The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LostintheEcho1498
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

overall, more capitalism, more focus on free market, will only make the USA worse economically

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
LostintheEcho1498
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 477 times Debate No: 56487
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

my opening argument will be mostly borrowed from a recent article:

US Set to Become the Newest Third World Country
http://iacknowledge.net...
"The United States, the home of Capitalism, is about to demonstrate its ultimate failure, as the cannibalistic economic system consumes the nation"s economy from within.

The US economy is rigged toward the 1% of wealthiest citizens and corporations, this radically skews outcomes to the detriment of the economy as a whole.

As CJ Werlhman writes over at Alternet:
"America has the most billionaires in the world, but not a single U.S. city ranks among the world"s most livable cities. Not a single U.S. airport is among the top 100 airports in the world. Our bridges, roads and rails are falling apart, and our middle class is being gutted out thanks to three decades of stagnant wages, while the top 1 percent enjoys 95 percent of all economic gains."

US income inequality is at its greatest for nearly a century and is rising, as the income gap between the bottom 90% and top 1% of Americans reaches its largest since 1928. When compared globally, the US is the second most economically unequal society (behind Chile). But what does economic inequality mean for average Americans?"

if we let things go as they will, the rich will only get richer. instead of the 1% owning say 30% of everything, it will become more and more of everything,. that will stifle economic stimulus, cause wealth will be immobilized in the hands of fewer than would be ideal.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

To begin, I hope for a good debate here as this is a great topic and with that I shall begin:

First the definition of Capitalism:
Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
If we summarize that is is basically the idea that people who are companies should do business, not the government.
The idea of blaming capitalism for the bad economy is not a very good one, quite blatantly. We have our government to blame more than we do the richer. Let me expound on this:
Capitalism allows everyone to do business as they please, allows the growth of companies, and the continuation of a free market. Now if we look at the governments place in this, they are to prevent total monopolization, keep from inflation, and basically allow everyone to go about spending money and buying goods. Now let us look at today. We have monopolies in local industries such as water, electricity, and gas lines. Gas(for cars) has skyrocketed because of an increase in inflation. The government, in its infinite wisdom(pardon my sarcasm), has decided to do something that we commonly know as Robin Hood. Obama has issued a tax, and this particular tax will make the rich pay more taxes because they are rich. Now you use the money to do as you said; fix roads, repair bridges, make sure the police force is paid, and so on. The problem, though, is two things here.
1. Taxing the rich does not actually do ANY good for the poor or middle class. The people who are ridiculously rich are the ones in charge of the businesses and so when they have to pay more they simply pay workers less and raise prices. Taxing the rich then turns into people not spending as much money and people start getting laid off and we begin to digress again.
2. While giving the government more money may seem good if you are looking out at busted up roads let me give you a peek on how the money is really used. For starters, it pays for the salaries of politicians, emergency workers, social workers, DMV workers, and other government funded programs. Now the politicians decide on the executive decision to make a bathroom. Now this bathroom is one in a national park and is more like an outhouse than anything. It has wooden walls with paint, a brick type roof, no sink, and a toilet seat that goes down into a big hole in the ground with chemicals to stop the smell. Now, at max, this bathroom may cost, what, 1,000$ to 2,000$? How many American tax dollars were used in its creation? About 1.5 million dollars. Where did the rest go you ask? Not to roads or bridges but to the corrupt politician who issued its construction. The idea of blaming capitalism is false. The government is the one to blame, not the economy itself.
Over to you Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con argues taxing the rich more doesn't help the lower class. it does, because they dont have to pay the taxes to support the programs being run. and, some of the programs directly benefit them such as food stamps etc.

con argues taxing the rich more will just cause them to jack up prices. however, due to competition, they will more likely just have to bite the bullet and not make as much profit. the businesses are all taxed the same, so it's not like they have any option to get into a better situation and in turn cause less competition and an abitlity for some of the rich to raise prices.

con argues the government spends money inefficiently. i dont disagree. perhaps we shouldnt spend so much through tax and spend. but the main point is that our system is unequal, and things could be spread out more fairly one way or hte other.
the only reason i'm even entertaining con's points about taxes is because he brought them up, to be sure there's plenty of other points to be made about how we shouldnt focus more on capitalism.

does con content himself that if we focus more on capitalism that the rich would just get richer?

and woujldnt it be better if there was more money in the hands of people lower on the economic scale? that would cause stimulus to the economy. if the rich get richer, it will detract money from those who would be most useful with it. we are driven by a demand economy, not supply. the rich have plenty of money, if there's need for an innovation or somehow to make a buck, there's plenty of people and money to do it. it's not like they need a hand.

remember, im not arguing that we shouldnt have any capitalism, just that we shouldnt focus too much more on it than we already are. it's a good system at keeping prices attainable for people. and, we probably have some of the best innovations and productivity in the country.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

To start, I apologize for I will be unable to debate the final round but do not concede. I simply carry this and the round before it to the last. Now to the debate at hand:

"Con argues taxing the rich more doesn't help the lower class. it does, because they dont have to pay the taxes to support the programs being run. and, some of the programs directly benefit them such as food stamps etc.

con argues taxing the rich more will just cause them to jack up prices. however, due to competition, they will more likely just have to bite the bullet and not make as much profit. the businesses are all taxed the same, so it's not like they have any option to get into a better situation and in turn cause less competition and an abitlity for some of the rich to raise prices."

Let me expound on the problem the tax on the more rich represents.

-Higher tax rates on investment raise the cost of capital investment, and higher tax rates on labor income reduce the incentive to work and supply labor in the U.S. economy. Over the long run, the decline in private-sector investment would reduce the capital stock, leading to slower output and labor supply in the U.S. economy.
- Gross private-sector investment would decline by an average of $126 billion (4.1 percent) per year, reducing real capital stock in the U.S. economy by an average of $229 billion (1.2 percent) per year. The reduction in private-sector investment and capital services over the long run would reduce the labor supply at different economic margins: Private-sector employment in the U.S. economy would fall by an average 1.1 million jobs (1 percent) per year, and Americans would work 2 billion fewer hours relative to baseline levels.
- The President believes his tax proposal will increase federal revenue by an average of $160 billion per year. The results of the dynamic simulation indicate that the President"s proposal would achieve only about $68 billion per year"less than one-half of the President"s projection. The dynamic result is due to a smaller tax base commensurate with the smaller economy. For example, fewer hours worked and lower real wages result in less federal income and payroll tax receipts.
-Specifically, economic growth would slow in 2013 under the Obama tax plan compared with current policy, shaving an average of $105 billion (0.8 percent) in 2013 and nearly twice that amount on average over 10 years. The reduced output and productive capacity in the U.S. economy are reflected in a much weaker labor market in which an average of 1.1 million fewer workers would have jobs each year under the Obama tax plan.
(http://www.heritage.org...)
Now to move on from that:
"con argues the government spends money inefficiently. i dont disagree. perhaps we shouldnt spend so much through tax and spend. but the main point is that our system is unequal, and things could be spread out more fairly one way or hte other.
the only reason i'm even entertaining con's points about taxes is because he brought them up, to be sure there's plenty of other points to be made about how we shouldnt focus more on capitalism.

does con content himself that if we focus more on capitalism that the rich would just get richer?"

To respond to the first part, thank you for agreeing. The poor money management of Federal funds is ridiculous. As for the next part, we actually should focus on capitalism. Not to say it is bad, but it would actually help the economy. Then the last comment, yes, I do concede that focusing on capitalism makes rich richer but it would also make the poor richer, and middle class richer, and upper bourgeois richer.
Next:
" and woujldnt it be better if there was more money in the hands of people lower on the economic scale? that would cause stimulus to the economy. if the rich get richer, it will detract money from those who would be most useful with it. we are driven by a demand economy, not supply. the rich have plenty of money, if there's need for an innovation or somehow to make a buck, there's plenty of people and money to do it. it's not like they need a hand."

This was actually tried before and is called stimulus spending. The idea is to give people money so they spend it and it gets the economy moving. The main problem here, though, is that most people did one of two things. They saved it in banks, stocks, bonds, etc. or they spent it on expensive items such as tv's, computers, and such. This did little to stimulate anything.
Lastly:
" remember, im not arguing that we shouldnt have any capitalism, just that we shouldnt focus too much more on it than we already are. it's a good system at keeping prices attainable for people. and, we probably have some of the best innovations and productivity in the country."
I actually think this is going the other way now. We are becoming more and more socialist and less and less capitalist. Welfare is huge now days. There is no possible way for someone to go hungry if they can find a way to a government social center. Some people abuse it instead and use it when they don't have to just because they can. We have had Obama in office throwing out bills to a democratic majority congress who were passing them. Now, however, it is slowing down exponentially because of more Republican congressman.
Thank you for the debate topic and have a good one!
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

It seems I am actually able to debate but it seems I do not need to. I carry on previous statements and ask people to vote, no matter who they choose.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Capitalism made everything you have possible... And even if that article (it isn't) is true, the state has corrupted free markets so much it would happen likely through the governments policies.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Martley 2 years ago
Martley
dairygirl4u2cLostintheEcho1498Tied
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 did not satisfy the BOP.