Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
omar2345
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
billsands
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A mixed economy is better than a command/planned economy

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...
omar2345
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,207 times Debate No: 120364
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

omar2345

Pro

If my opponent likes to start. You can do so in Round 1. If you do not and want me to make the first arguments do tell me in Round 1 so that Round 1 can be considered the acceptance Round.

Mixed economy: Combination of both market and government deciding on production,

Command/planned economy: Government owns the means of production.


billsands

Con

There is not one example of a pure command economy working, There is no example of a pure market system working either, All systems are mixed systems, All of them
that said, Planned economies do work china now is still a planned state directed economy, The state stil owns directs and commends the commanding heights of industry big state run firms still domonated their excellent economy and they still have five year plans, Singapore used as an example of a perfect market economy also has a huge state owned sector most of the land and much of the housing is own and run by the state in SINGAPORE! Norway has a very big state run sector and works fine, France for 30 years 30 glorious years has an economy more state run that the prsent chinese economy that grew 5% a year, A real amazing success it is not proper to deal with absolutes

all economies are mixed so you set yourself up to win by default
capitalism and socailism don't exist all systems are mixtures of both al economies are mixed so a agree with you and disagree at the same time

my point is at time state directed econoies in japan france italy singapore and chia have done very well, Market socialism state capitalism call it what you will are mixed economies because all economies are mixed
there are no absolutes none

that said there are examples of state dircted economies doing very very well better in fact than those with much less state influence
Debate Round No. 1
omar2345

Pro

Argument
When the market fails it in a mixed economy the government can use its power to stop a recession or at the very to do not make it as bad. Even on the other side. When the market succeeds to much the government can step in to add taxation in order to reduce monopoly.

Inequality will be less of a problem because the mixed economy I am for is the one which provides healthcare for all while also education. This will be gathered from enforcing current laws and increasing taxation until the gap between the rich and the power is nullified and there is a middle class instead of two extremes. When people say capitalism has made the poor richer. I will say it has also made the rich richer. The problem is that the rich are gaining much more capital than the poor which does increase the differences between the two groups. When someone also says that I say but they are still poor. I much rather have the poor thriving instead of staying poor which mostly unregulated capitalism has done. With taxing the rich and enforcing we are able to provide better education for the poor which would be equity. GDP is also a tired line given by conservatives. The problem is that I much rather have a population survive a famine rather then have a GDP. Population survival comes before people thriving.

In a mixed economy it allows people to make businesses but will be regulated by the state. This will reduce discrimination and improve welfare programs if done correctly. Sure you won't be making as much as almost unregulated capitalism but the employees will have a safety net while also be treated fairly.

all economies are mixed so you set yourself up to win by default
Not really because your argument for socialism can beat mine.

so a agree with you and disagree at the same time
You would have to disagree because half or whatever my position maybe is not full socialism which is why it is different.

because all economies are mixed there are no absolutes none
I used planned economy so that opposition can use China as an example which I am you are capable of doing.




billsands

Con

China has a planned economy and has the wordls fastest growing economy, In 1980 90% of the population lived in abject poverty, Today it is less than 2% and this progress was made with reforms but again most of the economy remians in the hands of the state either outright or through controls
Debate Round No. 2
omar2345

Pro

China has a planned economy and has the wordls fastest growing economy
In what way does this make it better than a mixed economy? Would like an explanation.

In 1980 90% of the population lived in abject poverty, Today it is less than 2% and this progress was made with reforms but again most of the economy remians in the hands of the state either outright or through controls
You have provided no source and expect me to find it. I couldn't find the stats about so I am going to make it about salary. The average salary in the United States is $44, 564 and the average salary in China is 74, 318 Yuan. Both stats from 2017. When we convert 74, 000 Yuan to the dollar it is $10, 982. 90. This means a person will earn roughly four times more in the US compared to China.

You have provided numbers without sources. Would like them.
billsands

Con

SOURCE BUSINESS STANDARD OCT 17 2017

According to the World Bank, More than 500 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty as China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 6. 5 percent in 2012, As measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1. 90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
Also, I feel that Pro could have closed this debate stronger simply by pointing out that China's rapid growth has been because they shifted from a socialistic system to a more capitalistic system (thank Deng Xiaoping for that) since the early 80s. The last time China was truly a socialistic/communistic country was when Mao Zedong was still alive. That's just my own feedback.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@billsands

Couldn't you provide the headline?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
omar2345billsandsTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has given a rather solid explanation about the virtues and benefits of being in a mixed economic system. Whereas Con hasn't exactly laid forth the benefits of a planned economy as much as he as shown several countries with controlled economic elements. Unfortunately it isn't convincing enough because it lacks substance so therefore the case stays with Pro.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.