The Instigator
Aerogant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kjorstad
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The entire monetary scheme (economy, trade, finance) contradicts itself.

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...
kjorstad
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 787 times Debate No: 60844
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

Aerogant

Pro

I can sum up monkey making in two sentences - watch me:

Work for others.

Others work for you.

People wonder why the cost of living is sky rocketing since the old times - inflation. Inflation is caused by a few things: printed money, people at top hoarding all the money with unbelievably unrealistic pay checks for the little work they do compared to say, a soldier "fighting for our country" who get brains scrambled, beheaded, lost limbs, here in the U.S, sending jobs overseas, paying celebrities, sportsman more than people who actually work and keep this economy going in the first place. It's the bottom class that holds everything else up - the entire money scheme is the next world's biggest farce next to "God" being used to pillage people's towns.
kjorstad

Con

Hi! I will respond as best I can to what you have already presented; to be honest, I"m not clear on the link between your title of the "entire monetary scheme contradicting itself" and your arguments thus far; hopefully you can expand on that, as well as defining the "entire monetary scheme" and the contradiction. However, I do have a couple of arguments.

I"m not going to disagree that there is something wrong with celebrities and sports stars making more than soldiers; this problem expands into various fields (including teachers). However, you seem to make the assumption (please excuse me if you aren"t) that these people who make a lot of money (sports stars and celebrities included) haven"t worked for their money; this is invalid. While they certainly may make more than most of us for what appears to many to be an easy job, they are working for their pay, regardless of whether we feel they deserve it. It is also important to consider that many people who make such large salaries pay the salaries of many members of the economy to keep their businesses running.

One of the things you have to realize about inflation is that a lot of people actually WANT it. What inflation essentially does is adjust the dynamics of who wins and loses within the economy. The US federal government (one of the world"s largest debtors) itself wants to increase inflation, if at controlled levels, because inflation and negative real interest aids it in accomplishing its promises to voters. Retailers want inflation because they can then increase prices for goods; employers want inflation because it reduces the actual cost of wages paid. In fact, the New York Times published the following sentences, which actually tout inflation:

"There is growing concern inside and outside the Fed that inflation is not rising fast enough. Some economists say more inflation is just what the American economy needs to escape from a half-decade of sluggish growth and high unemployment...Janet Yellen has long argued that a little inflation is particularly valuable when the economy is weak. Rising prices help companies increase profits; rising wages help borrowers repay debts. Inflation also encourages people and businesses to borrow money and spend it more quickly. The school board in Anchorage, Alaska, for example, is counting on inflation to keep a lid on teachers' wages. Retailers including Costco and Wal-Mart are hoping for higher inflation to increase profits. The federal government expects inflation to ease the burden of its debts."

Regardless of the truth of whether controlled inflation will actually aid the economy in the long run, it is undeniable that many members of our economy want and actively strive for inflation. It is true that the members of the lower and middle classes often suffer the most from inflation; this is because during inflation, those whose wealth is tied directly to their labor and wages become poorer, often by a lot. On the other hand, those whose wealth is tied to their asset base (upper and middle class members, typically) usually make vast profits. One of the major problems with inflation is that it benefits debtors at the expense of creditors.

Also, people hoarding money doesn"t cause inflation; when individuals reduce spending in an attempt to increase their overall monetary holdings, it causes prices to fall. If we think about this, if a large group of people all want to save money and as such reduce their overall spending, then they will collectively be hurting each other. This is because their collective spending is equal to their collective income. Thus, the recipients of their money (businesses) will see a fall in spending, and react by cutting prices (or by laying off workers). This is not going to increase or decrease the net value of the dollar, simply the amount of currency in circulation. A net reduction in spending can result in a recession, but only in situations where sellers don"t react quickly enough by cutting prices.

In terms of it being the "bottom class that"s holding everything up," I have to disagree on several points. First, if we are going to blame somebody for inflation and rising costs of living, the lower class has as much blame as anyone. The amount of borrowing, debt, and dependency on the government through welfare that can be seen in the lower class contributes as much to the inherent problem of inflation as anything. Regardless of what causes this, the American culture of borrowing leads to inflation. Granted, as the lower class takes the hardest hit from inflation, this may simply be a circle of debt that won"t be broken save an economic miracle. However, I don"t believe that we can credit the lower class with "holding everything up"; you would need significantly expanded arguments with convincing arguments to persuade me of that stance.

Thus far I believe the biggest obstacle to this debate is a lack of a definition for the contradiction you reference in your title. Hopefully you can expand on this in your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Aerogant

Pro

You're telling me right now that they are working for their pay? When a man who has a family to feed is working in a factory his whole life and is never paid no more than his first day's pay check compared to celebrities and sports players? Are you really going to try to even insinuate that this is even remotely accurate of a statement by you?

You're telling me that inflation is good when it destroys the lower class? When cost of living goes up? When the people that keep this damn economy going are getting by with scrapes, while those who do not even remotely as much as the bottom class get paid infinitely more than those who put their soul into their jobs for these monkeys? While the bottom class gets no break when the jobs of our own country are sent over seas!? Are you out of your mind? Yes, yes you are.

The biggest obstacle is that giant squid looking monster in your head that mucks everything up. You should go get that checked out.
kjorstad

Con

First, you are grossly misinterpreting everything I have said. Not once did I argue that inflation is a good thing; I agree with your stance that inflation generally has more negative consequences and is not promoting our economy. I am not supporting the destruction of the lower class, nor have I supported increased costs of living. What I have done is explain precisely what causes inflation and why SOME, NOT ALL, people in this country actually think it will help. You seem to be criticizing inflation and the economy without a complete understanding of what causes it. Again, I sympathize with the lower class and understand completely how hard most of its members work to maintain a decent life style; but this does not mean that they are the sole reason our economy is still standing.

Second, yes, they do work for their pay. Just because you or I make a presumption that what they do is not work, either because they get paid several figures more than I do or because they have an "easier lifestyle" than I do such as acting or modelling, does not mean that they don"t work. Many of them worked extremely hard to get to the position they are in now, and while we may see it as easy, they still have jobs and they still need to show up to work to earn their money.

You appear to have overlooked all of my arguments on inflation, the economy, and have failed to specify on the topic of the debate in favor of attacking me as a squid-brain ruining the lives of the lower class. I would implore you to actually address some of my arguments an discuss the economy instead of having a lowly name-calling game.
Debate Round No. 2
Aerogant

Pro

That is my mistake... I stand corrected. The way you worded it, you did not stress your side.

Tell me, what do these stars, politicians, business dogs, models and other entertainers do that soldiers don't do that grants them a thousand dollars instead of a million dollars for risking their L.I.F.E.
kjorstad

Con

Well, first of all, I agree with you in the mindset that our military personnel are seriously undercompensated for their work to protect our nation. However, that doesn"t mean that those other people you have mentioned (stars, politicians, business dogs, models, and other entertainers) aren"t actually working for the money they receive. All we are seeing is the value scales of the public at large; in general, our society appears to value the movie stars and general entertainment over the service of military members; if it were the other way around, the stars wouldn"t make the big bucks. (The pay for being in the military is also dependent on the government, which while influenced by the public has a whole other set of contributing factors influencing it which I won"t get into.) Thus, movie stars act, professional sports stars play sports, politicians lobby and earn money and representation for those they represent, business dogs build companies and businesses to earn capital; all these people have worked and do work for the money they earn. They have simply landed themselves in a field which pays more than most other occupations and, when viewed by us average people, are commonly seen as not working because we judge their job of "acting" or "talking" or "sitting behind a desk all day taking telephone calls" as being easy compared to what we do. And, in some circumstances, it very well might be easier. I simply find it difficult to accurately judge the work of another until I have tried to do it. And let me tell you, I wouldn"t be able to play professional sports or act in a movie. This doesn"t mean I am approving of the salaries they make, nor am I supporting the disparity of incomes you have cited; I am arguing that we cannot be presumptuous enough to say that those who make a lot of money work less than we do.
Debate Round No. 3
Aerogant

Pro

Aerogant forfeited this round.
kjorstad

Con

Judging by a lack of response, I am left with the assumption that either you have no further arguments against my case, or you simply no longer feel like participating in the debate. Either way, unless you have any further contributions, I believe I have summed up my arguments against your stance.
Debate Round No. 4
Aerogant

Pro

Aerogant forfeited this round.
kjorstad

Con

Thanks for the debate and the responses; in conclusion, I feel I am entitled to win due to a complete failure on the part of the Instigator to clarify the topic of the debate or to post an argument in the past three rounds, as well as more complete arguments which largely went without being addressed.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Garsot 2 years ago
Garsot
If we were to get rid of money and instead just focused on advancements and survival then we don't have to worry about making money without working because money would not be needed in order to get the resources required to live. And the reason sports stars and actors get paid what they do because they have millions, perhaps billions, of people buying all their merchandise and supporting their bull. But then ask those same people to donate towards starving families and youll be lucky to get a second glance. Its that the priorities of everyone is so messed up. The cliche argument is a recent one, the World Cup in Brazil while people in the country are starving and living out in the streets. The country could fork over the mass amount of resources required to host such an event but lets its own people suffer. Regardless of how much those actors work, it is foolish for resources to be going towards their luxury while we have wars going on.
Posted by kjorstad 2 years ago
kjorstad
After reading through the comments posted by both of you, I have to say that the one that stands out the most to me is when Aerogant said "Don't even try to rationalize why people are paid," followed by "Quit rationalizing the inevitable" in relation to why people are paid what they are. Aerogant, the simply reality is that there is a rational reason behind what people are paid. Even if we institute what appears to be your desired reality and pay soldiers the big bucks, there would be a rational reason why you would be paying the soldiers more than the entertainers - because you feel they deserve more monetary benefit from their work than do the entertainers, sports stars, etc. The mere fact that there is a reason the pay scale is the way it is, be it your reality or mine, means that there is a rationale behind it. For you to ask anyone to not try to rationalize is to ask them simply complain instead of thinking why the system is what it is. Further, rationalizing a situation is essential to addressing that situation; if we cannot understand what is causing it, how can we ever hope to address it? You can refuse to recognize or understand why soldiers and entertainers are paid what they are, but this is not going to get you anywhere, either in terms of fixing your problem nor in conversing with anyone else on the subject.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
The entire world is deranged, hence our rulers are deranged and the people are deranged for not stopping the vicious cycle after what? decades of suffering?
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
Which seems more rational, that the entire world is deranged and you're not or the inverse?
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
You're grasping at straws - the fact is not that some entertainers are paid less; the fact is that soldiers are out paid by people who do not risk their lives - period. This shouldn't even be a thing.

My argument is still not invalid. The whole world is invalid. Everything is backwards. It just sickens me that you would even try to pull a fast one like this when our lives are on the line.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
No, I think you need to do a little more research before you are prepared for this debate. That statement is not true. If we compare a 4 star general's salary and benefits to a street performer than we will find that the soldier makes much more. Your argument is invalid, please clarify.

The only contradiction that you have demonstrates here is your own. You'd complain about the wealth Tom Cruise has built while in line to see his latest film. You have to be the change you want to see in the world.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Considering I always am this blunt, no, you have not wavered my stance.

Some? Are you out of your mind? There's no questions asked - soldiers are paid far less than people that entertain us. There's no argument here - why are you arguing it? Quit rationalizing the inevitable.

I hate the "Don't blame the player; blame the game" type of thinking - no, that's not how it works. You blame the player because they chose to play the game. The game did not do anything - it's nothing without the player. The sheep herder and the sheep are both to be blamed.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
I find that in most debates when your opponent becomes increasingly derogatory, as in this case , it usually means that you have exposed a weakness in your opponents arguments.

I don't think entertainers are necessarily more valued but some do make more monetarily. No one is to blame for that except consumers. I'm sure you have paid more for entertainment this month than for police support or soldiers. Perhaps if you value your ideology so highly you will cancel your t.v subscription or stop listening to the radio and instead make a substantial donation to your local police force or firefighter outfit.

I have found that your resolution should instead be worded "the entire monetary scheme contradicts Aerogant's personal reality."
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Derogatory? Please, if you're going to pull that card, go attack the people who tell people will suffer in hell. If you can't handle the truth, then you're a coward.

Or instead of having a spoiled brain that can't see a better future - have a brain that can welcome systems that actually make sense? This entire economy is encouraging human stupidity.

Don't even try to rationalize why people are paid. People risk their lives are paid thousands - people who do nothing right are paid millions. There's no if's and's or but's. You have already lost the moment you think entertainment is more valuable than people's lives.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
Arrogant, there is no need to be derogatory.

I understand your point and also your critisim. My point , though, is that you are requiring an economy based on monetary worth to instead be based on honor or merit. That is like putting bread in a toaster and expecting it to dispense a tossed salad.

Entertainers don't necessarily do nothing and very few of them get paid millions. The ones that do have extremely specialized skills that are unique and rare so they get paid quite a bit. For instance, almost no one on this earth can play the guitar like Eric Clapton. When people want to hear the best rendition of "Layla" that money can buy they are going to pay him. Similarly, if people want to spectacular football they are going to pay to see Tom Brady toss the pig skin but there are few people on this globe that can throw a football like him. There are massive amounts of guitarists and quarterbacks that get paid penuts because they are not at the top of their game. Similarly, it is easier to make it as a police man or soldier than it is to be a professional footballer or rock star. Also, they tend to work for reasons other than monetary gain. In the end getting paid more is not directly related to job fulfilment or respect.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
AerogantkjorstadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never even came close to supporting the motion. The incoherent rambling that formed his case wasn't compelling, and certainly didn't point to a "contradiction", which was the motion under consideration. Conduct for the forfeits, arguments for Con actually presenting a coherent case. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.