In the United States, a mixed economy is the most logical form of economics available.
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
Isn't that just too ood for an country, especially one like the US after the Global Economic Crisis in 2008?
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct clear to Pro, Con did little but assert Pro was flawed without argument.
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.