The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points


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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 594 times Debate No: 100090
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




You've made the following comment a few hours ago about capitalism:
"it can be a good idea if you have a bad country and everyone is poor. but if u are living in a wealthy country it will be unfair on the people who are working hard but are getting the same amount of stuff as a dust bin cleaner "

In this, you've affirmed that capitalism is a great system for bringing a third world country out of poverty. But if you can see that this system is so great at creating prosperity then why should we change it? Because some people make more than others, even if the others are working a lot "harder"?

First of all, we should clarify what we mean by "working hard". Digging a hole in the ground for 4 hours, then burying it for 4 more hours can be exhausting workday, but it's not very productive. If one man uses an axe to cut firewood and the other one is using a butter knife, then the latter one would be working "harder", however most people don't really care how the wood they burn got there, they want to get what they need at the best price possible, and if a producer is more efficient than its competitors, then he can ask lower prices, thus attracting more customers. You can't expect to sell your product by saying "I've worked really hard on this". The value of your product, just like its beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Now let's look at the other side of the story. I'm sure you, like many others, find the million dollar paychecks of world class football players too high. There are two reasons for this: first, they bring in even more money than that to their employers (and that's the most fundamental rule for any kind of employment), and second, there are not many people who are this good at football, so the people will have to outbid each other in order to get the best players for themselves. These two factors combined can shoot up the price of anything into astronomical heights.

Well, I've basically just explained the concept of supply and demand, but what I'd like to hear from you is:
1. Why is capitalism preferable in a poor country, but not in a rich one?
2. What do you mean exactly by "working hard"?
3. Why is wealth inequality so bad?


I thank my opponent for his view and now I will give 5 reasons why capitalism is good:
Capitalism Promotes Freedom
The most basic freedom is the freedom to make choices. Capitalism promotes choice. It promotes the ability of people to decide what they want to buy, how much they want to buy, where they want to live, where they want to work, and so on. With statism, choices are limited. The government decides, for example, what kind of light bulb is available, how much water a toilet can use, the minimum factory efficiency of an air conditioning system, and more.

The removal of simple choices reduces freedom. The removal of all choices is slavery. The direction of statism is towards slavery. The direction of capitalism is towards freedom. Capitalism is morally superior.

Capitalism Promotes Cooperation
If I want a new air conditioning system installed in my home, I call a contractor. We have to agree on a price where I consider it better to own the new comfort system than to keep the money it costs. Likewise, the contractor considers it better to take the money paid than to keep the equipment in inventory (or pick it up from the supply house) and perform the installation. We have to voluntarily cooperate and agree on the price.

Next, the contractor must elicit the labor of his employees to perform the installation, in return for compensation. Then, he must cooperate with the supply house or distributor regarding the purchase of the material and equipment. The distributor must buy it in turn from a manufacturer who builds the equipment as the outcome of thousands of acts of cooperation upstream.

An excellent video describing the cooperation that results from free markets and capitalism is I Pencil: The Movie, based on the essay by Leonard E. Read. Take a few minutes to watch it.

Statism denies cooperation. Central planners make decisions that are forced on people. Statists eschew cooperation because left on their own, people make decisions the statists disagree with. An example is the imposition of any type of wage and price controls like the minimum wage.

If you want to hire a high school student for a few hours after school to clean your shop and help stock your trucks at the end of the day, you and the high school student should be able to agree amongst yourselves on the right compensation. Because the high school student hasn"t learned good work habits, has no experience, and will require close supervision, you may decide that the student is not worth the required minimum. Because the state forces you to pay more than you can justify, you must find another way to get the work done and the student is denied both pocket money and the more valuable work experience that will lead to greater pay in the future.

Cooperation is more moral than force. Capitalism is again, the more moral economic system.

Capitalism is More Optimistic
Capitalists live in a world of opportunity. They constantly survey the landscape looking for possibilities to gain, to build, to expand, to create. Statists, on the other hand, focus on scarcity. They see a world of limited resources, which gives them reason to ration and allocate.

What the statists overlook is the unlimited power of human ingenuity. Time and time again, statists have predicted the world would be unable to feed itself. Yet, agricultural innovations result in more food production on the same or less land. Statists scared the public with peak oil and limited fossil fuels, yet thinks to the combination of horizontal drilling and fracking, the U.S. alone sits on a 200 year supply of oil.

There is a moral aspect in play. Focusing on limits and living within them becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The statist suppresses man"s hopes and prospects. Capitalism again, is more moral.
Debate Round No. 1


Please correct me, if I misunderstood something, but on the Big Issues page for Capitalism you took the Con side.

But now it seems like we are on the same side.
I've seen the movie I Pencil, and even more, I've seen firsthand how people get together to form startups to get their idea out to the market. I've been searching through a lot of contractors and manufacturers, and met many investors and entrepreneurs during the past year, and believe me, I know how many people's work is required to create even very simplistic things, such as a razor or a toothbrush.

I've checked at least four times, whether I've challenged the right person. Could it be that your account was hijacked by a communist who made that comment? Or maybe giving arguments to support one's opponent is just a new debating tactic I haven't known yet.

Anyway, I suppose we can't really have a good debate, if we don't disaggre on the topic at hand, but it was a pleasant surprise to recieve a response like that.


yea well I can take both sides of the argument
Debate Round No. 2


So, what should we do now?


you should give up because of the pier pressure of my debating skills
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Trump27 2 years ago
But it can't be too interesting or intelligent if both sides agree...
Posted by Trump27 2 years ago
Posted by Trump27 2 years ago
For another interesting and intelligent debate on capitalism v. socialism check out the link below

Capitalism is what mad America great!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: No conduct faults. No sources. Spelling: Con Round 3, "of the pier pressure of" loses spelling points. Arguments: Con actually never debates Con side, completely agreeing with Pro in Round 1, "I thank my opponent for his view and now I will give 5 reasons why capitalism is good:" when he should have argued against Capitalism as the Con. Therefore, Pro wins Arguments.