This issue is controversial and I am willing to debate on it, as I need answers.
A Capitalist government envisages enormous amounts of economic growth but will eventually turn out to be a struggle for the middlemen and the poor to live due to the increase in the price of basic commodities. Capitalism is like providing the field with fertilizers, You might reap a bounty crop in a short period of time. But, continuous use would mean stripping the field of it's nutritive value. Handling a nation's government is not a farce,it is an extremely serious issue.I strongly expostulate against this. I am looking forward to contradictions from my opponent and I would like to wish him luck(Although he doesn't need it!!!!).
So I do support the capitalist government. It is more beneficial for the nation. Capitalism refers to the economic system where government interference is minimal. Private firms take all the decisions for fixing the prices of products and their sale. Economic growth takes place when nations shift to capitalist government. The GDP increases rapidly for different countries. Also when the profit sales of the company are going good, they are fairly acquiring large amounts of money, these firms provide excellent facilities to the people. The government itself does not have enough money to facilitate itself.
The government earns through collecting taxes from the people. However, when the question rises about providing a new facility to the people, such as providing water in a specific region through pipelines or to open a new government college, lots of discussion takes place. In many governments, less than half the value of the money is acquired by the people. Rest all the money disappears due to corruption. Private firms on the other hand, can invest large amount of money to provide better facilities to the people. In the remotest areas of the country, it is the private companies which invest money for the betterment of the people.
Let me quote a case from The U.S.A, Capitalism has helped boost the economy, but the amount of jobs in the U.S.A have dropped tremendously. A free market trade is only beneficial for the economically stable and the most powerful countries in the world. U.S.A is currently the world's most powerful nation. It can afford to be capitalist because of it's cosmopolitan work environments. Everyone ranging from the nation's natives to people from the far-east work in some of the biggest firms in the U.S.A eg: Microsoft(I take pride in telling that most of the people working over there are Indians due to the fact that I am of Indian origin myself). At the present scenario there are NO pure capitalist countries, the government DOES interfere, to prevent monopolies from rising and they keep an eye on the pricing of the basic commodities, the one who suffers in all of this is the middlemen. U.S.A may be BASED on Capitalism. If economically unstable countries like Ghana were to introduce capitalism, the economy would be in the drains, the people whose fore-fathers used to rule this land (Europeans of course!) would re-establish their relinquished power. To allow such a free-market trade it is necessary for the nation to be economically and politically stable. As you may claim that private companies may do a great job in providing water to the remote areas which the government would find a difficult task. I would also like to put in my opponent's kind information that Private Companies have a large amount of people to pay, the people who work over there definitely do not want to work in a NGO/NPO, they want to enjoy their fat salaries which is why they work. So, in order to keep up with that it is of utmost necessity for the Private companies to earn profits. They will increase the price of water tremendously bringing the middle-men on the streets. Above 100000 laborers in the U.S.A have a degree. It is a fact I am not merely bluffing. I would like to quote a case from Bolivia. The authority for supplying water to the public was handed over to private companies. The prices had risen so high that the government had to witness mass protesting and the government was compelled to withdraw the power. So I claim that capitalism is not always beneficial. Looking forward to interesting rebuttals from my opponent's side.
I agree that people decisions are often not included in the profit minded business of the capitalist government. But at the brighter side, capitalism reaps profit not only for themselves but for the people of the country. America adopted the capitalist form of government because of which it has become so influential in the entire world. In fact, it is due to capitalism that today USA is the only recognized superpower of the world. Under the capitalist government, the economy becomes very efficient, because more attention is given to the tertiary or the market activities. After all, money is the only incentive of the world, which is capable of building countries alone with hard work of the people? People always keep on delivering speeches in democracy, they do big promises but do they get fulfilled? Even if I agree on this statement; it is important to note, that for the betterment of the country money is required. From where will the democracy get this? If the people are unable to pay the taxes to the state, how can the state owned firms ever increase their work efficiency? Being money minded in capitalism, is something which cannot be denied. It is the key to success and achieving an boosting GDP. These are just my own views about capitalism although I don't know much about it.
Firstly, I would like to thank my opponent for such a well-mannered and intellectual debate. I would like to correct one thing even U.S.A is a democratic government, Democracy is the form of government. Whereas Capitalism is how you handle the economy. U.S.A has a mixed economy system, but the government prefers to emphasize on "Capitalism". Nevertheless I would like to continue with my rebuttal. As I mentioned earlier, to introduce capitalism the nation should be economically stable. I would like to note down a point. U.S.A's History is very ambiguous and definitely very interesting. They were unfettered from colonial rule in 1776 they had a lot of time to gain their relinquished power and thus, build up the world's largest economy with the highest GDP in the world. In India the GDP is around $1.8 trillion. They are the largest democracy in the world. In U.S.A the price of basic commodities in high.Capitalism is not a political system but an economic one. So, your contrast is oblique. In Capitalism they don't give more importance to the wealth inequality existing in the society and they are more in a pursuit of profit than actually the upbringing of the society. The Americans are pretty affluent. They can afford introducing such an economic system, their society has evolved throughout the decades through both good and bad phases which is why they have a really strong stand in today's world. In developing economies like Sudan or Somalia, it would be extremely difficult to introduce capitalism at it's rudimentary stage. The egregious fact is that money is a ubiquitous necessity in all the nations in the world. It is how intelligently you implement your policies towards the nation's economy. The Americans have been far successful than any other nation in this field. If you take the entire world into consideration you would see that the affluent countries are in minority and the struggling and mediocre ones in majority. Thus, I would like to rest my case by declaring that Capitalism is not always useful, unless you have intellectual and broad minded people handling the economy, even though the nation was affluent in the beginning it's economy will slowly decline over a short period of time (If capitalism is the form of economy). I would like to leave the judgement in the hands of the kind voters.