The Instigator
Bob_Manbook
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rwicks
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The economy was mans worst invention

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Rwicks
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 496 times Debate No: 66479
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Bob_Manbook

Pro

The economy allows for people to be discriminated because of their position in the economy. It also allows certain people to have more stuff then other people because of their position in the economy. It creates divides between the poor and the rich. Some people aren't able to get what they need to live because they don't have money. The best thing that could ever happen to this earth is this. We destroy the economy, everybody works and everybody gets what they need once they work. Discrimination would be extinct. That is why the economy is man's worst invention.
Rwicks

Con

What my opponent believes "the economy" to be is perfectly natural. Every living creature uses up resources. Some creatures for various reasons do this better than others. When a tree gets tall, plants underneath are starved of sunlight and water, wither, and then die. A litter of puppies fights over food, resulting in some puppies getting bigger and stronger than the rest. Humans are animals. To survive, something else needs to die. It is perfectly natural for us to hoard resources first for ourselves and next for our family. I agree with my opponent that it does create divides. I agree that everyone who works should be able to support themselves. In Australia a guy pumping gas can afford rent and groceries. They won't get rich, but they can survive. In America some people have two or three jobs just to live. In developing countries average wage is not enough to provide housing or nutritious food. This of course is just wrong. But I do not agree that what he thinks "the economy" is, was invented. It's perfectly natural. What is unnatural, or what occurs very rarely in nature, is for us to share resources with those not in our own family or pack or group. Helping strangers and giving to charity is the exception in nature, not the norm. Our compassion and empathy were not inventions either but a part of our evolution. Being compassionate is one of the things that makes us "human."

So I agree with my opponent that the current economic system is not morally or ethically "good." We could debate that those who work "harder" deserve more rewards, but this would then turn into a debate about the "value" of a profession. I just disagree with the title of this debate, that it is an "invention."

Also destroying this "economy" and replacing it with a Star Trek/Miracle Man economy would just result in a different kind of economy, not no more economy.

In this "no more economy" should I be allowed to pass my possessions to my children? Would they deserve to inherit something without having worked for it? What would happen to the house where they grew up, a business I started, or even my car? Would it be the government's responsibility to take my stuff and then reallocate it to those who "worked" for it?
Debate Round No. 1
Bob_Manbook

Pro

Every living creature doesn't have to use up all of the resources they have access to. I agree that somethings have to die to support us. But it doesn't have to sentient animals. The economy creates divides. We can get everybody to live by getting them to work, and in turn, they get food, health care, and social services. Once the economy is taken out, everybody can be equal, and nobody would have the advantage over other people. Like you said, compassion and empathy are part of are evolution. Therefore we should have it in a hearts to let people have a nice life free from being divided. Once we take the economy, people can stop getting distracted from the wanting of items, and everybody can work together to find cures, and overall help mankind.
Rwicks

Con

Your economy would never result in equality. Someone might be happy and content with two pairs of jeans, someone else isn't happy unless they have five, or ten. I'm perfectly happy with my $10 phone. Someone else wants the latest gadget today. I like shopping in second-hand bookstores, other people want an iPad. You might be happy with a trip to the lake, others want to jet set four times a year. Our wants and desires aren't equal.

Also you're not accounting for celebrity or popularity. Which occupation would you rather talk to, the astronaut who went to the moon, or the guy who pumps your gas? Some people are just more interesting and fun to be around. Time is a resource, and people would give celebrities more resources to spend time with them.

Should a doctor be paid the same as a carpenter? Yes, both jobs are important. However one requires a year of training, the other ten. Why would anyone work so hard to be a doctor, when they can get the same benefits by studying for only a year? If people aren't given incentive for hard work, then they won't work hard. If they are given incentives and rewards for hard work, then people work harder.

There is great disparity in pay. I read a study that said a kindergarten teacher's value to the economy works out to be about $350,000 a year. Are kindergarten teachers paid that much? No. Should they be? Yes. Some jobs should have higher salaries, others less. But it is a supply and demand economy. Prices rise and fall based on demand.

If everyone was paid the same, there would still not be equality. You also have to consider what people do with their money. Say we start over, and everyone makes $60,000 a year. Some people like to party, some like to shop, some like to travel, some like to own property, some like to invest, some like to save. Within a few years after starting over, disparity would quickly return.

I do agree with you that there should be jobs for all, and that people should be able to make a livable wage. But we as a race will never be able to truly create an "equal" society. The reason why is because we are all different, complex creatures. We will never get rid of wants or desires.
Debate Round No. 2
Bob_Manbook

Pro

You're saying that some people are better then other people. If you want some people to have certain things, let everybody have it. We don't need to separate what people want with what they don't have, as a economy does.
Rwicks

Con

I said no such thing. Some people are faster than me. Some people are smarter than me. Some people work harder than me. But no one, not one single person, is "better" than me. And I am not "better" than anyone else. I am not putting a value on human life. I am putting a value on human work.

Again, I agree with you that we all should be able to make a livable wage, a salary that allows us to take care of our needs. You seem to be confusing "needs" with "wants." Our needs are all the same. Our "wants" are not.

I would like everyone to have what they need to have a happy, healthy life. I am not saying everyone should get a gold Rolex or a trip to Monaco two times a year. And you know what, not everyone deserves to have their "wants" fulfilled. Also, it would be impossible, so what then, shut down Rolex because not everyone can get a $10,000 watch? Tell the workers in Monaco, sorry, you can't accommodate 6 billion people a year, so no one gets to go?

Also, just because someone wants a new car doesn't mean I want it. I'm happy with the car I have. What would I do with my old car?

We do need to separate what people want with what they don't have. Our wants are not equal, and we all want different things, and the whole "supply and demand" thing.
Debate Round No. 3
Bob_Manbook

Pro

Bob_Manbook forfeited this round.
Rwicks

Con

Judges, I would ask when this debate is over, please to not judge on the fact that a round has been forfeited. I do not mind if an opponent forfeits a round, and do not think that forfeiting should result in a loss of points. (I lost a debate because I didn't respond to a round in time.... it sucks....)
Debate Round No. 4
Bob_Manbook

Pro

Bob_Manbook forfeited this round.
Rwicks

Con

I tend to lose points for not citing... So, here's a dictionary definition of economy!

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
So, what are you saying? That if I want more, just take it. How long has it been since your momma wiped your butt?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
money is the son of satan
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Bob_ManbookRwicksTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture