Capitalism

Rebuttal[1] Wealth DisparityI would like to start off by making it clear that examples are not going to win here. Yes, there is inequality, but we are talking about the fundamental ideology of Capitalism, not what is going on in one nation. Facts, figures and smart rhetoric can be used to argue any point. For example: Laos, a strictly-speaking Communist country[1] has a Gini coefficient of 36.7[2]. The U.S. has one of 45.0[2]. The Gini Coefficient is a measure of income disparity within a nation. In short, the lower the number, the higher the income inequality. Thus, the higher the better. Capitalism in itself clearly not just to blame. Vietnam has a GC of 37.6[2]. Cuba of 30.0[3] and North Korea of 31.0[3]. Out of the five recognised officially Communist countries, only one has a Gini Coefficient better than the U.S.[1][2]. The countries with the best GC, we see the likes of South Africa, Hong Kong, Brazil and many African countries, probably because in countries like Lesotho, there is not a lot of money in the first place to be hoarded, as the others there are Haiti, Sierra Leone, etc[2]. Linking back the actual BOP you created for yourself in the definition, saying that because there is income inequality thus it is not the way to go is now nulled, because I have proven that capitalism can be successful and that it dominates the top tier of Gini Coefficient countries, and Communist countries do not do better on the whole. The point here, is that it varies from country to country and Capitalism in itself does not have a strong enough correlation with income inequality for drastic action such as yours.[2] HealthcareOnce again you fall into the issue of being America-centric. In all honestly, this argument is defeated by a matter of words. Canada. U.K. Norway. Sweden. Finland. You take America as an example of why Capitalism fails with regard to healthcare, and I take the aforementioned countries as proof as a successful mix of Capitalism with socialist endeavours. Capitalism, as an ideology is almost entirely economic. It's focus is satisfying the basic economic problem with letting supply and demand control the market. At an extremely rudimentary level, that is what it is. The upside with Capitalism is that as an almost entirely economic ideology, it leaves government interference blank ready for other views to take its place. This is why Capitalism does not come with Libertarianism or Authoritarianism, or Keynesianism or Monetarism. This vacancy allows Government interference with healthcare, so from then on, it is an issue with the healthcare system rather than Capitalism. For example, the World Health Organisation has France, Italy and Spain in its list of best healthcare systems[4], and no communist/socialist countries. All the above countries, no matter how left they may be, are capitalist. America is not Capitalism, please keep that in mind for next round. The facts and figures make this claim void.[3] The Working ClassIn short, the government should be controlling wages or there will be wage inequality. Firstly government control of wages offset a perfect competition and is really not financially feasible. Let me make this succinct. Wages are set by competition, supply and demand. Jobs in law require many skills, are challenging, hard but the demand is extremely high. With high demand for them, and low supply due to the amount of work needed, wages will be very high due to competition in order to attract people to fulfill the need. With mining, although dangerous, it isn't very skill based but the danger means there is low supply and there is also a high need, frankly, miners are paid quite a lot; in the U.K they earn £40,000 per year and up to $200,000 in Australia[5][6], so it makes sense. So your argument is at this stage, void, but let me continue. If for example, I decrease the wages that lawyers earn, then there will not be enough lawyers and prices will have to be raised again. If you increase the wages of a dustbin man, demand for that job will be high due to the fact that there is not that much skill needed, and you are paid a lot, then more people will want that job. Prices will rise anyway, but if not, there will be vacancies in other jobs. Interferences in the market are not good anyway. Wages are set by the market, and in the end are for the best, and for long term economic prosperity. When there is the right amount of demand for any job, the price is as high as possible with regards to the demand and skill needed, so both the labourer and the supplier of labour are happy. [4] EducationThis, without offending, is utter nonsense. Firstly, it is simply economically not feasible. If the cost of a year of study is £10,133[7], this times a possible 60 million people is 607,980,000,000. 607 billion. For a year. That much money so that everyone in a country can have 1 year of education, let alone three. Not to mention if everyone has a degree, degrees are useless. There is so much wrong with this I don't want to delve into it to too much, but in short, not everybody can have a great education. It may seem unfair, but what it does is create competition that means we have universities full of people that try or put enough money into a firm, which economically is always a plus. We simply do not have unlimited money, unlimited spaces and unlimited jobs, so there will be competition. Competition means that we get lawyers who are good and not just get a job place. It means we get doctors who put hours into it. Your dreamland will never happen, and with what we have, Capitalism benefits the most.[5] The MilitaryNo? I mean, with Socialism, the military is funded not partially from tax, wholly from tax. That is how governments work, so people do pay more. When a country is at war then, taxes go up so more people cannot pay them! Yes there is more wealth in the government, because the people pay for them! People pay more to taxes with Socialism because they have to, so that the government has more responsibilities! It is basic macroeconomics![6] Equal RightsWhat? I do really question your political knowledge now. In no way or form does Capitalism affect equal rights! Capitalism is a fundamentally economic endeavour! Rights and morality is not a Capitalist/Socialist issue! This is just abhorrent! Texas has laws such as that because they are super conservative! Capitalism can be both conservative and progressive! "Your ethnicity, religious, political or social statuses would not matter. Nor would your sexual orientations, as in Socialism all are accepted"Mao Zedong? Stalin? CCP? USSR? North Vietnam? North Korea? Cuba? Former Cambodia? Do these countries scream "tolerance" to you? Communism is an ideology that focuses on the economy but slightly more to do with interference and fiscal policy. Morality has nothing to do with it. Many capitalist countries are accepting, and have nicer immigration policies. I really cannot believe this point was made.That has been a fairly hefty rebuttal, and as not the holder of the BOP, I urge readers to realise that I have the upper hand as of now, and will now proceed to argue why Capitalism is the way forward, fundamentally.I. The Improvement of LifeThe transition to Capitalism is hard to find information for, but my favourite example which is archetypal in how a transition from socialism to capitalism fares for the country will have to be the U.K. in the 80s, with Margaret Thatcher turning Britain from a Socialist dump, to a Capitalist success. You can challenge this next round, but was a fact was that this happened. And there is a syllogistic explanation for all of them. Let us do this bottom up. Firstly we are living longer. Capitalism creates competition, the key term here. Competition means that people, in order to get as much money on profits, will cause people to create better stuff. Better capital for production, and better medicine, clothes, cleaner places and people in the end will try to be better. This means that areas of health, such as medicine and cleanliness will improve as people want themselves to be more popular.The cost of living goes down. Cost of living is generally the correlation between price of things and your income. This also links to the inflation graph above. The price of things which are bought will decline depending on demand, according to economics. With a capitalist country, when there is competition, prices will lower so that companies make more profit. In a socialist country, there is no need for prices to drop, so cost of living is higher.GDP and growth is obvious. More markets, lower prices, less government interference = a higher GDP, and GDP has a variety of positive correlations. Capitalism increases GDP, GDP increases this. All of these only help to increase the standards of living and money and in turn, this happens. Of course, a lot happens when you factor in greed, but Capitalism has seen this happen. There will be economic deleveraging, recessions and down, but in the long run, it is for the better. II. SummaryTo summarize, Capitalism has easy long term benefits. It increases standards of living and overall is for the better. As I do not hold the BOP, I simply just have to negate the opposition's contentions, which I have done successfully. There seems to be a confusion about Capitalism and America, and Capitalism and Conservatism, and I urge Con to think whether his next contentions are against the fundamental idea of giving people the market.Sources: [1] http://geography.about.com...[2] https://www.cia.gov...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.who.int...[5] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[6] http://iminco.net...[7] http://www.nus.org.uk...