A Resource Based Economy is better than Free Markets

Money as an incentive: My opponent seems to be operating under the false assumption that if one incentive were removed, other incentives would compensate. This is simply not true. If money were removed, than an extra incentive would be removed, leaving less total incentive to work and make progress. “Money is just a technology created by human beings & was never in nature to begin with” He states this as though it is a bad thing. By that logic, the machinery that Pro likes to say would essentially handle everything for the world that is made by humans (and eventually by other machines) is a bad thing, so Pro is contradicting himself. Competition/trade “Advanced technologies today did not exist before Here my opponent totally switches his argument from switching to a RBE in the distant future to switching today. A large part of his arguments has relied on the idea that technology will take over all physical labor. However, the technology of today is nowhere near ready to take over all physical labor. “The world wasn’t a global economy.” It is now, and yet market based economies are still effective means of allocating resources, and Pro hasn’t proven his assertion that global economies don’t work with free markets. “Being profit driven was inherent to human nature”, not money “Yes I agree we are all ‘profit-driven’ beings” Though my opponent was correct that personal gain doesn’t necessarily imply material things, material things are a personal gain. The desire for “love & companionship from family/friends, free time, and honing talents” is already inherent to humans, so material gains are an extra, added incentive. “Humans are social…only to profit for themselves.” The opposite is literally the entire theory behind capitalism and free markets (1). When people work in their own self-interest, this leads to overall better allocation of resources. “In a RBE people will inherently have better moral values” Pro does not justify this claim, and therefore, it is a bare assertion. Also, as morality is subjective, it is difficult to claim one set of moral values to be better than another. Electric Cars “Con is ignoring the fact…eliminate CO2 emissions” I didn’t ignore that “fact.” That “fact” was not stated previously in the debate. I have no responsibility to respond to a point that hasn’t been made. That being said, this wave of the magic wand is not necessarily a good thing. Renewable energies like solar power and wind power are not strong enough to actually be used in a manufacturing process where heat is necessary to bend the metal and power intensely heavy machinery. To use renewable energies would be to drastically slow the production process, and the supply could not possibly keep up with the demand. “Military industry…” It remains unproven that there would be less war in a global RBE. Access vs. Ownership “Those 8 hours…” Firstly, I’ve already shown that people lack the incentive to work 8 hours each day in a RBE. However, this creates the issue of time efficiency. How would one make sure that the cars are immediately sent to those who need the cars when the cars are needed? This would be an impossible feat to accomplish. The same goes with his other examples. It is an invasion of privacy, and an impossible task, to be constantly checking up on the people to determine what goods need to be transported from here to there, and is hugely time inefficient. “We cannot have exponential monetary economic growth in a finite resource planet.” This is a bare assertion. Also, with Pro’s statement about a flaw of a free market, he ignores the fact that people still sell goods, so the goods are still redistributed. Population “Technology will keep track…” I’ve already pointed out the error in this system, which is the actual transportation of goods to people when they need it so everybody is happy, which is impossible. Also, for the technology to keep track of all that, it would need a complete, invasive perspective into people’s lives. If you think that the NSA is invading our privacy (2), then this is that on a whole new level. Supply and demand I don’t need to explain the issues with the supply and demand system of a RBE again. Conclusion “Significantly more progress in a RBE than free market”- Negated, there is less total incentive to make progress. “100% renewable energy”- I’ve shown the inefficiency here to produce what is needed. “Latest tech…unlike planned obsolescence in a Free Market”-Negated, Pro did not respond my refutation in Round 4 “smart, efficient management/distribution of resources.” Negated, this represents incredible time inefficiencies and invasion of privacy. “Eliminates hunger/diseases/violence/crime.”-Pro did not justify this claim anywhere in the debate. This is a bare assertion. “Human potential…boring daily meaningless jobs”-Pro himself admitted in his very first argument that this technological unemployment is also shown in a free market, so this consequence would also be shown in a free market. This does not prove that a RBE is better than a free market, as is his burden of proof to do Unrefuted Arguments Supply and Demand will ask for more STEM and service workers regardless, but a free market, with its monetary incentive, encourages more workers. It would be detrimental to have less practical workers. Money is a valuable incentive, and removing it leaves less total incentive. People will take the path of least resistance. All arguments about service market. Overall higher resource cost in RBE. If there are any more, the voters will notice. In conclusion, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof to show that a RBE is better than a free market, and I have shown the money in a free market to be important, and the way it handles supply and demand to be superior, among other things. Thank you to Pro for a good debate, and thanks to the readers for their time. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...