials wonderful and the people are more than motivated to do better! And as such, they have a better life. The business environments seen in these two countries, as well as many others that have been drawn to try out Capitalism, is similar to what used to be shown in the USA.

In fact many have business experienced people in key high level positions. Our bi-partisan special interest approach is hurting us and the Marketplace will not wait! We are a great nation and we need to get back to our basics to compete and win.

http://www.wallstreetgrand.com...

"People are conditioned to be consumers from the earliest. They are given a minimal education -- learning just enough Math to work for someone else, and just enough English to know what consumer items to spend their paychecks on."

While in school you are primarily taught in these basic subjects, I agree. But no one can put a limit on how you learn. Are you not encouraged -- whether inspired by someone else or of your own accord -- to further your abilities and knowledge on these basic subjects?
"It's time for the US, as de facto leader of the modern world, to consider abandoning capitalism..."

I have to ask this: Does the United States of America still follow a Capitalistic ideology it did during the Cold War? Has it ever shown any signs of that type of Capitalism that has kept America alive and free for over 200 years?

You have property taxes, estate taxes, fiat taxes, as well as an increased number of government jobs -- which heavily outweigh the numder of privately-owned jobs -- and the government's efforts to slowly try and take over the capital which prove to be the primary source of a free-market economy. With those, I highly doubt that the United States has actually seen Capitalism in this century.

As I see it much of the economy is currently controlled of the government, and this has effectively turned America into a kleptocracy.

===

In the end, I thank ScottyDouglas for giving me with my first ever debate on this site. He or she (don't judge me) has helped me glance at an insight on what to expect in the future.
ScottyDouglas

Con

Thanks to my opponent!

Now I will just go over the discussion a little.

Capitalism for its unequal flow of wealth, creates a serious decreases in the quality of life for those who doesn't have a equal flow of wealth.

All nations that have been introduced to Capitalism has seen an increased growth in quality of life but also a long run collapse which is happening today. With all the competition seen in a Capitalist society, you need to be known in order to actually get people to buy what you have to offer which makes it harder on the less fortunate and even harder on the middle class because they must provide for both.

My opponent mentions nations like China and India, two nations that have already begun implenting Capitalism in their lives, but as he says they are beginning as we once did. As us they will ride high for a period and then collapse because Capitalism is hurtful to a society in the long run.

My opponent also talked about being able to learn as much as possible but seem's not to though considering he is supporting a proven failed system.

I doubt that the United States will actually see Capitalism suceed ever again in the future.

As I see it much of the economy is currently controlled of the private owners, and this has effectively turned America into a kleptocracy.

I think I have shown that though signs show that capitialism provides benefit to society it hurts it in the long-run. It should not be implemented.

I thank Patriot again! Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
I was devil advocating here. i know capitalism is benefictial. And your right good job Pro.
Posted by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
RFD:

Both sides had some factual inaccuracies, but overall, PRO showed how Capitalism benefited an economy, and combined some conservative rhetoric to help his case. CON used for the most part rebuttals in his arguments, and I could not find that strong of a case for CON. PRO rebutted himself more than once, saying that gov't was bad at one point, they later saying people should have use of gov't services, and it seems that PRO should make sure his case is aligned and flows together, not including hypocritical statements.

If CON had proved a different economic system to be more effective than Capitalism, he very well might of won. But going back to PRO's contradicting statements, he says people should be educated, and enjoy services such as Social Security, Medicare etc, but also says that the gov't owns most of the capital, and outweighs the private sector, which is false. If PRO stuck to the premise that either gov't can facilitate prosperity (he mentioned a Capitalist Mixed Economy) or that gov't should stay out (Capitalist Economy; he mentioned that gov't people were "dangerous"), it would of allowed his case to flow better.

But overall, PRO had a pretty good debate for his first debate. Good job.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
Patriot4USAScottyDouglasTied
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: See Comments
Vote Placed by MrBrooks 4 years ago
MrBrooks
Patriot4USAScottyDouglasTied
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: Neither side used sources to back up their claims, and both sides had good conduct and grammar. Pro had the burden of proof and provided well known examples, and Con did not attempt to refute Pro's claim that more capitalism benefits an economy. Con argued against capitalism for every reason except for economic reasons. Both sides didn't use terminology well, but Pro won because he was the only one that stayed on topic.