Marxism is better than capitalism

In this round Pro has raised the issue of income inequality. I would ask Pro: would most people rather enjoy the living standards of the average marxist country (Vietnam, Cuba, China) but with increased equality, or would they rather have the living standards we have in capitalist countries? Would they choose poor and equal over wealthy and unequal? Remember, my opponent is arguing for pure marxism over capitalism. It seems that the only way Pro can win this debate is to define the word "better" to mean "poor and equal is better than wealthy and unequal". This would shift the debate toward ethics and morality. However it would seem that "better" in this debate has implicitly been defined to mean wealthier. After all, it was Pro that raised the issue of wealth inequality. Regarding inequality, Pro's source states: "In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%" I'm not sure this is relevant. Isn't the goal to increase wealth for all? Simply listing statistics that show there is inequality does nothing for Pro's case. Pro must show how marxism will produce more wealth than capitalism. Let's look at the statistics in the above quote. Note, these figures came from UC-Santa Barbara Professor G. William Domhoff (1). The first issue with this is Domhoff's definition of wealth: "economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale" (1) However, this doesn't take into account marginal utility which is a term economists use to show how much utility (ie value) consumers get out of a good. For example, if you have no money at all, the utility you get from a basic income is very high while the utility you get from a yacht or expensive food is much lower. The former is needed to survive while the later is only nice to have. From this we can see that these wealth comparisons are superficial. The definitions completely ignore basic income, which is where the highest utility comes from! Let's say you earn enough to live comfortably, own a decent house and car, but save very little. According to this study, you are "poor". Capitalism has shown that it produces such an abundance of wealth that even the poor in the United States can afford those items that provide the highest utility: food, clothing and shelter. Let's look at a comparison of GDP per capita of three marxist countries compared to the United States (2) China $7594 Cuba $6848 Vietnam $2052 United States $54,630 My opponent agrees that it is important to be able to "vote with your dollars". But note that, under capitalism, the consumer is king. But who decides how dollars are spent under marxism? It is not the public, but instead, it is an elite few who govern. My opponent claims that "80% of population only can vote on their 7% of wealth to show what they really need" but I would ask these 80% of the population to visit a local grocerer and look at the incredible variety of food available. Are these 80% not getting what they need? I would also like to point out two glaring flaws with Pro's argument: one, dollar-voting concerns consumer products, but the rich don't buy consumer products with real estate, stocks and bonds. In addition to this, let's run some back-of-a-napkin numbers on what millionaires vs non-millionaires in the United States might spend: It 10 million millionaires in the U.S. spend 100,000 dollars per year, while the remaining approximately 225 million spend on average 20,000, the non-rich actually have more market power than the rich. My opponent claims that nearly half of Americans cannot get "proper medication". However, economists think free market city-state Singapore is a good model to solve America's health care problems (3). And they blame existing U.S. problems on government intervention (4). I will also note that, if you read my opponents link, it doesn't really back the claim made. But worse, Pro compares the 50% of Americans who can get health care to the 50% who can't. Shouldn't we compare health care in the United States to health care in a marxist country? Pro next makes the statement: "My question is simple, How can capitalism solve the problem where demand is high but the production is low, makes the price go higher while this demand is very important to be fullfilled?" Well, I'd ask Pro how marxism solves this. It seems my opponent is in search of an economic system that solves the problem of scarcity. I've already shown how, by way of supply and demand, that market prices under capitalism allocate scarce resources. Pro's point #2 seems to claim that an over-abundance of commodities will disrupt the economy and that "They will burn the excess of production to sustain the profit.". This is a complete fabrication. I would ask to Pro to look at the price of oil over the last year, which was the direct result of production increases in the United States. Does my opponent have proof that they are burning this excess? If so, why do prices continue to fall (to the benefit of us all)? In point #3, my opponent claims marxism will provide free education. However, nothing in life is free, unless Pro will argue that volunteers will build the schools for free and others will donate the materials for free and teachers will work for free. In point #4, my opponent attempts to address my concerns over the economic calculation problem raised in the last round. However, Pro seems to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the problem, stating: "We need to discuss the price, where to produce, how many labours (sic) needed and everything. This method will minimize the risk of overproduction (wasted goods) or less production. The equilibrium price is determined before we produce the goods." But this is exactly what business people, capitalists and entrepreneurs do every day. They anticipate consumer needs, decide what and where to produce, etc. Why would a small body of "central planners" who do not understand the details of each industry be more effective than millions of individuals who have to prove themselves everyday at this task? Prices are not something that are discussed by a central planner. They form dynamically in the market based on consumer demand, supply and the cost of production. This issue of economic calculation has not been addressed. Pro has not shown how a central planning board (that supposedly represents everyone) will make billions of price decisions very quickly in order to keep the market going efficiently. Prices can only form based on the voluntary decisions of all consumers - how can central planners know this dynamic information that literally changes in real-time? My opponent next makes the unusual statement "We do not need dollars as tools to vote.". Huh? Wasn't that point already conceded? Next my opponent makes a claim that capitalism forms natural monopolies. This is simply a bald statement backed by nothing. Monopolies can only take place with government backing and it is my opponents burden to show otherwise. Monopolies cannot form in a free market because the market clearing price is the price at which profit is maximized. If you try to raise the price, another competitor will underbid you and your sales will fall, along with your profit. (1) http://www2.ucsc.edu... (2) http://data.worldbank.org... (3) http://econlog.econlib.org... (4) http://econlog.econlib.org...