The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

In the United States, a mixed economy is the most logical form of economics available.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,589 times Debate No: 14954
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




My position will be that of pro. I will argue in favor of a mixed economy in the United States.

Of course let me post some definitions as to make my resolution perfectly clear.

Mixed economy: Economic system in which both the private enterprise and a degree of state monopoly (usually in public services, defense, infrastructure, and basic industries) coexist.
Basically an economic system containing elements of capitalism and socialism. This economy would be based on free market principles with a degree of government interference and nationalization of some industries.

Logical: Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.

I hope that my resolution is clear. I was just in a debate where we spent the whole debate arguing about what I meant in my resolution.

Now that I have made my position known and have defined all the major aspects of my resolution, allow me to post argument.

I will say that neither socialism nor capitalism is completely effective as a form of economics. Socialism fails to provide competition which takes away the need to make better and more effective products. In an unrestricted capitalist society, when certain monopolies are allowed to form such as that of healthcare, drugs and treatment which may be needed to survive for some individuals, according to supply and demand, can be raised at an unreasonable rate. People want to prolong death as long as possible so most people will go bankrupt if that is what it takes to survive. This is exploitation. Basically, capitalism does not operate in a benevolent manor. Socialism takes away competition and the need to improve products while capitalism operates purely to produce a profit without regard for human needs. However,both systems have good qualities. Capitalism provides what is needed through the principle of supply and demand. If a product is needed. People buy it more and prices go up and in an effort to make a profit companies generate more of that particular product. It also provides competition among corporations as they compete for customers and revenue. This leads to more qualitative products and usually lower prices.
Socialism is a form of economics where the government seeks to provide for those people who through circumstance find themselves in poor economic conditions. However, there are always those people who merely seek a 'free ride' from the government. My resolution is that mixing the good qualities of both capitalism and socialism while ridding ourselves of the bad is the best way to arrive at a logical and productive form of economics.
I argue that a mixture of the free market, with growth of competition over customers that provide quality products at low prices, and government regulations as a safety net along with providing necessary services(education, national defense, libraries) to those not fortunate enough to provide for themselves, will act in a more rational manor than capitalism or socialism.

I argue that a mixture of capitalist and socialist policies( free market forces with regulation and nationalization of necessary industries) is the most logical and effective form of economics available at least at this time. Capitalism and socialism cannot work completely on their own. I simply want to put the good qualities of the two systems together.

I welcome an anarcho-capitalist, right-wing anarchist, democratic socialist, libertarian socialist, communist, or any other ideology contrary to my point to come debate.


No offense meant, socialpinko, but it looks like you have just heard about these words economy, socialism etc. for the first time in your life at high school and have started off about mixed economies. Well then, it becomes my duty to inform you that life is not simple copy-paste but more of practicality. In a market economy, (when talking about practicality), the government still takes care of necessary products and law a order. On top of that, the profits are higher because the market produces goods that we, the people want and need and the government does not interfere.
Isn't that just too ood for an country, especially one like the US after the Global Economic Crisis in 2008?
Debate Round No. 1


Well it doesn't matter that you didn't mean offense because your unimaginative speculation on where I learned about economics is actually pretty offensive. Are you actually going to post an argument or are you just going to speculate on how I came about my knowledge. Cause I certainly did not post a debate where someone just calls me out and tries to give me life lessons. Please just post your arguments so we can get on with this debate already. You have already wasted a round.


Well, li'l kid, if you didn't read my arguments properly you won't understand my point. Anyways, to repeat what I said:In a market economy the government still takes care of necessary products and law a order. On top of that, the profits are higher because the market produces goods that we, the people want and need and the government does not interfere in whatever is produced. Now talking about necessities...
Do you think any market will survive if it does not sell the simple basic abundant need; water?; or maybe food?
The market provides us with what we want, the government is there for maintaining law and order. All's well in a market economy.
Debate Round No. 2


Please don't patronize me by calling me "lil kid". On this site there is an expected level of conduct so please quit it. "Socialism takes away competition and the need to improve products while capitalism operates purely to produce a profit without regard for human needs. " When I said this I did not mean that a market economy never provides what people need because I admire that aspect of capitalism, the invisible hand and the principle of supply and demand. "The market provides us with what we want, the government is there for maintaining law and order." You say the market provides what people need as if that is the objective of capitalism. Remember, supplying the needs of the peoople is a tenet of socialism. In a market economy, profit always trumps human needs. Like what I said about a healthcare monopoly. Exploiting patients to make a larger profit goes along with unrestricted capitalism but we must incorporate certain aspects of socialism like a degree of regulation so that exploitation is kept to a minimum. All is most certainly not well in a market economy. It is a socialist principle that the police, firefighters, and teachers are paid by the government. Although, granted, it is not used in only pure socialist economies. Under full capitalism everything is privatized and the police simply become mercenaries. This is how schools and fire stations used to be and it led to huge instances of discrimination by the firefighters on who they wished to service. The government is to make sure that things like exploitation and discrimination are kept t a minimum. That is not to say that governments are always good but when working in a truly democratic way, economy included, exploitation and discrimination can be kept down.


So you mean to say that in the market, you will get a profit on clothes more than water?
Are you trying to say the revenue on water will be lesser than guns?
Are yo trying to say that when you go to a market and you have 3 bucks. From that you can either take a bottle of water or buy some stuff from a flea market and you will go to the flee market?
The customer always takes what /she needs most and will automatically make sure that needs come fist. Of course there's more profits in the needs! So what is this about profit triumphing over human needs?
Then anyways, police and firefighters not just become a part of the economy out of the blue. A school is not a market, i is a learning centre; nd only the teachers of government schools are paid by the govt.
Debate Round No. 3


You misunderstand my argument. I am not saying that all of a sudden clothes or guns will become more valuable than water. What I am saying and what you are ignoring is that there needs to be some regulation of industry. As I said a healthcare monopoly on a patented drug that is in high demand and in some cases is needed to live is inherently exploitive. This corporation according to the principle of supply ad demand is in a very powerful position. The supply is low as it is only one corporation. Or at least they can decide the supply because the demand will always be astronomical. Like a cure for cancer. curing of the disease is not profitable to a company who has been able to patent the miracle drug. As long as people have cancer and the corporation is the only one with the drug, they may charge as much as they want for it because believe me, people usually choose life over money. This company has a good deal going. But only as long as people have cancer. If they cured the disease, there sweet deal with the astronomical prices they charge for the cancer drug is gone. This is quite a large loss of profit. And according to the tenets of capitalism, capital trumps human need. That is not to say that these come into conflict alot. But if and when they do capital wins every time. That is unless their is a system where in cases like this, human need and thus in this situation human life needs to trump capital. This idea of human need over money is the basic tenet of socialism. Obviousely this could not work entirely on it's own and this is where some parts of capitalism are good with some parts of socialism. Because when human need comes into conflict with capital and it has, capital wins. Even in extreme cases like I mentioned above. You seem to believe that human needs can never come into conflict with profit but as I showed above, this is possible. Capitalism is great in that supply and demand work so harmoniousely to produce what people need. But it's not always like that. You seem to not believe me though. and the school system or the fire departments of the country can in themselves be small markets. Buying of classroom materials or fire engines, Supply and demand in regard to employees, or the buying of immense amounts of food for public school lunches. Most aspects of our society can be traced to some market, no matter how small or large.

As this is my final round I would like to wish you the best of luck with voting.
And to voters, when you read these arguments, remember that Con argued that human needs cannot come into conflict with profit. However, I clearly showed this line of reasoning to be erranous with my healthcare monopoly scenario. In such a sscenario, are we to let the free market do it's things. That is precisely what happens when the market runs wild. Accrding to the principle of supply and demand, my corporations actions were just in that they made huge profit. Supply can be kept low if the corporation wishes and they control the demand in that they have the only cure. I set out to show that there needs to be some form of government regulation safeguarding against times(however rare they are) that human needs come in conflict with profit.



IdioticStuff forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by socialpinko 7 years ago
forgive me, I'm not used to such short arguments. normally people use at least half of the alotted space. but yes I see it and very clearly refuted it.
Posted by IdioticStuff 7 years ago
well u should understand that i have very well put down my arguments; only if you can read...
Posted by socialpinko 7 years ago
I see that this is your first debate so I can excuse you for your irreglar format of not presenting any arguments.
Posted by socialpinko 7 years ago
Yes i posted another debate the same as this one but on socialism and I am somewhat embarassed that I could not finish it.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
I lol'd.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
We need Sieben up in hurr. He'd eat this chap alive.
Posted by LaissezFaire 7 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct clear to Pro, Con did little but assert Pro was flawed without argument.