America Can't Be Made Great Unless We Nationalize Housing

I believe I did tell my opponent why his solution will not work. Because it is a government solution to a free market problem. These never work. Government always makes free market problems worse, not better. I would like to ask my opponent, who creates a job? Can the government create a job? They cannot even make money, how can they make a job? Further, it is not the responsibility of government to create jobs. It is their responsibility to maintain a level playing field and stay out of the way of the free market. People create jobs when we take a risk, invest money into an idea, and create a business around that idea. The success of that business is then determined by the tenacity of the owner, the talent hired, the economic conditions of the time, and the level of government regulation, among others. Government is one of the hindrances to business (and therefore jobs), not a benefit to business. I submit that the only viable option for creating jobs, increasing wealth, and creating new industries is increasing the availability of private business ownership. In what way is nationalizing housing not a socialist solution? To nationalize means, "to bring under the ownership or control of a nation, as industries and land." (1) Socialism is defined as, "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." (2) Thus by definition, nationalizing is always a socialist solution. Socialism works only in very small, local applications, and only by voluntary consent. When it is forced, and on larger scales, it always fails. Pro makes the comment that, "The current rental contract is not a choice, because 40% of the housing forces people into it." I don't understand his intent with this comment. Yes, as he says, "Socio-economic disadvantages force people into rentals." This is true. Most renters are low income households, either newly moved out of Mom and Dad's house, or they hold low skill, low paying jobs. This is in no way a bad thing. At its peak in the last 25 years, the home ownership rate was less than 70%. We are now around 64%. (3) While this is a significant change, it will not have a devastating effect on our economy or on the people who are now renting. There are many reasons why a person might want to rent rather than own their home. A few examples are uncertainty of economic conditions, desire to be mobile, ease and speed of movement to follow employment or other attraction, lack of desire to commit, and poor financial (credit) history making purchase impossible, among others. Pro said, "By my opponents definition of buying a gallon of milk one time is Socialist and to have to eternally pay for a gallon of milk the rest of your life is Capitalism. After all, by implication, he called my plan to make everyone pay for housing once Socialist and to make them pay over and over Capitalism." Excuse me!?!?!? When and where did I make that argument? I don't know from what source you got your definitions, but those definitions are way off. Socialism is defined as, "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." (2) Capitalism is defined as, "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." (4) I am definitely in favor of capitalism over socialism, but I am not in favor of paying over and over again for something that has been used up. Renting does not fall into this situation. Renting does not use up the item. Renting reduces the liability of the renter compared with the owner, and over time it will cost the renter more to continue to rent, but it is a better financial plan than ownership under certain conditions. I don't know where Pro is getting this argument that renting is paying for something over and over again, and purchasing something is paying for it only once. When a person makes a typical purchase, they pay the total cost of the product up front. When a person rents, he pays only a small portion of the price of the product on an agreed upon schedule. There are many times when rental is a much better financial option than purchasing. For instance: when an item should last 2 years, but you only need the item for 2 months, when you are in need of a place to live, but expect to be moving to another city in 6 months, when your car is in the shop and you need a replacement for a week. In none of these situations does it make sense to purchase the needed item; rental is the best financial option. There is no case when you will find rental to be an option in consumable products. You cannot rent consumable products because the owner cannot get the item back in original condition when the rental period is over. My point in round 1 about eliminating the Cabinet level departments would balance the national budget, which would in tern allow for a reduction in the tax burden on individual Americans, which in tern would allow for an increase in investable income. It would also reduce the government regulation limiting business growth, thereby allowing increased business profitability. Finally, Pro constantly talks about nationalizing rentals, but then he talks about paying only once for (I assume) housing. Is he talking about the federal government building all these houses and then selling them, or is talking about the government renting them out? If they will sell them, what is the cost of production versus the cost to the consumer? If the will rent them, from where does his argument about paying only once for things come? References: 1. http://www.dictionary.com... 2. http://www.dictionary.com... 3. https://www.nytimes.com... 4. http://www.dictionary.com...