Debate.org user "Acer" is a socialist and has contradictory views.

My opponent has offerred a definiton of socialism. Socialism is based in the theory that income equality is just and effective. http://petras.lahaine.org... 1. "Is it not true that the rich get richer" And the poor get richer, and the middle class get richer. With capitalism, everyone gets richer over time as they work and accumulate wealth. "When in the bank, it is not used." False. Banks use money to lend to others. When banks have more money to lend, interest rates go down. This works because of the common laws of supply and demand in classical economic theory and acknowledged by John Maynard Keynes in "The General Theory", even though Keynes and classical economists have disputed the overall effect of loanable funds on the economy. Further, the 'rich' invest in companies, supplying them with the funds they need to expand and grow, which Keynes also agreed with the classical economists about. http://www.marxists.org... http://www.theshortrun.com... My opponent's socialist arguments against income inequality are socialistic as well as based in fallacy. Interestingly, he sourced a capitalist who, when quoted in context, was referring to the harm that government regulation and taxation does to the economy. My opponent's view are collectivist because he believes that there is a class system and that the rich have money because the poor do not. This is false, a generation of the zero-sum fallacy, as described by economist Thomas Sowell in his book, "Economic Facts and Fallacies". So, my opponents are not "derived from logic", but a political view and bias against the evils of the rich and the grace of the government. This is a bias of socialists, which believe that all people should earn the same. Further, my opponent believes that government should have more wealth. The expansion of government is a socialist view as well. 2. "Not really. I said that people should spend their money. It is just who receives the money that is different." Actually, when people spend money, it goes to those rich people that socialists hate. "The second quote I realize now is a false statement, but they do not contradict." My opponent's argument that they do not contradict is: "It was simply a reply to my opponent saying lowering sale taxes were good. It says nowhere that people should not spend, however, it does say that the money that is spent should not all go to one person." Actually, that is exactly what you said: "Sales taxes are a very small part of what a person actually pays and in the end, the only benefactors are the store owners." http://www.debate.org... My opponent has argued that people should not spend money, because money goes to the store owners. He argues that this is a problem because: "One of the root causes of the depression is the money ending up in only a few peoples hands." http://www.debate.org... This is also false, as my opponent has conceded, but the views he expressed were contradictory. "It says nowhere that people should not spend, however, it does say that the money that is spent should not all go to one person." In all situations, this is false. You still hold this belief, even though you have conceded that it is false. This is clearly contradictory. The resolution is affirmed.