The Instigator
induced
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

creation of stocks should be banned

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 5 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,351 times Debate No: 30520
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

induced

Pro

the existence of stocks and stock trading jeapordizes our economy, and does not make up for it. it triggered the great depression and may trigger another one, so it should be phased out by banning the creation of new stocks

start your rebuttals in 1st round
imabench

Con

3000 character limit.

1 - Rampant stock speculation was just one of many factors that lead to the Great depression... In fact almost two years passed between the stock market crash and widespread bank failures, which is really where the Great Depression began to ravage everything.... Stocks and investing in them can be done in a safe manner, and just because they can be abused by a few people it doesnt mean it should necessarily be banned.

2 - On the other hand, investing in stocks is often a tactic that is used by middle class Americans to prepare for retirement by growing their money over time, and has been successful for millions of people millions of times.

3 - On a more minor note, banning the creation of stocks and the stock market would immediately put thousands and thousands of stock brokers, price estimators, etc. out of work and force people who were in retirement because of successful stock investments to go back into the workforce. This would cause an utterly massive rise in unemployment, and this would lead to a domino effect of other economic woes that could put us in an economic recession far worse then any stock market crash ever could.

4 - Initial Public Offerings (IPO's, which is the technical term for creating a stock) is one of the fastest ways a company can acquire a large amount of money to expand itself by having investors pour money into them. The amount of money a company can make by going public often exceeds how much it normally could get out of a bank loan (banks not exactly the safest entities either). As the money initially borrowed is paid back with interest, this helps the average investor grow richer while the company is now in much better shape then it was when it went public in the first place. Stocks literally allow everyone to win, even if its not initially.

Ill end here for now, 4 is good enough
Debate Round No. 1
induced

Pro

1
the whole reason we have laws and regulations in a society is to prevent "the few" from harming the rest. also, even if everyone involved in stocks was responsible and honest (HAHA!), stocks would still pose a major threat to our economy. in fact, i think it is inevitable that it will cause major harm to our economy sooner or later. our economy is delicate enough, without letting an unstable gambling institution have so much influence over the well being of everyone.

2
they can invest their money in other ways. better ways, actually.

3
-banning the creation of stocks wouldnt take away stocks people already have, or prevent them from trading old stocks (there are 8,696 of them). and like i said, they can invest their money elsewhere.

-plenty of people lose tons of money in the stock market. and any stock trade will end up with someone getting the better end of the deal.

-as for people who make a living off of stocks, so what? banning smoking would put people out of work. i say good riddance! if they are forced to get a real job, maybe they can actually contribute to society, rather than just their own pockets, at the expense of others.

-if you were really concerned about unemployment and the stability of our economy, then you should be against stocks, because they are unstable. it's better for a few people involved in gambling to find new work, than for our whole country to go into another great depression.

4
that's just another way that the rich have rigged the system so that they get richer, while the little guys and small businesses need to swim upstream. if you ban stocks, the worst that happens is that small business growth makes up for the growth of big corporations, which would really be better for everyone anyway.
imabench

Con

1) Stability of the Stock Market

"our economy is delicate enough, without letting an unstable gambling institution have so much influence over the well being of everyone."

Unstable is just your opinion though. The way the economy works is through a boom and a bust cycle, and banning new stocks from being formed isnt going to change that for the better.

2) Road to wealth for the middle class

"they can invest their money in other ways. better ways, actually."

Thats just your own unsubstantiated opinion again, and people dont have to live by how you would manage your finances either just because you think its the safest way. People should be able to do whatever they want with their money if they think it keeps it secure and safe, and for millions of people, a valid option is the stock market and investing in growing businesses. Stock markets also are a great option for people who want to grow their savings quickly, which is something you cant do just by shoving it all into a bank or under a mattress. Stocks is a great way for people form the middle or lower class to protect their savings or grow them depending on which one you prefer, and not many other options exist that are as easily available to the middle class either.

3) Banning the creation of new stocks

Where else can people invest their money and get a massive turnout in a short time like you potentially can on the stock market? Just because people can invest it somewhere else doesnt mean they should be forced to by taking away arguably their best option...

"so what? banning smoking would put people out of work. i say good riddance! if they are forced to get a real job"

Ok now youre just being stupid.... You are arguing that banning new stocks would be for the best, yet if thousands of people lose their jobs, then suddenly its ok just because you dont like people in that profession?

" it's better for a few people involved in gambling to find new work, than for our whole country to go into another great depression."

The stock market crash of 1929 didnt even cause the Great Depression, the Great depression was caused by a host of factors that didnt kick in until years after the stock market crashed, most predominantly the numerous bank failures that crashed everyone's credit.

4) Way for new small companies to grow fast

" if you ban stocks, the worst that happens is that small business growth makes up for the growth of big corporations"

Thats the exact OPPOSITE of what would happen. If you ban the creation of stocks then new small businesses lose a huge means for expanding and becoming more profitable which would then allow existing big companies to maintain their power.

Pro's arguments for banning new stocks are based entirely on his warped and ill-informed view of how the stock market actually works and who all benefits from it. The Middle Class and small businesses benefit from the stock market the most, which is why we shouldnt ban the creation of new stocks
Debate Round No. 2
induced

Pro

"Unstable is just your opinion though."
it's a gambling institution and it already crashed before. that is not just my opinion

"People should be able to do whatever they want with their money if they think it keeps it secure and safe."
but it poses a threat to everyone

"Where else can people invest their money and get a massive turnout in a short time like you potentially can on the stock market? Just because people can invest it somewhere else doesnt mean they should be forced to by taking away arguably their best option..."
the stock market in particular is unpredictable. and even if it was the best option, that doesnt give them the right to jeopardize the well being of the whole country. and a depression would affect everyone, even stock traders. a ban is for their own good, and ours.

"if thousands of people lose their jobs, then suddenly its ok just because you dont like people in that profession?"
it's better for 1000 people to lose their jobs for a couple months, than for 1,000,000 to lose their jobs for a decade.

"The stock market crash of 1929 didnt even cause the Great Depression"
that is false. the crash was in late 1929, and according to encyclopedia Britannica, history.com, and Wikipedia, the Great Depression started around 1929/1930 and ended around 10 years later, so the crash did almost immediately result in the great depression. there are other factors that made things worse later on, but the stock market crash was the trigger that led to things like a banking crisis.
http://www.britannica.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.history.com...

"If you ban the creation of stocks then new small businesses lose a huge means for expanding and becoming more profitable which would then allow existing big companies to maintain their power."
if it was that easy, most small businesses would be big corporations by now.

"The Middle Class and small businesses benefit from the stock market the most, which is why we shouldnt ban the creation of new stocks"
no, those involved most directly in the stock market have the most to gain by the stock market. and again, a depression is not an ideal scenario for the little guy.
you seem to not even care about the threat of a great depression. you are acting as though the stock market crash didn't even contribute to the great depression.
imabench

Con

"it's a gambling institution and it already crashed before. that is not just my opinion"

It is much safer then it was back in 1929 when it first crashed, and after every recession we learn a little bit more about how we can take care of the stock market so that it is as safe and profitable as it can be. Its not something that cannot be controlled no matter how hard people try, the stock market can be made safe, has been made safe, and compared to what it used to be is much safer then it has ever been before.

"but it poses a threat to everyone"

So do banks but we shouldnt ban the creation of new banks just because banks can pose a threat...

"the stock market in particular is unpredictable. and even if it was the best option, that doesnt give them the right to jeopardize the well being of the whole country. and a depression would affect everyone, even stock traders. a ban is for their own good, and ours."

You cant justify banning something just because its for everyones own good... Car accidents are one of the leading causes of death in the world, but we shouldnt ban cars for 'the greater good', thats just stupid...

"it's better for 1000 people to lose their jobs for a couple months, than for 1,000,000 to lose their jobs for a decade."

The stock market though does a whole lot more then just create jobs, its a path to success for middle class Amerixans and small businesses who otherwise would have far elss options and chances of making it big.

". the crash was in late 1929, and according to encyclopedia Britannica, history.com, and Wikipedia, the Great Depression started around 1929/1930 and ended around 10 years later, so the crash did almost immediately result in the great depression."

If you read your own sources you also would have noticed that the Great Depression was also caused by
1) A massive breakdown in overseas trade
2) Banks giving out high risk loans and investments left and right
3) Overproduction of goods combined with low wages eventually causing industries to crash
4) Poor decision making by the FED
And other things as well.

The Stock Market was just one of many, many different things that led to the Great Depression, it most certainly was not the smokign gun that caused the Great Depression to break out...

"if it was that easy, most small businesses would be big corporations by now."

The reason Apple is as big as it is now is because people had the chance to invest in it and give it some needed early capital to do business. Apple started in someones garage and if people didnt have a chance to invest in it and allow the company to grow, it could have easily died within that Garage too.

The Stock market serves a valuable purpose to average Americans, businesses big or small, and over time has only grown safer and safer. New stocks shouldnt be banned for the sake of 'the greater good' just because it carries some risk to it. All great things carry risk to them, that doesnt mean they should be banned.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
PRO: "the whole reason we have laws and regulations in a society is to prevent "the few" from harming the rest. " I have never seen such a falsehood. I think the whole point of law is to prevent "the rest" from harming "the few". Isn't that the whole point of freedom of expression?

This is a pretty easy debate to judge. PRO makes a lot of superficial points, and CON delves into these points with enough detail to reveal the flaws in PRO's thinking. Bottom line, all of the supposed harms PRO sees through stock investing are inherent in investing in anything. His argument in singling out stocks has no merit. Arguments to CON.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 3 years ago
dylancatlow
inducedimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't understand how the economy works. Con had more convincing arguments than Pro, showing that the ban of stocks would have disastrous and unnecessary consequences.
Vote Placed by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
inducedimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Opinions that make common sense can still count in a debate This wasn't about banning all stocks, just new ones, so all the arguments about how people would lose their jobs and investments were invalid.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 3 years ago
Kinesis
inducedimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument that swung the debate most strongly was that stocks are a means for companies to access funding to start up/expand
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
inducedimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 3 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
inducedimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments and refuted all of Pro's arguments. Pro had more sources, 2 of which were reliable.