The Free Marke is the supperior economic system
Debate Rounds (4)
My stance ( as stated ) is that a Free Market Economy functions is the superior ( as in, its of outstanding quality) economic system.
First round is opening argument, and acceptance.
1)- True Free Market Capitalism, has been given a very strong correlation with Human Development, and general quality of life.
A study recently conducted by the Heritage foundation found that economies that were rated as "free" had an average HDI of 0.91, "mostly free" economies scored 0.85, and "repressed" scored a 0.56. The same study also found that the freer the economy , the more money the average person had, thus finding a negative link between Economic freedom, and Poverty. Statistics, as we all know, do not prove disprove, they only show what their there. However the fact that at a certain point correlation becomes " Strong correlation" and Strong correlation becomes " Probably has something to do with it" , with the average freedom score of economies rising while the number of people who lived on an average of $1 a day " adjusted for inflation of course" fell.
You have your heroes, and I have mine. One of mine Milton Friedman, had a comment on this very Phenomenon. "The well being of ordinary people has been the main thing that has been improved by economic progress and economic growth and development"
2)- The opposite of what Marx predicted is coming true.
My Marxism is a little rusty, but if I am not mistaken, Marx said that wages would continue on a downward trend until the only solution was revolution. This has proven to be largely false. As I already said, less people in the world are living on a dollar a day than ever before, which is unsurprising if you consider my first point. Wages have been, as a general rule, increasing. Of course during recessions these go down some, but that's like calling the tiny drops of temperature in parts of north America proof that global warming is untrue.
3)- Environment. A study conducted over the course of ten years has found a negative link between air pollution and economic freedom, and no link between economic freedom and Co2 emissions. This is probably due to the fact that Governments often get in bed with certain companion order to sell their produces. This is often known as crony capitalism or corporatism. Free markets, the people chose what product they want, and states, if they exist at all, chose the best product. A factor in what makes an objectively good product is its effect on the environment. Small wonder why countries with low regulations on solar energy tend to use more of it.
4)- Free Markets tend to come with a freer people. Its not secret that in Republics people have somewhat of an effect on a Nation's economic policy, and studies found that more democratic nations tend to have freer economies. Whether or not this is a case of people wanting capitalism, or more economically free people seeing the value in democracy, shouldn't matter. In addition to this free markets tend to have less restrictive laws, which allows for more markets to set up it, and for the people to live their lives free from external forces that dictate what they can and cannot do with themselves.
Those are my arguments. I hope I prove a challenge to you, and I hope that your counter arguments are as strong as I expect them to be.
1. Correlation is not causation. It has also been found that countries with high temperatures have a higher amount of pirates...You also cite no sources. But let's discard that. Let's just assume that's true. Yes, the free market does satisfy economic freedoms and may increase a person's wealth. This is an argument that laissez-faire libertarians like you seem to love to make. Karl Marx dealt with this sort of argument. The GDP per capita may seem high from a global standpoint, but within the country itself? Take a look at Norway. The GDP and HDI are astoundingly high and yet, prices are over the roof insanely high. There is such a thing as inflation. The problem in a global free market economy is: if everyone was rich, no one would be rich, as the definition of rich is:'having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy'. Abundant means:'present in great quantity; more than adequate; oversufficient'. Abundant means more than adequate, meaning that being rich means having more than others. HDI is irrelevant as it bases itself off GDP per capita.
2. False. Karl Marx never said anything of this sort. Marx only described a process wherein commodities' exchange value and use value stopped basing itself on human labour, resulting in human labour losing worth, leading to revolution. 
What Marx predicted came true. As the competitive market increases, subsidy rates go along, as do commodity exchange values, resulting eventually in the loss of the worth of labour. Wages are irrelevant. Currencies change, the world changes, the dialectic is constant.
3. The free market by definition is:'an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.'
The free market means no regulation, meaning that any environment interference is allowed. A study conducted recently, called the Happy Planet index, showed that socialist countries have a lower index of pollution, and free market countries have an extremely high rate of pollution. 
4. Completely irrelevant. What do you mean by 'Democratic countries'? The USA has a two party system...North Korea has a multi party system... You cite absolutely no evidence here. It's irrelevant if 'the people want it'
The people 'wanted' Adolf Hitler in power. The people 'wanted' Mussolini in power...the point is, the people don't know what's good for them. To quote Vladimir Lenin: 'It is true that liberty is precious, so precious it must be carefully rationed'
'No amount of political freedom will satisfy the hungry masses'
Your arguments appear very weak and did not even demand much of my time. This is not an ad hominem attack, you seem like a genuinely intelligent person, but I request that you include sources and present stronger arguments. Thank you, comrade.
Human development does take into account GDP per capita, but more than that, the three main factors it looks at is average education, average quality of life, and average health. 
Prices in Norway are high because of government interference. A gallon of gas, is $6.29 in American dollars. Oil Companies in norway, are taxed 78%. This means that to make a profit, the oil companies need to sell their product for higher than they would otherwise, as a price floor has been made, meaning they must sell the product above the equilibrium ( the point where supply and demand reach. ) Norway has other high taxes like this, the income tax in norway hovers around 30%, nearly a third of an individuals income, which screws over the consumer, and the nation mind you, as the European central bank has found that these high taxes actually hurt the average person. Besides, the HDI takes this into account with PPP 
( I would also like to interject here that Norway actually has a comparable market freedom to the United States)
My question for you here is, if you do not determine being better off by having ability to live your life unopposed, what does make one better off? And why does a free market hinder it?
Labour however does not determine value, and has never at best been any more than a minor factor in value. Even at a personal level this is entirely wrong, both definitions, Marx"s and the markets (Though the market is less wrong to a very small degree.) At a personal level, worth is entirely subjective, and there are several, irrational, and non material values that can be lumped onto things. The market value is determined by how much other people want it and how much of them they are, and Marx determines value by how much work is put in ( as you"ve explained). Again this is flawed, because work does not determine much that could possibly give something value. Work does not necessarily determine quality, aesthetics, sentimental value, ect. I grant that generally putting more work into something tends to make it of higher value, but this is normally because the object in question is of better quality.
I"ll ask this question. Why does labour determine value, and if it is why would different people pay different prices for the same product if value was not subjective?
Allowed? Yes, very much so however, being alive is very good for business, because if people die, you don"t have many customers. People care about the environment and when they have freer choice to buy what they want, something being better for the environment can mean them choosing that product over another.
Its irrelevant if something will never be satisfied. My need for food will never subside, it does not follow that food is not beneficial. Neither will my need to be happy. You are correct when you say that because the people will it it doesn"t make it right, however that's an argument for anarchism not government.
You have proven your intelligence to me friend, and know that I never see a disagreement in politics as a reason to not engage in friendship.
http://www.ey.com...= /ec1mages/taxguides/GOG-2014/GOG-NO.xml 2
2. Very well then, Norway might be a bad example, as it does have a mixed economy. Let's look at the United Arab Emirates. There is no VAT tax in the UAE, there isn't even business tax. 
The UAE are an ideal 'free-market laissez faire' society. The UAE have a high GDP and a high HDI, yet the prices remain extremely high.
3. Life is measured in happiness and education, not income...You may live unopposed, but not with the free market system.
4. That's...not the argument I or Marx made. How does use value measure itself? Through exchange value. How does exchange value measure itself? From product quantity and quality, measured in labour. The more labour that goes in it, the larger both will be. Value is measured like this, not 'worth'. Worth is a completely irrelevant concept.
5. Value IS subjective...I'm saying that the absolute product of labour is relative to value of a product. The point of the law of value is that labour cannot be dependent on values and vice versa. Exchange value is measured in the quantity and quality of the product. The product is produced through labour. Unequal prices are the problem. People tend to charge more than it's actually worth...that's the problem of the free market.
6. That's a terrible argument. If there is no regulation, there are no limits, meaning that anyone can do anything to the enviroment...People are stupid. If they could buy enviroment-friendly products, they already would...
7. The fact that needs are not satisfied is part of the problem. Food is beneficial, political freedom is not. As soon as every person has access to food, education and a home, we'll have a socialist society, even if it's not politically free.
Thank you, comrade. I do not condemn you for your opinion. Your second round was much better than the first.
The United States, Canada, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and other very economically free countries also smoke Vietnam, and Cuba, as I have found two other happiness scales that disagree with yours 
2) This is correct, but once again Government has a role with it, as inflation in the UAE is on a growing trend.  It is also far from the ideal free market zone, their economy is dependent on Oil, in a free market there a lot more eggs in other baskets. Also in a free market, government wouldn't print money to the point that this would happen.
A free market mind you, is not a substantial factor for superior economics, but a necessary one. Where you have powerful economics you find freer economies, but freer economies aren't magically productive. In the same way that steady breathing is necessary for a good shot, but not a guarantee that you will hit it.
3) Yes you do, you live with Negative freedom, freedom from outside forces. Positive freedom is what you are thinking of, freedom from internal constraints. and are things that can exist in a free market system, and are bestowed on the individual by the individual. When Positive freedoms are bestowed by something like the state, you take away some negative freedom from the individual, and from another source.
" How does exchange value measure itself"
Different aspects can factor into it, quantity and quality are just too possible parameters.
"Quantity and quality are measured in labour. The more labour goes into it, the larger both will be"
Not necessarily true .
"Worth is a completely meaningless concept"
Value is a synonym for worth. If Worth is a completely meaningless concept, it follows that any theory of value is a meaningless theory. Which is obviously not true.
5) The law of value itself is an assumption, that labour is special. Working is, in essence selling your labour to someone else. Labour itself is a commodity, and has value that can be measured subjectively on any amount of parameters ( IE how efficient is this work, how precise it is, how aesthetic it is) Someone will work for another person based on the price someone is asking for it. If you say your labour is worth $7.25 and I value your labour as something higher than that or in the same way, I will buy it from you. Its a transaction, nothing more. Since labour now has all the same characteristics of a product, we might as well have a potato theory of value. Labour can be valued, but like all other valuables, its value is subjective.
6) Its allowed, not encouraged. People value the environment, therefore
That doesn't seem like an argument against Free markets but one against ignorance.
Over here in America there is a huge movement for going green, and it has been propping up companies with more eco friendly products and less eco unfriendly ones.
7) Due to capitalism we've seen far more haves and far fewer have nots. It has been accomplishing the goal of socialism since its inception. Thomas Jefferson(A founding father of America) Was considered upper middle class, and to live his life style he would need to spend Three million dollars a year in 1776, now one only needs to spend a few thousand a year to do the same. 
2. You commit the no true Scotsman fallacy here. Example: A:No scotsman puts sugar on his oats
B:I am a scotsman and I put sugar on my oats
A:Well no TRUE scotsman puts sugar on his oats.
The definition of a free market:'A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation. In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability. In foreign-exchange markets, it is a market where exchange rates are not pegged (by government) and thus rise and fall freely though supply and demand for currency.'
Again, I assert that the UAE fit into this category as their transactions are not intervened from the side of the government..
3. Not true. A free market economy guarantees pressure from the economy and the market itself.
4. This is not the argument I made...Exchange value is the objective value of a commodity based off its use value, which is based off quantity and quality, no argument here.
Any proof here? Yes it does. The producers can set their own value, that's called exploitation of value...Value is objectively based off labour, irrelevant what the actual PRICE is, the exchange and use value is based off labour.
Not in Marxist theory, but let's just grant you this, We can use worth as a synonym with value now.
5. False. Marx never stated that prices are necessarily based off labour, he said VALUE was based off labour. Please understand that the law of value takes this into account. The labour time, the difficulty etc. The problem is exploitation, which measures prices of commodities with different parameters, not its objective labour-time value.
6. One word to describe this argument:Irrelevant. The free market entails that ANY transaction is allowed without ANY government regulation, meaning that anyone could do anything with the environment...
7. Irrelevant, prices change, values change, times change, society changes, the dialectic is constant...The Paris commune also significantly lowered the values of living...
2) I did not commit this fallacy by any means. You said costs of living were high in the UAE, and I gave an attempt to explain why. I did not content that the UAE wasn't a relatively free market in today's world, I simply stated that it was not in fact the perfect example of an exquisite market. Is it free? By today's standards yes, but is it a good economy? Not entirely.
3) As opposed to a non-free market where it is guaranteed not by free exchange but by government forces. The free market, though there is some influence on one by outside forces, it provides the least amount.
4) Value is not objectively based on Labour. To say that value is created by labour is somewhat correct, but to say it is objectively based on labour is a very lacking description. Everything that has been learned in the since of economics lends to Value, if objective at all, is based on utility, not labour. I'm afraid that I must again repeat, I see no clear connection between labour hours and value., and have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
5) I agree value is not price. Price is in markets, and value is individual. The exploitation that Marx claimed to be rampant, has not stood up to the test of history, it is now found that as the price of labour has gone up so has wages, thus meaning that workers are pretty fairly compensated for their work.  This also fails mention that any contract that's reach voluntarily is hard pressed to be found as immoral.
6) Once again, allowance =/= encouragement. The market has its own way of regulating itself, based on what the people want, and due to recent events more and more people are looking for sustainable energy. Were government to back out of subsidizing its competition, this effect may be greater.
7) Here you commit the false sequitur fallacy. Just because a happened before b does not mean that a caused b.
Assuming that the socialist polices enacted during the paris commune were the cause for the drop in the price of living ignores the fact that they were still rebelling against an oppressive government, which was still behind on free market principals, and that the smaller the economy is, the less infastructure and logistics factor into costs.
I feel that at this point I am simply restating my earlier arguments.
2. I maintain that the UAE is indeed the perfect free market. The definition of Free market:'A market economy based on supply and demand with little OR no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.
In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability. In foreign-exchange markets, it is a market where exchange rates are not pegged (by government) and thus rise and fall freely though supply and demand for currency.'
UAE's economy is not entirely based on oil...71% is based on non-oil sectors. The reason such a large percentage is based on oil is because of the incredible amount of oil in the UAE.
Completely irrelevant if it's not a 'good economy'. That's the no true scotsman fallacy...It fits the definition of free market. The premise is called 'The free market is the superior system'.
3. Not necessarily. There is no government regulation in the UAE and yet, it is a less-free country than any European country, in which there is moderate regulation.
4. The quantity of labour determines product-value as the ratio between the average total amount of labour-time required to produce a reproducible good, and the corresponding average amount of labour required to produce a unit of gold. The value of traded products is the "objectified expression" of the current social valuation of the human labour implicated in producing them. Labour itself has no value in bourgeois society, only a price. Only the results of human work have value; the labour has to materialize itself in some kind of object which has value, and can be owned for a price or a fee. The importance of labour is its ability to preserve capital value, increase already existing value, and create wholly new value. How any individual happens to regard a particular product normally cannot change that social valuation at all; it's simply a "social fact" in the same way as "the state of the market" is a social fact, even though particular products can at any time trade at prices above or below their socially established value. Utility of a product depends on labour...You're over-simplifying Marx's ideas, sir. If there is no labour that goes into production of commodities, they cannot have any value if they are nonexistent...
5. That's not the exploitation that Marx claimed...do you honestly have no idea about anything that Marx said? Marx NEVER implied that wages would drop...Irrelevant if wages are higher, there will always be oppressed masses. Wages might increase for some, but they lower for others. Even if they increase, the norm may also increase, meaning that the increased amount is below the norm...
6. IRRELEVANT! They CAN exploit the environment in ANY way they want...No, people do not 'want sustainable, ecological energy'...That's the point...Allowance is not encouragement, but it is still allowance...There is motivation:Profit.
7. No...in no way was that a non-sequitor...I never claimed anything as such...I said that wages increase, but so do social norms, meaning that increased wages may not mean a higher life standard...The Paris commune was rebelling against a mercantilist government...A government that allowed almost all economic activity. 
True, also irrelevant.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.