The Instigator
Ariesx
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Spartan9876
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Captialism vs Socialism

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 669 times Debate No: 86953
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Ariesx

Pro

Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2-Cases, Round 3-Rebuttals, Round 4-Defense
I will be arguing how Capitalism has more benefits than Socialism, while my opponent(Spartan) will prove the opposite.
Spartan9876

Con

To be more specific, my opponent will be arguing that unregulated capitalism with a stable inflation rate (correct me if I am wrong) is more beneficial than market-based socialism.
When I use the word 'better' or 'more beneficial,' I will be referring to both systems ability to create a better quality of life.

Thus, I argue that market-based socialism, of which is found in countries like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, etc., is more beneficial for the people than a laissez-faire capitalism.
Debate Round No. 1
Ariesx

Pro

Terms
Beneficial-favorable or advantageous; resulting in good-Oxford Dictionaries
Capitalism-an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.-Oxford Dictionaries
Socialism-Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy.https://en.wikipedia.org...
I will be proving the fact that Capitalism has more benefits, than harms. In this debate, I will also provide arguments against Socialism, and how there are more harms than benefits.

Competition-Competition is an essential part of Capitalism that makes this political theory successful. One can examine the many times in history when this proved to be useful.
Examples:
Apple: Apple was created by the visionary Steve Jobs in 1976. There goal was to create computers that were user-friendly to the common man at this time. Now, think about this. What would give you the drive to create computers for the average individual? Money. Money would motivate people like Jobs to create computers, and give him a purpose to do this. Apple made the Macintosh in the 1980s hoping to replace IBM. Apple went on to make many useful things that we use today such as the IPhone, IPad, and Macbooks. "Q3 2011: 20 million iPhones, 9 million iPads, 7 million iPods [5]
[1] http://www.asymco.com......
[2] http://www.apple.com......
[3] http://www.apple.com......
[4] http://www.apple.com......
[5] http://www.apple.com......
[6] http://techcrunch.com.....
Microsoft-Microsoft and Apple used to have heavy competition in the 1980s. This motivated both companies to produce the best they could offer to people. For those that do not know, Gates and Jobs actually worked together in creating the Macintosh. What happened was that Gates took the GUI from Apple, and created Windows. One might think that this was a backstab, but think about how much benefits happened as a result of this. Windows revolutionized how you worked. Back in the 80s, people used IBM and MS-DOS which was not user-friendly. The general theme here is that these visionaries were working for the people. They could have had selfish ambitions, but the point is that the reason why we are debating through this social network right now is because of user-friendly devices. Microsoft estimates that there are 400 million active users of Windows. http://www.winbeta.org...
Facebook-This is also another social network that rose in an age dominated by Myspace. This not only can be a story of how a company was founded, but how even if there is a corporation that has dominated the market, you still have a chance to make it big. http://womeninbusiness.about.com...
1.581 billion people now use Facebook.
Video Games: Video Games are also essential to many peoples' lives. But, how do people keep making better games. Video Game companies compete to make there consumers happy. COD, Battlefield, Battlefront, GTA, Saints Row, and many others all compete for your buy of their games. This has created an efficient market that keeps producing big games that make people happy.

Self Worth-Capitalism also rises the smart and ambitious out of middle class. All of the people that have started the great businesses listed above are people that were either poor or wanted to live a life of significance. Capitalism provided a framework for all of this to happen. One could easily start a business, and try to make it big.According to Forbes, 273 members of the list are self-made billionaires, while 71 inherited their wealth and another 56 inherited at least some of it but are still growing it.

Socialism:
Now, this portion of the case will be focused on the harms of market-based socialism.
How hard is it to start a business in Europe in the Status-Quo:
http://smallbiztrends.com...
96% of Italians say it is hard to start a business.
93$ of Greeks say it is hard to start a business.
82% of Spain say it is hard to start a business.
80% of Portugal say it is hard to start a business.
66% of France say it is hard to start a business.
59% of UK say it is hard to start a business.
46% of Germany say it is hard to start a business.
46% of Finland say it is hard to start a business.
This is pathetic. The data clearly shows that more than half of the country dislikes the regulations put on businesses.
"Access to funding is another crucial restricting factor. In Europe they have a safety-first approach that means banks and investors are reluctant to lend to start-ups, which they fear will fail, thus helping to perpetuate the cycle of start-up failure due to lack of funding. In fact, in a poll of 125 UK entrepreneurs by Silicon Valley Bank, nine out of 10 say the UK fundraising environment is challenging." http://www.theguardian.com...
American Profit World Wide:
6. Kit Kats in Japan.
5. Spam in Guam
"It is somehow considered a part of Guam's traditional native cooking, despite only being invented about 70 years ago, with an average of 16 cans per year consumed by every man, woman, and child on the island"
4. 7 eleven in Taiwan
3. Disney Comics in Europe
2. Garfield in China-"In all of China's bloody history, from forced labor at the Great Wall to Tiananmen Square, nothing makes me more ashamed of my ancestral homeland than the fact that Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties was the highest grossing animated film of all time in China"
1. David Hasselhoff in Germany
http://www.cracked.com...
Here is a response from a British person when asked about American culture in his country: "Yes, American shows are very popular in the UK particularly sitcoms and stuff like that.https://uk.answers.yahoo.com...

From these arguments, One can tell that:
A. People around the world love American made stuff.
B. People in countries with regulated Capitalism find it hard to start a business.
C. Americans have as a result a more diverse set of businesses, and a more widespread culture.

Priorities and Wealth:
America has became the number one superpower as a direct result of capitalism. Capitalism have allowed the benefits of America becoming number one.The United States Gross Domestic Product for 2012 was $15.68 trillion.
Total US Assets amount to 225 trillion dollars.
http://finance.yahoo.com...
America now is the number one superpower. America has the strongest military in the world. America is the leader of the western world, and arguably the world. America does not have to distract itself with providing technology, books, and entertainment for its own people, because the people do it themselves. Not only do Americans provide services for other Americans, but for the rest of the world. The Richest people in the world live in America.
Spartan9876

Con

Okay, I need to be more clear. When one says market-based socialism, especially myself, we tend to argue for a capitalist economics system that is heavily regulated to reduce inequality. Moreover, I need to be positive, you are arguing for an unregulated version of capitalism, right? As in laissez-faire capitalism? Or are you arguing for the neoliberal version of capitalism? Regardless, I will assume you are arguing for the former and please correct me if I am wrong.

We are in agreement with competition.

It is important to have self-worth.

To challenge your assertions regarding socialism:
You are using a poll that asks the average joe about the ease of starting a business. This poll is flawed; a newspaper is asking Italians, or Greeks,, etc., how difficult it is to start a business. Tell me, do you truly believe every Italian has tried to start a business? No; moreover, look at the year the poll was published: 2014. Do you know what is happening in Europe right now? Their economy is in the "crappers" (to say politely) because of their failed policy of austerity. When an economy is in a great recession, of course people will be pessimistic about doing X or doing Y.

Instead of relying upon peoples subjective experiences, which are impacted by a multitude of factors, look at a more objective survey, such as the Index of Economic Freedom: http://www.heritage.org...
As you can see from that survey, the U.S.A. is eleventh. Most of the countries ahead of it regulate their industries to a higher extent that the U.S.A.

Next, you talk of American cultural influences all across the world. Economic strength is what purshes U.S.A. brands all across the world; economic strength is not the same as economic health.

Lastly, you discuss America as being a hegemon, which you are correct, it does have the strongest military and is the wealthiest in the world. Let us know look at the facts.
I want you to think for a moment, the wealthiest country in the world has:
1) A life expectancy lower than the OECD average [1]
2) A poverty rate of 15.1%, higher than countries such as France, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, etc [2]
3) The U.S.A spends nearly double the amount of money in healthcare than most of the OECD countries and covers less residents. [3]

However, I am not going to batter your country further because I think you get the picture.
I will now tell you a story about your laissez-faire capitalism.
As you know, this type of capitalism is a 'minimalist' government version. Capitalism likes to portray itself as a race and how everyone has equal opportunity to run that race; hence competition and self-worth. But what about those who are disadvantaged? How do you give those that are disadvantaged the same opportunity a person like you may have? The answer is equity. You need a government that can level the playing field, allow everyone to compete.

Moreover, why is regulation needed? Businesses like to cut corners to make the maximum profit. So, if businesses had their way, they would pay their workers subsistence checks, like they did prior to the 20th century (unions rose and forced employers to lift pay), they would not spend the extra cash to make the workplace safer, thus the death/injury rate of workers would be higher, etc., I think you get the point. We need regulation. Look at the crash in 2008; that was caused by too little regulation of the financial sector who used CDOs as if they were pure liquid capital.

Lastly, you may lambaste me for bringing in Marx, but Marx was incredibly interested in how Capitalism produced such great wealth but at the same time, such great inequality. When your American fathers created the U.S.A., do you truly think that they only wanted to benefit the rich? Or do you think they wanted to benefit all Americans? - That is a loaded question, of course the latter. But when you have unregulated capitalism, all of the wealth will go to the rich. Look at pre-great depression, look at the post-Reagan period; wealth inequality has morbidly risen, which means the average American is benefiting less and less. Why do want to fight for a system that benefits the rich and leaves the middle class and poor in decline?
I want you to think of Rawls and his Original Position. The great society of America ought to benefit all individuals. Since we know Capitalism leads to such great inequalities, we know that it must be fixed without compromising on its ability to create swaths of wealth. The way to do such is by having a wealth redistribution system; one must redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. This will have two primary effects: 1) The middle class will have more money, which would boost their consumption and the economy because the rich have the tendency to hold on to their money; and 2) the crime rate would be lower. it is well documented that a society with higher wealth inequality has a higher crime rate.

[1] http://data.worldbank.org...
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.commonwealthfund.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Ariesx

Pro

Correction: I am talking about specifically about Capitalism in the Reagan years which called for deregulation, and when in inflation was low.
All of your arguments on Laissez-fair capitalism do not count.
Defense:
"You are using a poll that asks the average joe about the ease of starting a business."
This poll was conducted accordingly to 1,000 people in each country. Either way, I do not see you introducing any polls on Europeans claiming that starting a business is easy either. You can critique this poll all you want, but if you cannot introduce any stating that another 1,000 people say it is easy; than this poll is valid for this debate.
My opponent also introduces a poll from the heritage foundation which tries to counter my poll. This would work, but I am specifically talking about Capitalism during the Reagan years. Americans right now are living under crony capitalism where corporations fund the government to put more money, and regulations on small businesses while favoring themselves. This argument therefore does not say anything about my case, but just proves that the system we have right now does not work.

"Next, you talk of American cultural influences all across the world. Economic strength is what purshes U.S.A. brands all across the world; economic strength is not the same as economic health."
If you could explain what you mean about economic strength is not the same as economic health. I am assuming you mean the well being of people, but you are not denying that America completely outweighs every single European country when it comes to economic and cultural power through Capitalism. I will be addressing the advantages later in this round of having a strong economy.
"1) A life expectancy lower than the OECD average [1]
2) A poverty rate of 15.1%, higher than countries such as France, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, etc [2]
3) The U.S.A spends nearly double the amount of money in healthcare than most of the OECD countries and covers less residents. [3]"
I am not in favor of the capitalism that is happening right now. All of your attacks on capitalism have been wasted, because I clearly specified that I am talking about capitalism in the 1980s. Now, I would like to address your attacks on the American problems.
1. A life expectancy can be due to many factors. You have not linked this to anything. All you have basically said is that life expectancy is low. This could be due to Americans spending more time on the TV, or eating unhealthy food. America also has 320 million people. 320 million people accounts for a lot of different results. There are some states that are very healthy, and some that are not.
2. You address the poverty rate that I will just say is that it is a critique of modern day crony capitalism. I will also like to add that citing European countries does not make a difference. Here is why:
France's population-66 million people, America-320 million people
UK-64.51 million people, America-320 million people
Switzerland-8 million people, America-320 million people
Canada-35 million people, America-320 million people
Denmark-5.64 million people, America-320 million people
America has its problems, but the numbers would be impossible to add up if we even took half of your political ideology, because we would have to apply it to 320 million people. Free healthcare for 320 million people. I would say it is quite astonishing however that America has been able to accomplish so much with so many people.
3. This also goes with the fact that we have 18 trillion dollars in GDP. So, we have every right to spend as much money as we want. And, I don't agree with the fact that we are spending so much money on healthcare.

Now, I move on to your critique on Laizze-faire Capitalism. I do not agree with Laizze-fair Capitalism. During the 1980s, there was still regulation in certain areas where there needed to be regulations. For example, there were still unions that protected people from unfair treatment from there businesses. You start to dive deeper in "American problems" that I find to be very unfair.
I have already listed that European populations are completely outweighed by American populations. It is extremely difficult to give all the added benefits Europe enjoys to 320 million people. If you are going to argue these points again, I would like you to account for 3 things:
1: How are you going to provide this for 320 million people?
2:Europe relies on American power to protect there ideas. You agree that America is a prominent leader of the western world to an extent. If America started spending money on these idealistic ideas, than how are they going to still manage a powerful military while still caring for its people.
3. Our higher crime rate is due to many factors such as poor education, poor upbringing, mental illness, and poor entertainment for adolescence.
Dropped Arguments that I will like you to respond to:
I have addressed corporate dominance that America holds that Europe does not. You have not gone into these points at all, and I would like you to address them.
Microsoft-400 million active users of Windows
This probably also accounts for the European nations.
Apple- 20 million iPhones, 9 million iPads, 7 million iPods
This dominated multiple lives including lives in Europe
Facebook-1.581 billion people(A lot of people in Europe use this)
This also has provided entertainment for many.
Video Games-They go without saying. You have not listed any critique of market competition that leads to new ideas.
271 members of the Forbes list are self-made men.
Hegemony Argument:
America has became the number one superpower as a direct result of capitalism. Capitalism have allowed the benefits of America becoming number one.The United States Gross Domestic Product for 2015 was $17.4 trillion.
Total US Assets amount to 225 trillion dollars.
You have not addressed the American benefit of us being a prominent leader in the world.

Benefits that Capitalism has provided America:
America is currently worth 17 trillion dollars when it accounts for our GDP. We have 225 trillion dollars combined in US assets.
France's GDP is 2 trillion dollars.
Germany's GDP is 3 trillion dollars.
UK's GDP is 2.93 trillion dollars.
Switzerland's GDP is 685 billion dollars(laughable).
Denmark's GDP is 341 billion dollars(pathetic).
America's GDP is 17 trillion dollars.
My opponent cannot deny this truth that America is the prominent leader of these countries. He know this, and it would be a basic lie if he denied this. It is also a fact that if America suddenly falls, and loses its power globally. There would be a huge power vacuum between China and Russia. If either country becomes number one, than Europe would have to follow there lead. Freedom and Democracy will be ignored, and a string of authoritarianism will rise.
Either way, America also doesn't have that much poverty. Since, America's GDP is so high, poor people compare themselves too much to others here.
Poverty Disproven:

* 38 percent of the persons whom the Census Bureau identifies as "poor" own their own homes with a median value of $39,200.

* 62 percent of "poor" households own a car; 14 percent own two or more cars.

* Nearly half of all "poor" households have air-conditioning; 31 percent have microwave ovens.

* Nationwide, some 22,000 "poor" households have heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis.

http://www.heritage.org...
Spartan9876

Con

Thank you for the correct.

Time do burst your bubble, America is still living under Reaganomics. The fact is, the deregulation of business, such as the financial sector, led to the crony capitalism of today, which you describe.

As for your poll; I do not need any poll. If you have posited a flawed poll, why do I have to posit another poll to trump that flawed one? That is not how debates work. Instead, I can critique it and point out the errs it makes. My critique of it is that it is purely subjective. If you were living in the Great Depression, you would also say it "is hard to open a business" because of the shitty economic atmosphere.
The reason why Europe's economy is shitty right now is because of the Euro; they have combined their monetary policy with no combined political nor fiscal policy and they need a re-distributive mechanism. Believe me, Europe is doing much worse than the USA right now because of what I have posited.

As per your critique to my poll about your argument being solely conducted in the Neoliberal Reagonomics; it does not apply, our current system is that of which you argue for. This crony capitalism is a symptom of reagonomics.

Now, you asked me to account for 3 things:

1) This is easy; it is fallacious to suggest that the U.S.A cannot scale up the program. You must keep this in mind, universal health care costs are equal to X + person. So since the U.S.A is big, that would seem astronomical; however, the USA aslo has a massive tax base due to its big population. So Denmark, a small country of 5 million (I think), provides healthcare to all of its residents through taxes. Are you suggesting that the U.S. could not do the same thing? It can easily do it. Instead of providing all the subsidies to the impoverished, instead, make it free to everyone and raise the taxes a bit. I am sure people would rather pay $6,000 more in taxes that $10,000.00 in private insurance. (I could be wrong, Americans could be so butt hurt that they would rather pay private companies more)
2) Europe does not rely on American power to protect our ideas. We had these ideas first and implemented them prior to American hegemony. It is fallacious to suggest that we cannot do this again. Moreover, why does the U.S have to choose over its military or a healthcare system? The U.S would save money on healthcare. Also, there are plenty of ways to cut the budget: Americans could reduce the incarceration rate, America could get rid of your welfare bureaucracy and put a living wage, Americans could STOP INVADING other countries, etc. How much money would America have saved if there was no Iraq invasion? ISIL came from the power vacuum after Iraq...
3) You are right, crime rate is from a multitude of factors. But inequality is a root cause of conflict.

I am not going to argue with you via competition because I believe competition is a good thing.

As for your other argument; America became great because of their army first and foremost. Then, after WW2 with the creation of the Bretton Woods, the US created a world order that benefited them by placing them as the world surplus leader. When Reagen took office he reversed this and make America the worlds vacuum cleaner.

Capitalism has assisted America, but not your capitalism. The thing is, capitalism creates such great wealth, but also such great inequality. You need regulation to assist with that inequality.

To compare European countries GDP is silly. You must look at their GDP per capita. The U.S.A. has a population that a tad over 5 times that of France, of course the GDP will be much larger. Moreover, due to your status of worlds vacuum cleaner, everyone invests into wall street. What do you expect?

As for America being a leader? Yes a military leader, but America is not a leader that we will follow in terms of social issues. America's current status is abysmal.
Debate Round No. 3
Ariesx

Pro

"Thank you for the correct."
There are so many things that I cannot stress are wrong with what my opponent has said.

"Time do burst your bubble, America is still living under Reaganomics. The fact is, the deregulation of business, such as the financial sector, led to the crony capitalism of today, which you describe."
This is argument has first of all no EVIDENCE what so ever. I cannot describe how wrong this statement is. You first of all do not explain your link. Note(If you do, this would be very unfair to me, because I would not be unable to respond resulting in me posting arguments in the comment section).
http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org...
Reagoneconomics did not practice crony capitalism, but actual Capitalism.
"Reagan lifted remaining domestic petroleum price and allocation controls on January 28, 1981,[6] and lowered the oil windfall profits tax in August 1981. He ended the oil windfall profits tax in 1988.[7] In 1982 Reagan agreed to a rollback of corporate tax cuts and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. The 1982 tax increase undid a third of the initial tax cut. In 1983 Reagan instituted a payroll tax increase on Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.[8] In 1984 another bill was introduced that closed tax loopholes. According to tax historian Joseph Thorndike, the bills of 1982 and 1984 "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime".
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Even the libertarian Ron Paul had very similar policies to that of Reagan.
http://www.newsmax.com...
For Con to say that Reagan practiced Crony Capitalism is absurd. There are so many regulations that were enacted during the Obama years, and as I have stated. Reagan took away the regulations.

My opponent than goes on to make poor analytics on how my poll has bias in it. Let me tell you exactly what is wrong with this argument. If Con is to say that this poll has bias, than he must also introduce another poll that has different results. I can basically say that all of your evidence has bias, but I must have other evidence that proves your evidence wrong. I provided a link to the website that actually showed more evidence supporting my claims. There is an ENTIRE bibliography on that site that shows you everything you need to know, but Con would just simply overlook it. My evidence therefore is valid.

"Capitalism has assisted America, but not your capitalism. The thing is, capitalism creates such great wealth, but also such great inequality. You need regulation to assist with that inequality."
Capitalism has also created luxuries that Americans enjoy whether they know it or not. Americans love to buy products that they believe will make them happier.
http://blackinamerica.com...
Con cannot just simply claim that these sources are flawed. He has to gather other sources.

"To compare European countries GDP is silly. You must look at their GDP per capita. The U.S.A. has a population that a tad over 5 times that of France, of course the GDP will be much larger. Moreover, due to your status of worlds vacuum cleaner, everyone invests into wall street. What do you expect?"
This is just another silly analytic Con has made up. If you go by population, than China should be ahead of America.
China's population is 1.36 billion (2014)
Data Bank

"As for America being a leader? Yes a military leader, but America is not a leader that we will follow in terms of social issues. America's current status is abysmal."
America does not need to force his social laws on to Europe. Con already conceded with the fact that America is a military leader which has made this debate a lot easier to win.

Dropped Arguments:Apple went on to make many useful things that we use today such as the IPhone, IPad, and Macbooks. "Q3 2011: 20 million iPhones, 9 million iPads, 7 million iPods [5]
Sources are in Round 2.
Microsoft: 400 million active users of Windows
Facebook: 1.581 billion people now use Facebook.
Video Games:According to game designer and writer Jane McGonigal, a half-billion people on earth play video games an "hour a day," of whom 183 million are American. In fact, 97 percent of American young people ages 12 to 17 play video games.

Population Argument: Con has not answered the population argument which means that either concedes to it, or was to lazy to read it or address it. Either way, the point still stands that America has way more people than any other European country. We cannot give free healthcare to 320 million people. The idea that we are the number one power is incredible. If Con does answer this in his next argument, I will be forced to answer this in the comments.

Answers:
1. Con posts no evidence what so ever, and says that you could just raise taxes.
http://dailycaller.com...
This source right here explains how liberal economists basically say that free healthcare will not add up.
2."Europe does not rely on American power to protect our ideas."
Yes, you do.
http://www.cato.org...
" Even Britain and France, the two countries with the most serious defense budgets, provide little cause for satisfaction. The former is currently spending a mere 2.6 percent of GDP, and the latter an even smaller 2.1 percent. Even worse is the trend. Both figures represent significant declines from the 2009 budgets, and Paris and London contemplate still further cuts. Reliable media reports indicate that France plans another whopping 12.5 percent reduction, amounting to $5 billion.

Benefits of Capitalism:
I think I have already proven that Capitalism is superior to Socialism in this debate.
Capitalism Benefits:
America's GDP amounts to 17 trillion dollars which is outstanding.
America is the center for the western world, and arguably the world when it comes to technology. We have silicon valley. Capitalism has created such a framework in where smart people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs competed to please there consumers.
Sources in Round 2:
Apple went on to make many useful things that we use today such as the IPhone, IPad, and Macbooks. "Q3 2011: 20 million iPhones, 9 million iPads, 7 million iPods [5]
Sources are in Round 2.
Microsoft: 400 million active users of Windows
Facebook: 1.581 billion people now use Facebook.
Video Games:According to game designer and writer Jane McGonigal, a half-billion people on earth play video games an "hour a day," of whom 183 million are American. In fact, 97 percent of American young people ages 12 to 17 play video games.
I have not listed by the way Instagram, Twitter, HP, Dell, Intel, and a complete set of video game companies that live here in America. Competition has made these companies successful, and it is Capitalism which created such a framework.

Market-Based Socialism:
France's GDP is 2 trillion dollars.
Germany's GDP is 3 trillion dollars.
UK's GDP is 2.93 trillion dollars.
Switzerland's GDP is 685 billion dollars
Denmark's GDP is 341 billion dollars

Before Con says that livelihood is better in Europe, because Americans are poor:
38 percent of the persons whom the Census Bureau identifies as "poor" own their own homes with a median value of $39,200.

* 62 percent of "poor" households own a car; 14 percent own two or more cars.

* Nearly half of all "poor" households have air-conditioning; 31 percent have microwave ovens.

* Nationwide, some 22,000 "poor" households have heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis.

http://www.heritage.org......
Spartan9876

Con

1) I do explain the link. Have you ever read about Neoliberalism from the Chicago boys? Such as Friedman's book, Capitalism and Freedom? Have you read it? Reaganomics and Thatherism what led our global world from Keynesian economic theory toward this new neoliberal paradigm.
I never said that this new neoliberal paradigm equates itself to crony capitalism, what I did argue is that neoliberalism engenders crony capitalism.
Why? The answer is simple: neoliberalism failed us. Remember how the left lost in the early 1990s? The right lost during 2008. it failed us because privatization had disastrous consequences.
Here are examples of articles you can read:
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://economicstudents.com...
http://www.forbes.com...
https://www.bostonglobe.com...
http://www.juancole.com...

The thing is, you forced me to bring these articles. You need to understand that deep deregulation of the economy gives too much power to those who already have it.
"Reagoneconomics did not practice crony capitalism..." No, he did not; but his policies led to crony capitalism. Moreover, "... but actual capitalism". Capitalism has many different flavours. Saying "neoliberalism is the true capitalism" is bloody wrong. There is Laissez-faire capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, Keynesian capitalism, etc. Furthermore, you are making a mistake Marx made within his teleological theory; you assume that there is one brand of capitalism. This is wrong. If you wish, one author who discusses how Capitalism is formulated differently throughout different cultures is Max Weber who wrote the "Spirit of Capitalism." You may enjoy it.

2) You keep saying that I need to provide a source in order to demonstrate the flaw in your poll. No I do not. It is one thing to get a subjective account than to get an objective account. You poll asks people, who may or may not have tried to start a business. Of course the majority will say it is hard! They are living within the worst depression sine the 1930s, what would you expect!? The USA is slowly making a full recovery due to the Keynesian economic policies of Obama, whereas Europe is still suffering due to their neoliberal policy of austerity. So, please think about it. If an individual is suffering in the current economic climate, of course they will view any question regarding the economy with negativity.

3) No, the population analysis is not silly. If you take two countries with a GDP per capita of $55,000, then the country with a bigger population will have a larger GDP. Now you are being silly, China should not be ahead of the USA because the average Chinese citizen is poorer. You have to look at countries with similar GDP per capita. For instance, the countries with the richest citizens are: Luxembourg ($103,187 per person), Switzerland ($82,178$), Qatar ($78,829), Norway ($76,266), and then the US ($55,904). If one were to take Luxembourg's population and inflate it to the USA's size, Luxembourg's GDP would be $33 trillion dollars, two times that of the USA. The lesson here: Absolute GDP is not a good indicator.

4) How does admitting that the US is the world hegemony make your argument easier?

5) Lastly, If the entire developed world can implement health care, so can America. End your crazy "it can't be done because MURICA" arguments. They are excuses. You have spent the entire time arguing with me that the USA is the richest country, which it is. So are you then telling me that the richest country cannot afford to give its people health care? Let us be real, non?

6) Why do you think Britain's and France's military budgets are so low? It is because we have no bloody threats and we don't want to invade other nations! Moreover, let us look at the % of GDP for military budgets: USA spends 3.3%, China spends 1.2%, U.K spends 2%, etc.

Thus, in conclusion, aside form all these arguments, the neoliberal capitalism that the pro advocates for has failed. Why advocate for a system that has failed and produced crony capitalism? When we aim for an economic system, it ought to be a system that advantages all, not just the rich. A market-based socialism, that provides its citizens with cheap and quality health care, day care, etc, yet strengthens competition and allows for the attainment of fair wages, will always trump neoliberalism as per enhancing its citizens livelihoods. If one were to look at the OECD's Better Life index, the countries that consistently rank the highest (i.e Australia, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, and Canada) are all market-based socialism economies.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.