Capitalism is better than Socialism
Debate Rounds (3)
In 2012, 15% of people in America (46.5 million) were in poverty. 14.5% of people (49 million) didn't have enough to eat. Of course our capitalist country offers food stamps, but that's hardly enough to live off of. $4.50 a day is all food stamps offer, and that's barely enough to buy a meal at McDonald's much less buy something nutritious. In a socialist government, there is cooperative management of the economy, meaning everyone owns and everyone gets money out of it as opposed to capitalism, where (nearly) everyone works and if they're lucky they'll make enough to support their family. It's give and take, but it's extremely slighted to those who are already rich.
First you said that "money making should not be the government's concern". A government does not make money on its own, and even in the most capitalist countries the government relies on taxes for its source of income. A government role isnt to make money or provide for its people. In a capitalist country, a government's role is to protect its people (military and police), and coin money. There are a few other minor roles, but they're insignificant.
You said that capitalism cannot provide for its people. I would have to completely disagree as the history shows otherwise.
The private industry can do anything the government can do, with higher quality and more efficiency. Everything that is privately run is far more efficient than any government program. Education, healthcare (the quality of it), transportation, mailing. While in a socialist country, the services are limited in both quality and speed.
The reasons for this are simple. With a single payer system, the government has no competition. They provide a service, and that is your only option whether you like it or not. They Wil never run out of business so there is little motivation for improvement.
In a capitalist country, all sorts of companies from all services will compete to have the best service because that's what makes them money. This not only improves the quality of the product/service, but it gives you a wide variety of choices.
Capitalism provides for its people in a different way, by letting them do it themselves. While In a socialist country you get services by the government, who takes a high percentage of your earnings to pay for those services. The quality or availability are non-negotiable. In a capitalist country however, due to very low taxes, you can pay for a service yourself snd it can be any quality you choose, and it would be more efficient than a government run service. In either case you pay for it, rather trough taxes or your savings, nothing is "free".
You mention the percentage of poor in the US. Well yes, no country can ever completely get rid of poverty. In America however, the poor are far better off than the poor even in countries such as Norway. Poverty isnt permanent. There is pnly a very small number of people who live in poverty their whole life. They get better work experience and move into the middle class.
You cant ignore the fact that the US has a high rate of immigration, which effects the number of poor. In Sweden, the rate of immigration is increasing fast, and along with it are the number of poor people.
my point is you can only get rid of poverty by giving the poor the opportunity to make money through jobs. Giving them handouts through welfare doesnt do that. It only prolongs poverty, giving little motivation for that person to find a job.
During the 60's, president Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty, which massive amounts of tax dollars went into welfare programs. It had little effect. Poverty did not go down at all, and the number of food stamp usage increased! This shows the government can not end poverty.
One last thing, you said those who are "already rich". Nobody is already rich. They became rich through hard work. Many rich people started off poor, and it wasnt the government who gave them their success.
Capitalism does not keep the poor poor at all, you're arguing against hard evidence here. The majority of people who are born into poverty do not stay in poverty. You have to pay for college out of your own pocket, but that's why the US has the best universities in the world. There's many ways to pay for it. Bank loans always have worked, there's scholarships, the military. In In socialist countries, college isnt free either, nothing is ever free. Taxes are ridiculous in those countries. The funny thing is, even though college is "free" there, there are shortages of doctors and other professions. They all move to countries such as the US where the government doesnt tell them how much they can make or in which ways they can treat their patients.
It isnt impossible for kids in poverty to go to college, plenty of them do!
Also, you don't need to go to college to get out of poverty. You gain work experience and move on to better jobs. This is the way its been for centuries in the US.
Though you have made a few statements, they do not have any data or evidence to support them.
You did not counter any of the points I made, which I dont really blame you for since its nearly impossible to argue against facts, such as the quality of everything in the private sector is better and more efficient.
There is one thing you must know. Government can NOT end poverty. Wether they try to increase welfare or take control of production, it never works. The private sector does a far better job at reducing poverty. Now I'm not saying its perfect, but the alternative is much worse.
Welfare is needed for those who are disabled or cannot work of course, but it's so easily abused. Government handouts only keep the poor in a false sense of victimhood, giving them little motivation to work. So in the long run, government does not help, in many cases it makes things worse.
queerelves forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.