A Resource Based Economy is better than Free Markets

Money is an incentive Pro is literally arguing my point here. He says, “Of course they would be incentivized by money because those scientists still need to pay their bills.” Because of its implicit value, money is important. If money were removed, as it would be in a RBE, a significant incentive for work and progress would be removed. To remove a profit-driven system would be to change human nature My opponent commits a straw man fallacy here. I never argued that money was inherent to human nature. I said that being profit-driven was inherent to human nature. Being profit-driven is working towards having a net positive for yourself rather than a net neutral or a net negative. In the last round, Pro argued that we should not be profit driven, so I refuted that. While it may be true that humans haven’t always lived under a monetary system, it is also true that, in all of the situations provided, they would have been more prosperous with money and free market trade. When you say that nobody was paying cavemen money, that is true, but they were still bartering, and bartering is not nearly as effective as money. This is because of a “coincidence of wants.” In order to have a successful trade, both sides need to want the other persons good. Money, however, can be exchanged for just about any good, so therefore more purchases are made. Since money can be traded for almost anything, people work for it, and progress is made. The same is true with the tribe that was mentioned. In regards to the commune Pro’s father lived in, though people are content with how they were living, they would be better off with money and a market, which I’ve shown already. The biggest problem with Pro’s argument is the statement “Competition & free trade…when scarcity still existed.” Scarcity will always exist, and therefore, needs to be dealt with. This is because humans have an unlimited number of wants and desires, and there are limited resources available. A free market run by supply and demand represents the best way to deal with scarcity, since S&D tells the producers how much should be produced to minimize the amount of people who want the good but cannot get it. Without supply and demand, it is guesswork. I would also like to add that Pro conceded the point when he said that "Competition & free trade was useful because it was a fair way to distribute goods and services when scarcity still existed," and since scarcity exists, competition and free trade is effective. Why would someone do practical work if arts and sports are more enjoyable? Yes, there are many people who find STEM jobs enjoyable, but not enough people. I’ve already shown that with money available, more people are inclined to do practical work. With money, more people are incentivized towards that, and if in the future those are the only jobs available, like Pro is arguing, then people will have to take those jobs for money. Arts and sports require less actual work, less education, and less time. When the same benefit is gained regardless, people will take the path of least resistance. A free market would simply become more service based My opponent states, “Providing service to earn money to buy another service is just inefficient.” How is that inefficient? That would assume that all services are the exact same. Giving one identical service to another person so you can get the exact same service could be inefficient, but giving up your services so you can get different services is perfectly acceptable. Access vs. Ownership First, thank you for the clarification. I would also like to add that I’ve already shown that when money is involved, it is more effective than bartering. I fail to see how much less cars would be needed. People still need the transportation, and if everyone had access to that, then more people would access that. In regards to his reasons for not worrying about stealing/crime or scarcity, 1. I already addressed this. Scarcity will always exist because there is a limited amount of resources available, resources that can be produced, etc. 2. We have too large of a population for that to be determined, and for that to be true, much more would need to be produced. Supply and demand is the best way to determine how much should be produced, and 3. More people would have access to cars, so more people would take advantage of that. Also, if you are going to use statistics, please cite them. Electric Cars To only consider the car’s CO2 emissions would be foolish. When speaking about economies and environments, to not have a cost/benefit analysis would be foolish. To not examine both the implicit and explicit costs would be to short change society. While the car itself doesn’t produce more CO2 emissions, the total process, including the manufacturing, does. Money incentive extends resource longevity This doesn’t exactly sound different from how it would be in a free market. When you say that products will be designed, and I assume distributed, with the latest technology available, that either means that new technology will be distributed when technological advances are made, which is identical to the free market description you gave, or progress is halted at “the latest technology available.” Unrefuted or Conceded Arguments Positions that need extra training It would be detrimental to have less practical workers There would be less people working towards progress Money is a valuable incentive, and to remove it would be detrimental. Being profit-driven is a part of human nature (he argued against being money driven) If I missed any more, I’m sure the voters will notice. More progress is attained from a free market, and a RBE dramatically slows progress. In conclusion, my opponent still has not refuted many of my points, and his own refutations fail. A free market economy is better than a RBE, and my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof. I look forward to his response.