The Instigator
wantchange7625
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
darkkermit
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

What is better for mankind? The monetry system or a resource based economy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
darkkermit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,354 times Debate No: 21648
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

wantchange7625

Pro

So I just learned what a resource based economy would be like,and I am all for it. It is a fact that in the monetary system that the majority of money is given to the very few and the rest is left with very little. I don't have the right numbers right now but I'm not to far off from this statement. If money was a pie and it was a pie made up of 100 pieces 1 person would get 99 pieces and 99 people would share 1 piece,hence the big thing these days people are stateing they are the 99 percent being with less wealth and the 1 percent having all the wealth. In a resource based economy all the earths resources is equally dispersed. That means that the pie has 100 pieces and everyone gets a piece of the pie. Let's take this example. Let's just say you are about to be born and you have a choice. There is two tunnels,one leading to the monetary system and one leading to the resource based economy. The facts say that in the monetary system you have let's say a 1% chance of owning a huge house or castle,and then you have a 10% chance of being homeless,and 49% chance you will live in a small apartment and a 40% you will live in a medium sized house. And then there is a resource based economy. In this economy there is a 0% chance that you will be homeless and a 100% chance you will live in a medium sized house or housing complex. For me I would want to go down the tunnel that there is no chance of being homeless. I would forgive the chance to live in a huge house or castle,even know it would be nice to have that. I have a heart and would want everyone to have shelter.I have seen that in a resource based economy there would be no jobs to go to. I don't think this idea of machines doing all of are work is possible. I do think that technology and machines would take care of much labor,but I do believe that everyone would have to pitch in to make the basic needs of life possible.The fact is that the world needs technicians to make technology work. Who would stock the shelves with food? Who would fix the toilet when it breaks.I believe that people should work to make society better. This would not involve everyone working 50 to 60 hours a week. I sell cars for a living, and let me tell you that is not what I want to do with my life. Today I was sat down by my bosses and was told if I don't sell more cars they are going to cut my salary in half. I have 14 thousand dollars made year to date and we are in the first week of march. That's a average of 7 thousand a month times twelve that equals 84 thousand a year at my current rate of earning money. I see something very wrong with this picture. I had a slow Feb and a great Jan,so they said unfortunately we are in a business that is what have you done for me lately. In a resource based economy every one would have transportation and there would be no need to sell anything to anyone. No pressure of having my supply of food water and shelter at a risk cause I did jot sell enough. You know what I want to do in life is to help people. I would love to help kids deal with their problems. I am 32 now and missed my window to go to school,I know go back to school and get you degree,but to be a therapist these days takes a masters degree. That is 6 years of school,and would cost so much money. Plus I live on my own and tomarrow I have to put oil in the tank that will cost me 400 for around a hundred gallons of oil. I either pay or freeze. In a resource based economy there is no need for oil for their is geothermal energy,solar energy,tidal energy, wind energy,and that is to just name a few. The fact today is the people selling that oil don't want things to change to other forms of energy because of money and profit. I am all cor change and I want to debate with someone who loves money and the monetary system. I just would love to hear your side. Tell us all how money is good.
darkkermit

Con


I thank PRO for the debate. I assume that he is in favor of a Resource-based economy since he has argued in favor of a resource based economy in the first round. In the future, PRO should frame the resolution as a statement rather then a question. I will be arguing for a monetary based economy. Our burden of proof is equal, PRO must show the benefits of a resource based economy outweigh the benefits of a monetary based economy.


1. The social-calculation problem


In a resource-based economy there is no way to measure the value of goods and services. There is no way to figure out which goods and services should be produces, and which resources should be saved for capital use or for future demand. There is no system for businesses to determine which goods and services to buy for their production facilities, and which are available. Figuring out how to “calculate” the value of goods and services is also an impossible task, since all goods and services are intertwine with one another due to substitute good effects, complementary good effect, and income effect. For example: How many shovels should society produce? Well one would need to know who needs it, why they need it, the resources available to produce the shovels, and what the alternative use these resources can be used instead of making shovels. Knowing how each person values a good or service is also impossible since one cannot an individual’s subjective preference


Price systems allow for supply to equal demand. What this means is that producers produce more supply if prices increase, while consumers consume more if prices decrease. This allows an equilibrium to occur in which a quantity is produced at a specific price. Therefore, there is no problem s with shortages and surpluses. This price signals produce information that can never be figured on a resource-planned economy. Producers know how much to produce because they are incentivizes to produce items that will create the most profit. If opportunities exist for a good or service to be produces that people demand, then entrepreneurs will take these opportunities in order to obtain a profit. Furthermore, these entrepreneurs can take advantage of specialized knowledge that planners do not know. Since anybody can be an entrepreneur, everyone can take advantage of their own specialized forms of knowledge.


Consumers will also cut down on consumption if the quantity decreases and increase consumption if the quantity increases. Therefore a monetary system makes resource-management more efficient then a resource-based economy ever could.


2. Empirical Evidence of the failure of resource-based economy


In every single developed society there is a monetary system. Furthermore, societies that tend towards central planning, like Soviet Russia and North Korea, have troubles with the social-calculation problems in which there are shortages and famines.



Rebuttal:


1) “monetary system that the majority of money is given to the very few and the rest is left with very little.


Since a resource-based economy by necessity has to be a command economy, then you are left in a scenario in which even a fewer people control more resources and the average person has less, since the planners are the ones that control the resources. We have no evidence that these planners are to be benevolent, and in fact we should not expect these planners to be benevolent since communist society rulers do not have a good track record.


Furthermore in a monetary-based economy, money is obtained via producing a good or service that is desired by society, so if a person has a large amount of money, it is from creating wealth. PRO uses an analogy of a pie, however wealth is not a zero-sum game, and wealth is not fixed. Both parties benefit from trade, or else trade does not occur. You trade money for food since you find food to be more valuable than food. The other person takes your money, since he/she finds your money to be more valuable than the food. One can see that wealth is not fixed since the wealth of society has increased dramatically over the last century.


Also, people aren’t randomly picked for who obtains wealth and who doesn’t, but rather those who work and go to school are the ones that obtain the wealth. Without that, there is no incentive to work or produce goods and services efficiently.


Conclusion:


PRO has showed no evidence to why a resource-based economy is better than a monetary economy. Furthermore, I have demonstrated the benefits of a monetary economy over a resource-based economy.


Debate Round No. 1
wantchange7625

Pro

Thank you con for your insight. You state that a resource economy would not work due to the fact that the planners of resources would not be able to tally the correct amout of goods and services. I would have to say there is no way in knowing that seeing the resoure economy has never been tested. A resoure economy is not like russia or korea and I will arguee my point with you. In a resource economy they would use the internet and a order system. Lets say it is summer time and winter is a couple of months away, you would then go online and place your order for your shovel. In different climates there is different temps so in order to fully maximize resources the person who ordered the shovel would then return the shovel at the end of the season it would then go back to the supply house and then be reshipped to a different area that would need the shovel. As far as shovels and the type of shovel you would get it is determended by efficency and reliability. Lets say there is 100 designs for shovels and the resource based economy test all the designs. The shovel that was the best for removing snow and the shovel that would last the longest and broke the least would be the design that would be made. Companys in the monetry system make products to break in a certian peorid of time in order to supply consumption.With out a product breaking down, people would not purchace good in the rate they do. My grand parents allways said they don't build them like they used to. I have seen goods that were decades old and they still worked. We are lucky if a product works for 10 years now a days. The fact is in a resource based economy there is less selection of goods, that being the down side, the plus side is this, the goods produced in a resource based economy use less resources because they are built for longevety and efficency. In the world we live in today resources are not going to last forever and if we don't do something about it there will be wasted resources, and when the resouce dwindles the price of the resource goes sky high, and supply becomes less to every one. In a resource based economy people share there tools, cars and just about every thing that is sharable. I sell cars to the rich people in society,and let me tell you that rich people care about the name off the car for status reasons.When people hear the word ferrari or mercedes benz there is a certian snob appeal.In a resource based economy their would be sedans, suvs,flat bed trucks. Once agan the cars would be designed with efficency and reliablity.I do understand your point about money giving a gauge about supply and demang issues,but in a resource based economy the main goal is to do a survay of all the earths resources, and this would be done by multiple people so that their is no mistake in their findings.

I would like con to think about this. It is a fact that around 50% of people living today are living off of 2 dollars a day in the world. Think about those comercials you see on tv, and you see those people who are starving and you can see their rib cages. They look like their in a concentration camp. It could happen to any of us.

Technoligical unenployment

More and more people are out of work these days due to the fact that technoligy has taken many different jobs. You see it all over the place, take for instance atms takeing teller jobs.Self check outs at the grocery store taking away cashier jobs. Up untill around 1920 83% of all the jobs were in agriculture. Today around 3 % of the population is in agriculture. Companys are cutting jobs and replacing them with automated labor. In the indicator of unenployment numbers in the USA, the country measures the rate of unenployment by the number of people collecting unenployment compensation. Not by the number of people who are really out of work. Unenployment numbers look to be getting better, and that is because their benefits have expired, thus lowering the unenployment rate. The service sector is the biggest job segement in our economy right now. What will people do when the service sector is gone due to automation? The currrent rate of technoligy will soon than later cut jobs for many people. What will people do then. We as human beings have value in our labor. That is really all we have to offer in a monetry system.

Conclusion
Con has shown many good points and and so have I. Con the war in iraq cost so much that we ccould have sent every kid to college for the same amount the goverment spent on war. What have we gained by taking over iraq except oil? We were mislead by the bush adminstration them stating iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In the monetry system elected officials go and destroy the county of Iraq, Then the company who rebuilds Iraq the vice president is a employee of halaburton. I seen on tv Jessie ventura did a episode on conspirsey theory and halaburton has a stock yard of black coffins that fit 4 bodies in each of them, and there is piles apon piles of them stacked very high. That is very disturbing. I can see their thinking about the monetry system will have alot of people out of work with no jobs or money to support them resulting in people killing each other.Con talks about the people who dispurse resources to the people would be corrupt, I say you can not get more corrupt than Dick Cheney and halaburton. So the fact may be there may be corruption in every society, but just because there is a system that promotes equal abundence dose not mean it is not better that the current system that is gauranteed to fail. The people of the USA would have to pay 50 to 60 percent of there pay in taxes just to pay down the dept and the intrest of the loans that we took to stop the economy from failing.These are facts, the relaity is we as a society are not in the hospital we are are in hospice ready to die, and the bail out was only a life support system that is keeping the monetry system alive today. Sooner or later we have to pull the plug because the agony of the monetry system will be too much. I really want to thank you for debating with me, and if you can show me a solution to our problems I would love to hear about it. I have done every thing to show solutions to our problems, you have shown that the monetry system works for the 1 percent. Im sure when we get comments people will agree, because the 99% is pissed off. The cost of living is going up for allmost every thing ,and peoples pay checks are staying the same. Also jobs are being lost with very few growing fields except the medical field. You know why the medical field is booming, it is because the stress of paying the bills and suriveing is causing people to get sick and die. Look up sales of anti depresents with in the last decade sales are up so much that company profits are threw the roof.Why is that, its because all people can do these days is take drugs that mellow the mind due to the stress of living. Sorry my spelling is not so great, I was forced to attend pulbic school and the quality of education was not the same as private schools that rich kids had the luck to attend.
darkkermit

Con

Introduction:

Thanks to PRO for the response. When comparing between a resource-based economy vs. a monetary-based economy, that the problems of society will exist in both systems, and the question is which system has the institutions and incentives more likely handle these problems. I affirm that the monetary system is better suited to handle these problems. If I demonstrate that the monetary system has better institutions and incentives then a resource-based economy, then I win.

To state that one has problems, and therefore another system should be implemented is to commit the utopian fallacy.


Planners will not know how many goods and services to produce:

PRO does not directly attack my argument, but just states that “we don’t know because it’s never been tried”. However, planned economies like North Korea have been tried and failed. Furthermore, I’ve given direct argument in the previous round to explain why a planned economy will not work. PRO has not countered these arguments.

Shovel Example:

PRO states that people will just “order” the material online. However, this means that essentially the shovels are free, and there is no incentive for a person not to order a shovel, whether he or she needs one. The resources needed to create a shovel are over-utilized. And what happens if there is a shortage in the material used to make shovels what do you do? What if there is a greater amount of orders then the quantity of shovels that exist? The materials to make shovels can also be used to create other goods and services. Does PRO plan to ration the amount of shovels? What If a shovel breaks is this person forever without a shovel?

PRO then goes on to state that in order to fully utilize the shovel, then the shovel will be reshipped and sent to another part of the country. However, it should be noted that any person can resell their shovel.

So then why don’t people do it? The amount of labor, fuel, and resources required to wrap the shovel, box it, have a truck pick up the shovel, ship it over to the other side of the nation, have a person have it for the season, and continue the process continuously is an enormous waste on petroleum, wastes boxes and plastics for shipping, and causes wear and tear on trucks and other transportation vehicles used in the shipping process. In other words, this mechanism is inefficient.

Then PRO goes on to state that the choice of the shovel will be based on “efficiency”. Well, all goods have natural wear and tear, and corrosion. Making a good, such as a shovel, more reliable requires more maintenance, and rarer resources to use it. Gold is less corrosive then steel. However, gold is rarer then steel, so even though using gold is more “reliable” that does not mean we use gold in all appliances. Then of course it matters how often you plan on using the equipment. Then it also matters the body type of the person, whether he or she has back problems to determine what kind of shovel he or she wants, how much snow the area gets, how heavy the snow is, and so-forth. There are almost an infinite amount of designs you can come up. Will you use multiple designs or just one design? How do you determine how many designs to use?

Since what is considered “efficient” requires some subjectivity, there will be some bureaucrats that will have power, and control of the amount of shovels. This means that more power is vested in the few, who obtained their power via arbitrary means and not based on merit.

PRO goes on to state that companies make shovels to break. However, in a competitive environment, companies compete with one another. If one company makes a shovel to break, another company can make it to last longer, and If people have a preference for longer lasting shovels versus shorter lasting shovels then they will buy the longer lasting shovel.

Resources will not last forever:

Next, PRO states that resources will not last forever, so therefore we need a planned economy. Soviet Russia a planned economy had a track record for environmental disasters [1], so it does not follow that a planned economy is necessarily best at conserving resources. Furthermore, we can see how government has a terrible track record of sustainability. For example, through any account, the US federal government spending is unsustainable, yet the US continues it spending, pushing for more programs that will only increase the debt[2].

A capitalist economy actually solves these problem. In a capitalist society, the value of goods and services are determined through supply and demand. Therefore, resources that are rare will cost more. If a resources is expected to have a high future demand, then individuals can buy these resources, store them and resell them in a later period. Therefore, monetary economies solve these problems.

There is no reason to believe that a resource-based economy will be superior to managing resources then a monetary economy.

Sharing in a resource economy:

Next PRO states that a resource-based economy will be based on sharing. However, this ignores the fact that a monetary-based economy is also based on sharing.

For example, ever rent movies? This is an example of “sharing” since multiple people use the same movies. Some of the more “rarer” goods in society are expensive, and therefore only businesses use them and share the product from it. For example, espresso machines are expensive, so instead of buying one myself I will go to Starbucks to get a latte.

There is also some negativity of sharing. If resources are shared, then it means that only one person can utilize the resource at a time. What If two people need to utilize the resource at the same time? A monetary economy figures out these problems through prices. Expensive goods and services are only produced a little bit, and are given by people who can utilize them the best and/or shared. Goods and services that are cheap and one can run into problems of sharing are likely to be privately owned.

Technological Unemployment:

The idea of technological unemployment is empirically wrong, and in fact the opposite conclusion, that economic growth reduces unemployment [3]. If technology caused unemployment, then the unemployment level should decrease as a function of technological advancement [4]. As one can see it is not. This is because technology creates jobs since people have a higher disposable income from improvements in efficiency and allow other goods and services to be created like in the computer industry.

Iraq War:

War is more possible under a resource-based economy and is not unique to a monetary economy. In tribal societies in which a monetary system does not exist, war is quite frequent. The United States was able to use more resources up during World War II because the US departed more from the monetary system then any time, relying on rationing of food, and compulsory military duty.

The mere fact that PRO was able to show his disgust of the Iraq war using monetary accounting demonstrates the success of the monetary system. War occurs less frequently and less deadly because people can easily look up the monetary cost of war. While war still occurs, PRO does not show why a resource-based economy in which a smaller amount of people have a greater control of the resources and can more easily use these resources for destruction would less likely to have war occur.

Conclusion:

The problems PRO sites in society are not unique to a monetary economy and a resource-based society will actually make these problems worse. He has not demonstrated why a resource-based economy will have the institutions necessary to counter these problems that a monetary economy will not.

http://countrystudies.us... [1]

http://www.usdebtclock.org...[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]

http://www.econedlink.org...[4]
Debate Round No. 2
wantchange7625

Pro

wantchange7625 forfeited this round.
darkkermit

Con

PRO has forfeited. Please respond.

Even if you concede. Please just concede just to speed up this process and get it to voting period.
Debate Round No. 3
wantchange7625

Pro

wantchange7625 forfeited this round.
darkkermit

Con

PRO has dissapointted me in every way possible.
Debate Round No. 4
wantchange7625

Pro

wantchange7625 forfeited this round.
darkkermit

Con

Fascinating.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 3 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Posted by nonentity 4 years ago
nonentity
Are you serious? I was referring to the atrocious spelling...
Posted by AdamDeben 4 years ago
AdamDeben
@nonentity
That's actually a thing. Machines are taking the place of workers for tedious and repetitive jobs. But the people need these jobs for money. But then again the machines are more productive and don't get paid, so the corporations will use them to increase profit. Then we're let with increasing unemployment and the corporations don't care because they're making profit. I'm surprised you're so skeptical at the existence of this.
Posted by nonentity 4 years ago
nonentity
"Technoligical unenployment" Whoa, man :/
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
wantchange7625darkkermitTied
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 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: FFFFFF
Vote Placed by nonentity 4 years ago
nonentity
wantchange7625darkkermitTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit. Arguments and sources to Con because Pro provides no sources for his claims and uses anecdotal evidence. In addition, Pro's arguments were largely refuted and, due to his forfeit, he was unable to refute Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
wantchange7625darkkermitTied
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 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: Forfeits, lack of structure.