The Instigator
TeeJayFlow
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mysterio
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Our economic situation

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,564 times Debate No: 19062
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

TeeJayFlow

Con

Directly from my blog, the link to the original article that I replied to is also on the blog. http://teejayflow.blogspot.com...

After using our tax dollars to bail out banks that are corrupt and greedy in the first place, the banks still refuse to cut their current profits in spite of the entire economy's condition. Making people pay MORE when they are making LESS makes no logical sense whatsoever, and the banks don't care. They hurt themselves in the long run as well as the whole economy because of their greed. They charge interest on houses that are worthless now, and those who were paying money for houses they could afford before, can't afford them now because their wages have been lowered or they are out of a job completely.

The government doesn't recognize this and instead uses our money to bail out a problem that is the product of corporate greed, further throwing our economy out of control, and making this "recovery" much longer than it has to be. As said in this article the housing market plays a gigantic role in a healthy economy. When people can barely afford homes, or leave their homes to move in with others, that's a lot of money that is bypassing potential consumption. If I can barely afford my mortgage how am I going to pump money into the economy by buying products from businesses? The housing market has restricted our buying choices, increased our cost of living, made business firms lose money(further depressing the economy, no money for businesses, no jobs for people), decreased our standard of living, and had the government get policy gridlocked trying to deal with the deficit they're in because they dished out billions of dollars to war and the failing banks and housing market, as well as people getting government aid because they can't afford their rent!

The corporate greed is inevitably going to backfire on itself. What is the point of having those billions of dollars in your company when the dollar dies and becomes essentially worthless? Congratulations, you'll have billions of slices of paper that have no more value than a god damn penny. Time and time again we could have used the wisdom of the past to get over our problems today, if the government and the people had the capacity to analyze mistakes that other nations have faced throughout the history of the world, instead of arguing that times are different now. TIMES AREN'T DIFFERENT NOW, the only difference is that now there's a lot more houses for our population than there has probably ever been in any societies before us. Know what that means? That means we're even MORE dependent on the housing market than any other nation ever could have been. For every person who gets a roommate instead of mortgaging a house that costs at least 50% of their income a month, the prices of houses continue to go down and the interests the banks put on people continue to go up, as they want to meet that inflation premium and not lose money.

Fact of the matter is there is no way they AREN'T going to lose money if they aren't willing to stop oppressing people with unbelievable rates. As more houses are made, houses become cheaper, that's just basic supply and demand! As less people invest in a house because they'd rather have that extra spending money at the end of the month or at least enough money to feed themselves, the more the housing market suffers because those potential house buyers are now lowering their standard of living(owning a house independently) by moving in with roommates. This idea of sharing costs does indeed work for the individual, but it hurts our economy. All of that money that consumers aren't spending(consumers being people who pay utility bills, mortgage, etc) is money that isn't being pumped into the economy. So you have these mass amounts of homes that no one is living in because people would rather wolf pack to have more money for savings or to do what they want with.

All of this is provoked by greedy bankers and ignorant politicians. Sharing the costs of living doesn't help the economy as much as owning your own house would. Sure if you and your friends are sharing a house, you all split up the bills so your cost of living is lower, and you can go and buy that nice widescreen TV you wanted. But as more individuals live together and less people actually own houses themselves, this causes all that money that could be spent on housing to be spent on other things, further reducing the prices of homes, and in the end, screwing the banks over as their investments in these houses are deflating. "Forcing" the banks to increase interest on individuals in order to make up for the losses that they've caused themselves for being imbeciles. In the end the banks are causing their own demise in the long run.

All of these people that are having a horrible time affording mortgage while still maintaining enough income to pay bills and feed themselves are going to do one of a few things. 1, they could commit suicide because of the amplified amount of depression in their lives due to the financial crisis they're in, and not being able to afford medical help. 2, they could move in with roommates, further killing the housing market, forcing the prices on homes to go down, and making the banks worth less than they actually claim to be worth. 3, tough it out and never spend money on "wants" such as the nice TV, which in turn hurts businesses because this individual can't afford to spend money on what (s)he desires. As you can see none of these options really is beneficial for the economy. One is lethal to the individual, two is beneficial to the individual but not the economy, and three isn't really beneficial to anyone in the long run and is bad for business firms who specialize in consumer demands which further makes the economic vortex spin downward into the ground until it crashes.

It is plain to see that the banks are the ones to blame in this area, and that nothing the consumer can do will truly fix the economy. It's out of our hands. It's up to the banks to "bite the bullet" AKA stop being greedy bastards and "forgive" these people in debt, who are in debt because of the banks' greed in the first place! From my point of view I think WE need to forgive THE BANKS, but economically that wouldn't work. These conditions our economy is in is the product of corporate greed, specifically banks and war profiteers. When the super rich stop preying on the poor-middle class, that is when we will see true economic stability and prosperity. Having all of the money at the top isn't good for anyone, not even the top! Think of it this way. As the top makes more money, and the bottom makes less money, eventually it will get to the point where the top can't make money because the bottom has no money to give.

What happens when all the money is at the top and there is no money at the bottom? People don't buy products, and consumption is one of the biggest factors when it comes to money the government gets from us. Businesses go under as people aren't buying their products, the 1% that everyone is talking about becomes the 99% because they aren't making that money anymore. The top 1% own politics, but as there is no money in politics that power they have over government is pointless and ineffective as the government has no resources to instill their supremacy in. In short? The economy collapses. The dollar dies or is nonexistent. The American dream is crushed and shattered by corporate greed and the blissful ignorance of the government and the top 1%.
Mysterio

Pro

I accept. In my opinion we should leave nearly everything up to the states. Let the states have rights to do anything they want, and the gov play a very small role in the USA. The Gov should just build fire departments. Schools, hospitals, police, parks, and everything else should be privately own.
Debate Round No. 1
TeeJayFlow

Con

That is a pretty good point. One of the biggest problems is how much of a difference the views are from coast to coast. But the federal government was given so much power because they had no money when they didn't have any power before the US Constitution. Practically everything is privately owned, we're a capitalist economy. That's why the politicians get paid so much from big businesses.
Mysterio

Pro

Yes but not everything is. Like schools. More things need to be privately own. Like get rid of medicare and medicaid and we will save a bunch of money on that. And schools would be better if privately own in my opinion.
Debate Round No. 2
TeeJayFlow

Con

Medicaid and medicare have been negatively viewed since their conception. The problem is that so many Americans have been depending on the government so long that if the government did in fact immediately stop, it would probably shift the economy into the slums. Everyone wants a handout. I'm unsure what stand to take on the schools, I've been to public and private schools, they're pretty much the same. Although I must admit the school system here, as good as it is, the way they go about it just destroys people's ambitions. All of the time spent at school when you could be doing something productive like getting real life experience really throws people off.

This was a shortlived debate, but you still had a few points to make Pro, although you didn't really cover majority of what I had said.
Mysterio

Pro

Mysterio forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kjw47 5 years ago
kjw47
The economic situation is this-- the ulta rich have no love for their fellow man in their hearts-they are causing all of this-- They have taken everything the poor has now they are going after everything the middle class has-- eventually it will be the top 1% has 99% and the bottom 99% will have 1% .Thank goodness Gods kingdom will soon be here-- Not too good of news for the rich though.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
I meant "Gay marriage should be legal"
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Teejayflow, it does not matter whether your words were spoken or written. A debate is a challenge to affirm or negate a specific resolution. If I state: "Gay marriage should be illegal", my opponent must show that "Gay marriage should not be legal". That is a debate; two sides arguing opposite sides of the same statement. Their arguments can now be judged as to which side did a better job at arguing their position, by determining whether the resolution was upheld. What you posted will simply turn into a bickering match of two people arguing whatever point they feel like. This will establish nothing and serve absolutely no purpose.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Well, yes, written word does operate under different rules than the spoken word. Regardless, I disagree that simply speaking the words you wrote magically transforms it into a debate. At least not in the semi-formal sense as it is being used here. I mean, in some sort of colloquial sense it may encourage a debate, but that'd be equivocation.
Posted by TeeJayFlow 5 years ago
TeeJayFlow
Had all of the things I said been in person, it would be a debate. Does the realm of text have different rules from talking?
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Mmmno. The point of the debate is the debate the resolution. One side arguing in favor, the other against. So, I'm pretty sure this is not the appropriate medium for you. Again, I recommend a social news site, where you can legitimately promote your blog.

If, however, you are interested in debate, I recommend the orientation threads:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by TeeJayFlow 5 years ago
TeeJayFlow
Are debates not revolved around arguments? The resolution is implied, although not known. Perhaps the point of the debate is to find a resolution.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
The problem is, it's still a rant. "Our economic situation" is not a resolution. Your "argument" is, as stated, a rant. It's your stream-of-conscious opinion about the economic situation and anger at what you think are the cases. But you haven't put anything out there to debate. Even if you did, it's too broad a topic.

What, specifically are you arguing for/against? What is the support for that argument?

What you've done here is just do a cut-and-paste from your blog to here. This isn't a blog. It isn't a place to mirror your blog. Your posts aren't presented in a manner conducive to a debate. If you just want a place to promote your blog and get more hits and attention, I'd recommend stumbleupon, or reddit, or dig, or Fark, or any number of other sites specifically designed for that purpose.
Posted by Xboxlive 5 years ago
Xboxlive
I agree with daniel. Don't just rant about random points of the economy and businesses. Have a clear resolution with clear contentions and then you can have a good debate.
Posted by TeeJayFlow 5 years ago
TeeJayFlow
@Danielle: Educated ranting and straight out ranting are two different things. One is criticism decimating ignorance, while the other is babbling. I'm not here to debate in a kind howdy doody manner why our economy is completely screwed right now, and act like it's a light subject. It's a very serious subject and probably the most important thing of our era at the moment. If we can get it so there are no depressions, then there will never be the "business curve" that fluctuates the economy like a rollercaster. And as for posting the links, I assumed since they let people post youtube videos, all other forms of media were acceptable.
No votes have been placed for this debate.