The entire monetary scheme (economy, trade, finance) contradicts itself.
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aerogant forfeited this round.
Aerogant forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
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.
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.