The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

This economic system will end the monster that is inflation and is thus necessary

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 39483
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I have thought of a possible economic system. Under my system, consumer-laborers decide on the amount of currency they are assigned, with limits on how much based on the possibility of hyper-inflation and whether or not they qualify. They then use this money to buy goods and services. However, they must then pay back the usage of money by doing labor for the economy, and more specifically labor of an equal value. The possible increase in a money supply which causes inflation is offsetted by an increase in aggregate supply which causes decreased demand and thus decreased prices and thus deflation. Also, if employees are mistreated and go on strike, lets say a drop from 5 trillion dollars of production to 2.5 trillion, then either money is taken out of circulation, thus causing a decrease in the money supply, or part of the money is returned to the people and the cycle starts again. To add to my system, I will get rid of interest-banking, which causes inflation. This is a good thing because inflation causes unnecessary confusion in the market, wages often don't keep up with inflation, and inflation causes boom and bust cycles, which have a recession side to them, too.


I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. This will be my first debate in some time.

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." [1]

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?

Thank you,

Debate Round No. 1


My opponent claims that my economy will have no growth because it has no inflation, but this is not true. Under my proposed system, increased supply does not cause crashes through deflation, but evens out inflation from the increased money supply, keeping the money value at an equilibrium. Meaning that without deflation to worry about, people's wealth can be measured by another indicator: Amount of consumption. Furthermore, inflation does not necessarily create growth. Even though you have more money, the value of that money goes down the same amount.
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.


I thank my opponent for their previous round. However, they mischaracterized my arguments. I did not claim that it would have not growth BECAUSE of no inflation. I was asking which is more important because economic growth is dependent on so much more than just inflation. It is also unfortunate that my opponent did not answer my questions. Because of the limit of rounds, I will have to continue based on the information that we have.

=== 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.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 2


acidman forfeited this round.


Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


acidman forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited their final 2 arguments. I will pass this to thee voters.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Make each round 72 hours and I'll accept.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
So you have a system where everyone is given a credit card, and instead of paying off the credit card with principle+interest, they pay it off with labor?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
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).