Capitalism vs Socialism

To begin I would like to make three statements: 1. What pro defines as "better" doesn't have an actual outlook for the populace; when pro says that cars have been made better through competition the first thing that comes to mind is how we have technologically created guided missiles and drone systems (http://www.tfcbooks.com...) over 50 years ago the "guided car" or self-driving and self-navigational systems are very modern technology and an exciting idea. This troubles me as Con however since even GPS is old enough to really question why "better" doesn't equate "more advanced". I would say that instead of stating that companies are more interested in advancement they are more interested in maintaining base R&D costs per dollar profit. Capitalism is, in fact, one of the major stagnating forces to research ( http://monthlyreview.org... ) and furthermore does not drive innovation: "While capitalism does promote a certain kind of rapid technological change, the above account has serious flaws. The pursuit of profit does not play such a big role at the important invention stage of innovation. Studies show that a large majority of economically important inventions come from university scientists, government researchers, and independent inventors, for whom pecuniary considerations are not typically dominant.6" (http://people.umass.edu...) As a matter of fact Capitalism has two flaws, beyond that one there is another which is money, the driving force, loses value after one achieves a certain income (http://www.livescience.com...) which is essentially because "The Easterlin Paradox" exists for humans in which money, as a tool, has value but beyond it's existence as a tool it is worthless. The easiest way to understand money as a tool is to think of a screwdriver; if you have screws then it's invaluable because you need a screwdriver to work with screws however if you have anything else, say bolts, a screwdriver is worthless; money is only as valuable as necessary just like any other tool in the arsenal so when you have enough it loses almost all value since excess resources are simply excess. 2. Because Innovation is not "born" of Capitalism the claim to innovation is false by Pro. The entirety of pro's current argument is that capitalism makes life better however innovation is not driven mainly by money which Capitalism is and as shown above Capitalism is again driven by profits and therefore more inclined to avoid unnecessary and exploratory R&D with many programs such as NASA (http://www.nasa.gov...) being non-profit because for profit models would not work as investments would easily be dwindled with stockholders expecting returns that are not coming any lifetime soon due to high R&D costs. Most governmental programs also follow the same route of non-profit or specifically governmental-funded programs. 3. Fast food is horrendous for the body (http://www.latimes.com...) and if Capitalism breeds unhealthy and inefficient delivery systems by, instead of having large cities invest in high tech monorail systems such as those used in Japan for greener and cheaper transportation outdated and economically / environmentally nonviable equipment ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk... ) simply because the price tag of the Capitalist manufacturer is cheaper. That all said two points. 1. The Markets are built entirely on horrible toxins or non-progressive ideals. The car economy for instance uses oil which is essentially always an environmental disaster in the making due to things like fracking (http://www.bbc.com...) and transportation (http://www.forbes.com...) yet "The World Runs on Oil" (http://www.businessinsider.com...) which brings me to question the reality of progression and innovation as well as whether or not a Capitalist firm really wants to push beyond this except as a pet project despite it's harmful side-effects in getting, transporting, and even using oil and oil-based fuels. As for computers things like RAM have not improved in years (http://www.gamersnexus.net...) and do not get cheaper regardless; this isn't a gross oversight but instead a general reality for why computers are getting cheaper yet top-of-the-line materials that are not greatly improving are getting even more ridiculously expensive (http://www.pcworld.com...) simply because like any tool the utility is there but the ability to continuously push that envelop while maintaining viability as a for-profit and dividend or share generating entity is just not there. 2. Money doesn't work. (https://hbr.org...) "As for productivity, at least two dozen studies over the last three decades have conclusively shown that people who expect to receive a reward for completing a task or for doing that task successfully simply do not perform as well as those who expect no reward at all. These studies examined rewards for children and adults, males and females, and included tasks ranging from memorizing facts to creative problem-solving to designing collages. In general, the more cognitive sophistication and open-ended thinking that was required, the worse people performed when working for a reward. Interestingly enough, the researchers themselves were often taken by surprise. They assumed that rewards would produce better work but discovered otherwise." Take this in for a moment. Time and time again people who do tasks for rewards, which Capitalism is built entirely off of, do worse than their counterparts who are doing their best for no reward whatsoever. Compensation does not drive success! For-profit behavior on the individual level doesn't work so the concept that for-profit behavior on the the national level as a cultural driving force seems misguided. A common statement is that socialism breeds laziness which f course is untrue (http://www.financialsamurai.com...) and one real question that comes to mind is that instead of worrying that you are making an equivalent amount than a person shouldn't you be worrying that you are contributing as a citizen to your society in the career that you've chosen? This rhetorical question aside the idea of a country where everyone has basic needs met does not seem unruly, the idea that ambition is unrewarded simply because your neighbor won't starve to death is madness, and the proposition that "competition" versus "cooperation" breeds innovation is, as shown, completely false not only on a corporate level but even down to the individual. The flaws in Capitalism are glaring and where the flaws lie Socialism picks up the slack; it takes care of people, it seeks to by definition cooperate and spread the wealth, and it prevents the stagnation of modern technology incorporated with a rise in prices for less performance based solely on novelty and newness.