Capitalism is better than Socialism

I accept you definition yet let me add that the part where you say "every person has right to live his life in any manner he chooses to , as long as he does not violate the rights of others." is not categorical of capitalism, it can be said about all types of systems (except communism of course xD) About China and India. I never said that they were socialist and I was not arguing that they were good, I merely was saying all the data and the fact that they are best suited because, as I said in my last speech, " Those are either countries that produce massive amounts of goods [China and India] or...". I am not arguing about them due to the fact that they are not socialist. But I will respond to you anyhow. //China once had a socialist planned economy where the government (one party) controlled and owned all the means and methods of production. I think we all know what this was like to its people, it was a nightmare.// This is a massive fallacy. You are asserting that since they had a somewhat socialist economy and the leader was cruel to his people socialism is bad. The reason the people suffered was not because of socialism, but because they had a dictator. Socialism is not synonymous with a dictatorship. You can have a democratically elected government whislt still having a socialist system. But what about China now? You say that China is becoming more capitalist but is that helping the people not suffer? No. They still have a tyrant and massive human rights violations occur so by the logic you expressed in the first sentence, we can say capitalism is to blame. So here you can recant your statement that socialism is to blame or you can stick with it and I can assert that capitalism is also to blame. It's your choice. Also, //china has become the fastest growing economy and trade powerhouse, THIS is the reason for China's immunity to the economic ressesion, Capitalism.// It is true that they survived the best because they produced massive amounts of goods but that is not due to capitalism. They produced massive goods under communist regimes as well. They produce massive amounts of goods because of the control the leader has. It is not due to capitalism OR socialism and that is why I am not arguing China. Crossapply to India, also, free market doesn't necessarily mean capitalism (see below) Australia: First off let me say that your argument about Australia is simply copied and pasted from this source [1] with no credit given. I urge voters to take that into consideration seeing as my opponent plagiarized and expected no one to notice. But moving on to the stolen arguments, this false. "It has a mixed economy which is very close to a capitalistic economy - very much like the US." [2] They are a regulated free market economy which is, in fact, a socialist construct. This is so because, first off, it is not capitalist because the government medals in the affairs hence the term "regulated free market" and, as my interpretation states (and you agreed to) "Capitalism is where the government owns nothing and doesn't medal in the affairs of the industries and businesses of the country." yet the government does regulate and thus it is not a capitalist system. Another problem with your stolen argument is that it says it is a free market system but that does not necessarily mean capitalist. "Market economies can range from hypothetically pure laissez-faire variants to an assortment of real-world mixed economies, where the price system is under some state control or at least heavily regulated. In mixed economies, state-directed economic planning is not extensive enough to constitute a planned economy." [3] Free market economies can be socialist ones as well, the free market merely means that the people own some things thus communism is excluded. A controlled market is where the state regulates everything (communism) This is what Australia is, a mixed free market economy. A capitalist system is a laissez-faire system where there is no state involvement as the definitions suggest yet Australia is not this. (It must be said that there are no complete capitalist states yet we are debating whether or not capitalism is more beneficial than socialism. I also should add that my opponent should have not included the line "History has proven that Capitalism is more beneficial than Socialism." because there never has been a complete capitalist state.) "Capitalism has been dominant in the Western world since the end of feudalism, but most feel that the term "mixed economies" more precisely describes most contemporary economies, due to their containing both private-owned and state-owned enterprises, combining elements of capitalism and socialism, or mixing the characteristics of market economies and planned economies. In capitalism, there is no central planning authority but the prices are decided by the demand-supply scale. For example, higher demand for certain goods and services lead to higher prices and lower demand for certain goods lead to lower prices."[4] //The drive to succeed as an individual is the strongest motivating factor a human being can feel in their work. When work is uncoupled from reward, or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who don't work hard, society suffers. The fact that individuals are driven to succeed is in all our interests.// This is false. My opponent has not disproven my original argument which was backed by sources, he just says this claim. //Capitalism in a free society, it does more than any other system, it offers more opportunity for someone in the lower class to elevate their economic situation with determination and persistence. The U.S. is probably the best example of any country in history for this. How many times have we heard a story about immigrants who come to this country with nothing and then they become prominent and productive member of society because of the system. // But the US has a mixed economy.... we have many elements of socialism already in place but regardless you ignore the definition of capitalism which is that the owners of business do what ever for profit thus meaning they can pay the workers little to nothing in a capitalist system. This is what happened in Europe at the start of the industrial revolution. You have proven nothing. Invisible hand: You are correct. This point falls. Last argument: This is simply not true. Again, if we look toward Europe at the dawn of the industrial revolution, the closest that we came to a full capitalist society, we had people being shoved down, low wages and terrible conditions all because the owners wanted money. This is an example from history and thus your point falls. Conclusion: "In conclusion I have proved all you arguments to be wrong :) Capitalism rules !" Teehee. False. You have proven nothing as well as dropping my argument regarding satisfaction and quality of life. "In conclusion, socialism promotes harder work[proved wrong] [[false]] it benefits the people better in health institutions[proved wrong][[false, you did nothing on this!]] and socialist countries are proved the best to survive the recession[proved wrong] [[false]]" Super conclusion: Socialism dominates! Vote CON! [1] http://www.australiaonnet.com... [2] http://wiki.answers.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...