Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Jump to topic:

For debate #13805

Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2010 2:06:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Please don't mind this thread, I've made it to get around a character limit.


I apologize to my opponent and to the viewers that a separate page is needed for my post. I feel it necessary to post quotes of my opponent's arguments so I can reply to certain sentences or paragraphs within arguments individually, this is mainly why it went over the character limit.


//Higher tackses on rich people mostly. If they don't break even on Pro's tax scheme, they will have less money with which to invest. But capital development is entirely dependent upon investment and benefits the whole country by producing greater quantity and quality of goods. For example, if Exxon has to pay more in taxes, it will have less money to produce oil. This will lower the supply of oil, and increase prices for everyone.//

There is an even trade-off. Even though business initially has less profit, that is reversed because consumers have more to spend. Argument invalid.

//Are unspecified by Pro. What would people be doing? States cannot engage in economic calculation, because they do not have prices. Because they can never know what enterprises are profitable, they will fail to allocate resources as efficiently as the private sector. They are essentially blind.//

It depends. Public sector jobs would have to be expanded but there's no definite way this would be done. It could go to increased work in construction or new industries may even be made public. Either way it will progress the American infrastructure. More workers = more work getting done.

//AFAICS, this will create a new class of state dependents, with no private experience, and therefore highly diminished marketability. It may even discourage the pursuit of higher education, unpayed internships or apprentice positions, because Pro is providing a permanent easy-mode for everyone.//

The private sector will not disappear with this act. People will seek higher paying jobs, which the private sector shall offer them.


Employment is pivotal to one's level of happiness:

Too often politics is lead by empty numbers of economics and never any other fields of science. I think it is absolutely necessary to include other fields of science in our political decision making. What I especially am talking about is psychology. My most knowledgeable field is psychology and I feel that a thorough understanding of it leads us to much different political outcomes than we would have without such.

One thing that usual economics and psychology go their separate ways on is that economics tends to say more wealth is always the standard by which we should judge a good system. But once we study psychology we see that there is much more to human well-being and motivation than just profit. You see, humans are very very bad at knowing what will make them happy. When a person is asked whether they would take the chance to make enough to get by without working another day in their life they will almost certainly say yes. But studies have shown that being employed is actually much more essential to human happiness than the money made from said employment. It is mainly a matter of a sense of self-worth. People would need to be payed an extravagant amount in-order to get the same amount of satisfaction one gets from employment.[5]

=== SOURCES ===

1. Thom Hartman Program