Capitalism: part II

Response Points 1-3: My arguments for these points from Round 3 are extended into this round. Debate them if you like. Response Point 4: The fact that jobs are always needed means that the Government does not and should not have to step in. Letting the free market decide who gets jobs is more efficient than the Government deciding for various reasons. And one, people are not bad by nature, and two, it is the strong Government that has destroyed the work ethic in this country through handouts. Look at my "welfare effect" point from the last round. Response Point 5: One, OWS is losing people, not gaining people. The source for this is that OWS is no longer in the first page or even in the fron section (except for the op/ed section). The are now only covered locally. In other words, New York City's OWS is only covered in New York City, not in say Atlanta. And two, just google Venezuela's inflation rate, or Spain's unemployment rate. And google Singapore and New Zealand's economy. They are some of the best in the world. Response Point 6: Are you conceding this part of the argument? Yod did prove my point. Response Point 7: Again, you are destroying your own argument. How? Because you are conceding that the welfare effect exists. This is the main reason for poverty, unemployment, and slow economic growth. Could you either make your point clearer, or do you have a better rebuttal? Response Point 8: You said I was right. There is no better concession than that. Response Point 9: Do you still not get it? If salaries only go up with the inflation rate, your money, however more you have, is worth the same as you had last year. That is the side effect of inflation. The money you don't spend again goes up, but most likely, it will only go up with the inflation rate. Is this your point? Do you still not get the concept of inflation and real wages? Response Point 10: I don't see what this has to do with this debate or my point. The trusts of the 1900s had nothing to do with Government Bailouts. Response Point 11: I will cover three points. One, the stock exchange did not and could not cause the Great Depression. There have been several incidents of stock market crashes (especially in the 1980s) when the economy took no hit. Two, if you are hinting that tighter regulations would have prevented the Great Depression is wrong because thousands of new Government Regulations caused the stagflation of thr 1970s and the Recession now. They did not prevent them. And three, the Great Depression was caused by an economic slump (not really a profound statement though). Response Point 12: Your point is completely irrelevant. Response Points 13-15 (my three attack points): My arguments for these points from Round 3 are extended into this round. Debate them if you like. At least debate Attack Point 1 about how the economic slumps of the last 80 years (including the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, and the Recession) could not have been caused by Capitalism, since our country has not been purely Capitalist since just after World War I. VOTERS: After this, this my seem like a boring debate. I will attempt to pick it up by firing several attack points at my opponent in my final round argument. I will attempt to make this debate as interesting as possible. They will be very persusasive and backed up with either one or any combination of logic, theories, or proof. I will also attempt to use sources to prove my opponent's points wrong. At least 1 if the point needs at response (like point 12 does not need any sources), and at least 3 if my opponent askes for them. And there will be at least 2 to back up each of my attack points. Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion of Capitalism: part II. LANNAN13: I hope you can respond to each and every one of my points this time, including the ones that I carried over into this round. Please make an intelligent rebuttal to each point.