A Resource Based Economy is better than Free Markets

I will first try to refute my opponent’s arguments. This will be difficult, as he just stated pieces of information rather than connecting them to the resolution and making arguments, but I will still do my best to try to understand what he’s getting at. Technological Unemployment “This will be the Achilles heel of a Free Market Economy. Regardless if we have a Free Market or a Resource Based Economy, Technological Unemployment is inevitable.” My opponent claims that technological unemployment is inevitable in both economic systems, but does not give any reason why it is only bad in a free market economy. I would actually argue that this isn’t exactly a problem for a free market economy. In fact, it is a sign of progress. Sure, some of the menial jobs are going to be eliminated. However, that just means that society will have lower demand for workers performing monotonous tasks. Simply put, the market will simply end up demanding more workers in the services industry, where humans are more effective, rather than the goods industry, where machines will be more effective. However, in a resource based economy, there is no incentive to work (which will be explained more later), and in a free market economy, there is still the monetary incentive to work in the service industry, which means that there will still be a large amount of workers performing services. The free market is more effective at handling technological unemployment for those reasons. My opponent then just goes on to talk about how machines are replacing humans in various fields without really making any arguments connecting his statements to the resolution. I am under no obligation to address facts that have no arguments associated with them. Case for Con Money is an Incentive towards Progress In a resource-based economy, there is little to no human progress. When everybody simply gets what they need, what motivation is there to succeed? If the person could simply sit around and do nothing, or that person could cure cancer and get the same benefits as sitting around and doing nothing, why should he cure cancer? He get’s no benefit from it. He therefore has little to no motivation to cure cancer. However, money solves this problem. The person who cures cancer will be able to receive massive monetary benefit, and people are trying to cure cancer for that exact reason. My opponent might end up arguing that doctors should do this out of pure altruism. However, if altruism is the only reason, then the amount of brilliant minds searching for the cure would be massively reduced. When the amount of people searching for the cure is reduced, the amount of time to find the cure will be raised, thus slowing human progress. Also, in a world where people are simply given what they need, there are other people who still have to produce. My opponent spoke of how people will no longer be working in labor, and how machines will replace them. However, there are some fundamental problems with this. Though the machines will be working, people will still be necessary to build the machines, distribute them, repair them, change their programming if necessary, handle the more intricate work, and other provide services people desire. While Pro has argued that eventually machines will be able to design and maintain themselves, humans are required to advance them to this point. While I have already addressed this, there is the problem with motivation. Also, human made goods will still be highly valued. For example, hand made guitars are perceived to be of much higher value, and for that reason, are purchased at a much higher price. The point is, people will still be necessary. Why, though would a person do this work if they don’t receive extra benefit from the work? By definition, a resource based economy would give everyone exactly what they need, and nothing more. They would have no incentive to be productive. The elimination of a monetary system and the transition to an economy based purely on altruism would be catastrophic, and would drastically reduce productivity and slow progress. Monetary Incentive allows for Higher Production It has already been established that without money, progress is severely slowed, almost to the point of being stopped. However, when the monetary incentive is in place, people are constantly trying to become more cost and time efficient. This means that, as time goes on, goods will be able to be produced at a lower and lower resource cost, meaning that the resources will last longer. When progress is slowed as dramatically as removing the monetary incentive, as would be done in a resource based economy, would do, then the resources will last a shorter amount of time than otherwise, and humanity will be resource poor sooner. The Arts In a resource based economy, people will only be provided with what is necessary to survive. However, the arts are not necessary to survive. People would need to acquire the art materials, but since they will have been conditioned to the laziness associated with not having to work, they will not go out of their way to mix the paints, build the guitars, construct the pencils, etc. If humanity was switched to a resource based economy, a large-scale culture shock would be suffered, as art would not be as readily produced. Overall Economic Wellbeing If every person were simply given what they needed to survive, then there would still need to be producers for the goods and services required. With no incentive to produce, there would be far less goods and services produced, meaning that far less goods and services will be distributed, meaning that the overall economy would be worse off. Conclusion My opponent has yet to actually make an argument, instead opting to simply state facts, so he isn't fulfilling his burden of proof. I look forward to my opponent's response.