Capitalism

IntroductionIn the last round, I will offer summaries for each contention, and to address points made by Pro in the last round.Case against capitalism A1 -UtopiaWhile Pro acknowledged last time that pure capitalism (in terms of economics) “may never be a reality”, he shockingly now extends this to political capitalism, regarding it as “politically unrealistic”. He adds that the extension of the free-market is the best way forward. There are a few points to make here:a) Futility - Even if the extension of the free-market were better, my point still stands - capitalism in its purer forms is politically utopian (as Pro himself admits). Pro essentially concedes the resolution, and agrees with me that capitalism is utopian on these grounds alone, and, for pragmatic reasons, we must have extensive government intervention, provided we value democratic legitimacy.b) Economic utopianism - Pro glosses over my criticism of neoclassical economics by appealing to bounded rationality, and not engaging with ANY of the points that I made. Again though this only proves my point:“The concept of bounded rationality . . . account(s) for the fact that perfectly rational decisions are not feasible in practise . . . “ (1)Secondly, bounded rationality doesn’t really address the problems that I was highlighting - mainly poor information. Points dropped by Pro1. Capitalism exists nowhere in the world, and all best approximations to a capitalist model have extensive state involvement in some way.2. It could not exist, nor (if it ever did exist) could it be sustainable because it would rely on unachievable assumptions.3. Pro sees utopianism not as a problem for capitalism, but argues for capitalism on the basis of its correct diagnosis of human nature (and that competitors such as Communism were utopian when it came to human nature). Did not respond to accusations of contradiction. Point made in R2.4. The deficiency of the price mechanism and price elasticity were dropped by Pro after earlier citing them as possible solutions to market failures. Point raised in R2, dropped by Pro.To be clear, if this argument is correct, then all other arguments for or against are essentially redundant. Not only does this point extend to all the other arguments presented in various ways, but it completely nullifies the resolution. If capitalism cannot exist, then advocating it as an economic system is utterly futile. It fails on pragmatic grounds alone. Given that I have defended the argument, as well as Pro dropping the points above, I contend on this basis alone the resolution is negated.A2 -HealthcareAgain, Pro acknowledges the infeasibility of a free-market healthcare system, noting that it will “never be completely market based.” In his first swing at my argument, he complains that as the study I used takes cost into account. Firstly, cost is a fact, and while the US were the biggest spenders, yet received such drastically poor results is certainly relevant, especially in a debate regarding economic systems. Also, Pro criticises the study for being “11 years old, very outdated”. The fact this report was the most extensive and widely respected of its kind somewhat neutralises this point, as does the fact that in 2006 OECD report shows a pretty continuous trend, in terms of bloated US spending (2). Most importantly however in criticising this source for its apparent age, Pro does 2 things: he shows both a contrivance of prioritising contemporary data in this area, and a distinct lack of awareness of his own sources, given that table of the paper he cited on tax levels uses data from 40 years ago.He also made the point about the methodology of the study, damning it as flawed, while merely noting his disagreement with some of the criteria, with literally no analysis to back this up. Now the criteria for things like better provision of care includes life expectancy, infant mortality rate, medical professionals per 1000 people, and yes, the monetary amount of these systems, showing that not only is US healthcare worse in every measure mentioned (compared with the UK), but it costs the UK government less in % terms for universal coverage than it does to provide the hybrid system in the USA (3). Yet again Pro dropped several key points1. Economies of scale and sharing of information lead to more cost-effective and efficient systems in principle, and government-run universal healthcare incorporates both of these.2. Wider economic impact and moral issue regarding UHC.3. No capitalist alternative to healthcare, with even Pro deeming US healthcare to be partly tax funded.On the strength of this argument, one is compelled to conclude that given the data available, and the theoretical advantages of a single-payer system, as well as it outperforming the closest thing to a capitalist alternative in almost every measure, it seems that we must adopt a state approach in this huge sector of the economy.A3 -ExternalitiesPro did not respond to ANY of the points I raised in R1. Again, this alone negates the resolution, as Pro has simply neglected to respond to this argument at any point. Extend all arguments.Arguments for capitalismHuman natureEssentially Pro just jettisons this point, and converges it with his main argument - that capitalist societies are better because tax incentives work. Again, Pro drops/concedes the 2 points I made in R2:1. Assuming Pro’s point about human nature is true, this provides no specific support for capitalism over social democracy.2. Given that capitalist societies cannot exist for long, such a view must be incorporated within a social democracy.I would also add that given the societal benefit to things like healthcare and regulation, acting in the collective interest, while allowing as much liberty as possible seems like the best of all possible worlds, and is yet again reason to favour SD over capitalism.Tax and ProductivityI have to say that I find it astounding that no sooner does Pro accept that he was wrong in his previous post with copying the abstract of an article in place of an argument do we find it again. This does NOT constitute an argument. Secondly, the fact that Pro cites seemingly mysterious figures with no sources again makes it very difficult to even evaluate what is being said. Lastly, giving no theoretical model, and then concluding that this non-existent model would predict these unsourced figures again lacks any substantive case.As for things like comparisons between France and the USA, I was comparing the top rates of state tax, as usually one offers a “trickle-down” approach with such an argument. Given these figures, and the small differences between them (around 5% lower in USA with income tax rate, and about 1.5% lower in France for corporate tax rate, which is usually the biggest indicator), such analysis of tax seems questionable (4). Lastly, I showed that 3 countries have higher output per hour in the USA, and this is relevant because it undermines the capitalist model, given the increased level of efficiency in countries like Norway and Holland with the level of state involvement they have in their economies.While I acknowledge that US workers work longer hours, I don’t see this as particularly desirable, nor necessarily shown to be because of tax levels. Pro did however dropped a couple of points here also. He failed to make a comprehensive case for capitalism again and did not respond to the possible solution from the welfare state through incentives to work, such as Working Tax Credits (UK).ConclusionGiven the burden of proof of Pro to justify capitalism, I contend that I was able to argue against reasons for capitalism, as well as providing arguments against it. I thank Pro for the debate and to the readers in advance.Sources(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://www.kff.org...(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...