This economic system will end the monster that is inflation and is thus necessary
Debate Rounds (4)
My opponent has two burdens in this debate. First, that his listed system will actually completely end inflation, and second, that it is necessary. If it ends inflation, but is not necessary, the resolution is negated.
Let me first provide a definition. Necessary - "required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential." 
Second, I propose that a thriving economy that has modest inflation, is superior to a dying economy with no inflation. If my opponent wishes to argue against this, we can get into that.
I'd like to ask for some clarification on some aspects. Since this is a 4 round debate, which usually start in R2, but I'm going in R1, we should have plenty of time for this.
1) When the consumers say "we want X dollars" is that asked on an individual, company, or national level? Meaning does each person say "I want $80.000,00" or each company say "We want $40.000.000,00 for the year" or the nation as a whole say "we are going to do $5 trillion this year"? If it is the case of on the national level, how is the money distributed?
2) How would it be determined how money is removed should the work load not be met? Evenly from everyone? From under-performing individuals?
Second, in response to my opponent's question, when the average of each individual's money supply goes up, they can still buy as many goods as they want because the amount of goods and services is the sum of their individual parts.
=== Con's Case ===
There are a number of flaws which would cause such an economy to fail.
1) As described, everyone would be paid before doing their work and expected to work off their debt. As we can see with our current society, many people will take the money, spend it all, and then not work it off. While the economic plan says that it will remove money from the money supply, many people will not have money left, but rather a number of possessions. The stated policy has no way to account for such fraud and so must either allow inflation to occur, or take money from others.
2) In this economy, people have to work off the money that they've already taken by doing "labor of equal value." However, how does one determine "equal value"? In an open market, it is the people that decide how much items are worth, and then the company that makes those products decides how much the labor to make those items is worth (and if workers agree to trade their labor for that amount). However, when people have the money in their hands to begin with, such transactions cannot take place. It would have to be determined by a person or group of people, rather than the market. As such, this allows for inaccuracies which would cause bubbles (booms and busts).
3) With people getting money right off the bat, companies, regardless of how bad their product is, cannot fail. Since all the employees, owners, and everything gets paid already. It doesn't matter if no customers want their products, they can just keep producing them and spitting out trash, since they got their money. Since labor will be wasted on un-wanted products, and the market will not be able to adjust, the real desired items will not be produced at ideal rates, and so they will be more expensive than otherwise (standard supply and demand). This will cause both a collapse in the economy and massive inflation (when people get all the money they want before working, the demand skyrockets, and when not as many are being produced because of the inefficiency of the economy, the supply drops. When demand goes up and supply drops, prices goes up, ergo inflation on what people want. Sure the crap they don't want will see plummeting prices).
4) There is also a concern that while economic forces are acting against each other as my opponent said, he does not show that they perfectly offset. The force of inflation is not likely going to be exactly equal to the force of deflation. And since I also explained that the things that people want will go through inflation and the crap that they don't want will go through deflation, even if they do average out, inflation is still occurring, it is just being masked by a bunch of junk that is being made that no one wants.
I will let my opponent address these. Most of what I explained is fairly standard economics so sources should not be needed, however if there is any need, I can add them in next round.
acidman forfeited this round.
acidman forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con wins conduct for not quitting, S&G is close but goes to Con for dividing her information into paragraphs. Convincing arguments go to Con for her argument that many people are content to be in debt and that businesses would have no incentive to succeed or fail. Sources go to Con for actually using a source, albeit a pretty weak one (Google).
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.