We should not have price controls on consumer items and ATM's
Debate Rounds (3)
ATM's example: A little while ago citizens in California were complaining about the ATM prices. They decided to contact the government who then lowered the prices to use an ATM. This caused the ATM companies to not want to provide ATM's for California because they were not making a profit. If anything, they were losing profit. It costs certain money to attain ATM's and the companies need a certain amount to provide them for us.
Consumer items example: Let's say we want to buy a roll of toilet paper for $2 okay? And you complain that the cost for the paper is too much, you then complain and they lower the prices (I know that's unrealistic but it is just an example). The toilet paper companies notice the 1$ difference (let's say the store lowered it by 1$ and that the companies need $1.50 to produce a roll of toilet paper). The company is then not making a profit. In fact, they are losing money.
Conclusion (round 2): These examples show how the companies that manufacture these things need a certain amount of money to produce them.
Thanks! Really appreciate it! :)
Alright, in this round, I would like to point out only one argument from my side:
1. How price controls provide the best for both worlds.
But, before I move on to my arguments, a few forms of rebuttals.
Both examples that pro tried to present to you inherently has the idea that a company needs money to develop and sustain itself. Our side acknowledges that yes, it is true how a company does need money. Although,considering how both examples came for the distinct fact that there were other parties involved, I can provide 2 responses.
1.These companies rely on customers and consumers to actually buy the product itself. In both examples where there are some form of oppression by the people because of the presumably high prices, it is safe to say that the company had to take action because they needed to.
Why? Let's have a case study. It is safe to say that if the customers were unsatisfied and ultimately never comes to the shop again, what happens is the company starts losing income in the end. I believe it is very flawed to say that these companies might have an increased income when the opposite might as well happen. 2.It is also very flawed to say that these oppression by the people should go unheard of. Because, what really happens is these people are trying to survive in an industry which is unacceptably exploiting them. I believe that we do need to respect the consumers as well as the industries.
1. Price controls provide the best for both worlds.
What happens when there is price controls existing is, exploitation never happens. Because, in our side, the price control is a lever that always comes with a price when there is leverage. So, for example, as you have pointed out as well, the state cannot simply set price controls to such a range where it becomes difficult for companies to survive, therefore making it less incentivized for companies to even invest in the first place. Therefore, the it is in the state's best interest not too set too high price controls.
Looking at it from another perspective, you can find that the companies as well will do extremely well by following the price controls. Price controls act as a form of guidelines for companies to work their way through developing their income. Our side believes that companies should always be based on the products that are being sold not the price of the product. Because, what we believe is, companies should earn income through the sales of many innovative and creative products, not the unnecessary extortion of people's income.
Conclusion For This Round.
I have established to you why there is and will always be a price system that is ultimately beneficial for the people, the industries as well as the country as a whole. Side pro must prove to us what are the benefits that can be obtained through free price controls. So far, pro has not established how both the examples that were given were ultimately in effect.
Thanks for debating!
Well, two things I am going to conclude in this round. Firstly, a few responses and then my closing statements.
Side Pro argued that companies does not need a purchase to make money and then follows it up by saying that a purchase needs a certain amount of money to be effective. 2 responses.
1. There is a minor contradiction there because you have already admitted that companies do make some form of revenue through purchases.
2. But more importantly, purchases are the 'bread and butter' of companies. These companies manufacture products and provide services which can be used by the general society. So, in return, the society must always purchase something as a return for all this goods and services. In fact, this whole debate is ultimately based on 3 parties, the state, the people and the companies. The people play a huge role in companies and there would never be companies without people who purchase from them.
In today's debate, side pro has failed to prove some tangible harms as to why we should not allow price controls. I have already rebutted on my side, how both examples given by pro was ultimately one-sided and ignored the other party. My policy provides the best for both worlds. And with that, we take the debate.
Thanks For Debating!! Really enjoyed it!
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.