Capitalism is a better economic system than communism

I appreciate my opponents arguments and I will now move on to the rebuttal round. My opponent states that I "bring up the US and other nations in his argument. Nearly every nation in the world has a mixed economy to some degree (some private ownership, some public). " And I would like to respond by saying of course that is true but using America as an example of a capitalist economy is completely just. In America the number of privately owned business largely out numbers the amount of government owned business. The con is completely right that nearly every country is a mixed government which means some private ownership and some public ownership. I also will continue to describe the blatant differences between the two economic systems. The main in the privately owned business is working hard to provide the best life possible for his family. He goes to work in search of his next promotion and next pay raise. The amount of hard work you put in equates to the amount of money you will get out. Under a communist system the two guys sitting next to each other at the factory are getting paid the same. No matter what either one of them produces they will make the same wages. Of course the CEO of a company will make more than the factory worker but all employees at the same level will earn the same wages. I would now like to address the Construction workers or government employed workers if you will. The employees working for the privately owned business are motivate to sell the next car or furniture. Why? They will make more. The government employee couldn't give a damn whether or not the problem they just want their paycheck. The work of course gets done but if the incentives and motivation were there how much more advanced would we be in today's society. I would now like to respond to my opponents comments on why "Communism is better for business". He writes " The workers know more about their industry than any investors do, and so would be better at choosing a leader for their company. " This I find to be a little inappropiate as leaders of companys are usually educated in the field they work in and also if they are family heirs they align themselves with other top executives that can guide them along the way. I haven't seen Donald Trump manage the Yankees yet so I think business and investors are still sane. For the most part leaders of companies are people who have spent an immense amount of time in their field and know the business inside and out so they would have no problem leading a company. I also understand my opponent is concerned about the process in which a leader will be appointed so I respond with rest assured because I am sure the investors will choose the best leader possible so he can bring in the most money possible. I also would like to address the issue of " The investors appointed the wrong leader and he isn't qualified. " Privately owned businesses leaders are educated in a certain field, and just because a CEO doesn't know how to build a car doesn't mean he doesn't hire the best factory managers that do. My opponent also states in a lengthy paragraph why communism decreases poverty and simply I reply with anyone who wants to live a luxurious and wants to put in hard work and effort to be better will live and vote Capitalism. Anyone who wants to make average money be not at all motivated and live an average uninspiring lifestyle with little or no upside may live and vote communism.