Capitalism is inherently flawed and overall detrimental

Thanks to PRO for kicking this off.I however would claim that PRO has failed in terms of addressing the topic at hand. The issue is whether Capitalism is inherently flawed and overall detrimental. PRO has only tried to address the former and has not touched upon the latter at all, which I think is the central concern as all economic systems involve trade-offs and will have some flaws.I believe there are two alternative ways of addressing the the points of whether Capitalism is overall detrimental and PRO has used neither of them:1) Looking at the benefits and flaws of Capitalism in isolation and finding out if there is a net beneficial or detrimental effect.or2) Comparing capitalism to other economic systems to find out which one is best and which ones are comparatively detrimental.Without making either of these cases, PRO fails to meet the BoP because individual listings of alleged flaws does not mean Capitalism is overall detrimental.Rebuttal Briefly, as covering everything in depth would allow me no time to make claims about the positive effects of Capitalism:CherrypickingA wide variety of the points PRO brings up are cherrypicked examples that, when looked at in greater detail, can be seen to not be innate flaws at all, but rather issues of circumstance and culture. Take for example the claim that "political power will soon fall under control of the wealthy and capitalist minority in order to hold even greater sway over the majority", for which PRO provides the only source of their entire argument - an article saying that this is the case in the USA.The USA is not the only capitalist nation on earth, nor is the form of capitalism practiced by the USA the only type possible. In fact due to it's a position as an economic superpower and it's lax free-market approach, the USA is likely one of the worst example available in regards to the effects of wealth on politics and in no way representative of general trends - let alone inherent qualities to Capitalism. If such qualities were inherent, surely they would show up in places like the Netherlands where "the major source of political money in the Netherlands is membership fees".[1] As they do not, these aren't an inherent problem. It is perfectly possible to have a capitalist economic system with regulations - such as restrictions on political donations and public subsidies to parties. it is therefore not an inherent flaw.This can also be seen in references to the employer/employee relationship. Capitalism leaves open the door for workers co-operatives[2], which can vary in size from small businesses to massive corporations[3]. Right now, PRO could get together with their friends and (assuming moderate credit worthiness) get a loan to go into business where they're all the employees and the owner - removing the dichotomy. Most people choose not to do so when they start a business, but the option is there and it is people's personal choice which drives the general tendency to businesses with employees/employers.Minor Philosophical problemsPoints 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are all points of principle with little real relevance to people's lives. As I will show later, Capitalism provides a whole host of benefits. People in the happiest countries on earth live in Capitalist countries[4] where they have an abundance of goods, long life-spans, effective health care, free time to pursue their interests and hobbies, etc. Compared to this the philosophical point that sometimes they can feel hard-done-by by their boss is fairly redundant - as is the problem that sometimes there can be economic bumps which can temporarily slow down the further growth of this abundance of riches and benefits for a short while.I have already covered point 8 with the cherry picking, so the remaining two I will deal with belowRacist ElementsPRO claims that the racist status quo is perpetuated by Capitalism. I state that this is clearly not the case as no status quo has been maintained by anything. Taking the USA as a very clear example, the situation for black people is not the same now as it was 50 years ago which is not the same as it was 100 years ago. As no status quo has been maintained due to their actually being massive changes, it is obvious that nothing can be responsible for maintaining the status quo. Instead what we have seen is advancing civil rights and increasing economic prosperity. Although the income gap still exists, studies have found "Median family income for both black and white families has increased over the last 30 years"[5]. Although it hasn't magically fixed everything, the system is working and is making minorities more prosperous over time. The wealth generated by Capitalism is disproportionately taxed on the wealthy in most countries through progressive taxation, with this money then being redistributed through social programs like education and health care which allow the next generation of people whose parents were socioeconomically disadvantaged - minorities very much included - to prosper on more equal footing. The wealth of Capitalism is constantly harnessed for egalitarian ends all over the world."Exploitation"PRO points to the "exploitation" of less developed nations. In fact this economic process is a boon to the countries involved. Countries like India and China are using these types of jobs to grow and develop [6][7], which is what should be expected. There isn't some magic formula that makes countries suddenly sprout roads, good health and education and be able to develop high-tech commodities like jet engines. They have to grow over time, which is why the process if called development. Countries take more labour intensive and less profitable work because it's where their comparative advantages lie, but use that money to develop and eventually compete with more advanced nations. In fact Capitalism is driving the increasing wealth of these poor countries and the massive reduction in global poverty that has comes with it. Indeed the World Bank (an international organisation built to help maintain Capitalism) has even committed itself to ending international poverty[8] in the next few decades!Case for CapitalismThe massive advantages of CapitalismOver time as countries have developed with Capitalism, they have benefited in a whole host of ways.- People are living longer due to increased health care availability under Capitalism.[9]- Global wealth is increasing, allowing people to live in greater prosperity[10]- People are more happy than ever. Despite tragic events happening in the world (which often have nothing to do with capitalism, like the war in Syria), when looked into it was found "The average surveyed person planet-wide reports greater happiness than 10 years ago—which was happier than many reported 30 years ago."[11]- The massive advances in technology. I don't think I need a source to point out that the computer you're using to look at this message right now is light years ahead of anything available years ago.These are massive advantages in day to day life that far outweigh the incorrect or minor points brought up by PRO. Therefore PRO fails to meet the BoP as per the 1st type of comparison I put forward at the start of the argument.The utters absence of any competing systemCapitalism is now used in almost every country on Earth. Those that don't use it like North Korea are some of the worst places around. Even the countries which until recently did use non-Capitalist economic systems (like the USSR) were awful in a whole host of ways when they existed, with PRO even specifically stating that he despises them (though he uses the term "State Capitalist", a term used by modern socialists when they don't want to admit the USSR and the like were socialist). By Pro's admission, Capitalism is therefore better than the socialism practiced by the USSR and it's client states.As I think it is clear that Capitalism is better than feudalism or ancient slave-states (and presumably PRO does not disagree), we can therefore state Capitalism is the best economic system out of all those that have been tried. Unless PRO can either bring up a different and better economic system that has been used and was better or put forward a hypothetical alternative that they state will be better, Capitalism is therefore beneficial compared to any other alternative and PRO fail to meet the BoP as per the 2nd type of comparison I put forward at the start of the argument.Capitalism is improving and developingCapitalism is not perfect, but then Capitalism is also not static. In my country, for instance, it was nearly 20 years ago that the UK (my country) introduced a statutory minimum wage[12] and just a few weeks ago this was upgraded in the first part of a process of turning this into a living wage.[13] Regulations like this deal with issues with Capitalism, and they do so in a peaceful democratic framework that doesn't run the risk of trying a radical socialist alternative which can end up with a vicious genocidal dictator in charge.The issues with Capitalism are not inherent, but ones that can be fixed. Economic crises can be stopped with the effective regulation of investment. Worker's disenfranchisement can be countered with laws giving them specific rights. Money influencing politics can be stopped with laws relating to party financing.They are situational and fixable flaws, not inherent. In many capitalist countries laws along these lines already exist. They might not in your country, but that is down to the temporal specifics of the country - not any inherent factors of Capitalism.[1] https://goo.gl...[2] https://goo.gl...[3] https://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://goo.gl...[8] http://goo.gl...[9] http://goo.gl...[10] http://goo.gl...[11] http://goo.gl...[12] https://goo.gl...[13] https://goo.gl...