Fiscal equality is unjust; therefore, capitalism is the best economic and political system.

Is it the last round already? I thank my opponent for this debate. My opponent may not have willingly conceded that fiscal equality is unjust; however, he has not argued against it. "I ask my opponent to elaborate on whether he means fiscal equality as in a basic living stipend or a minimum wage." Fiscal Equality is not referring to a minimum wage, but earning equal money. I had defined that in the first round. My opponent's problems with capitalism: 1. bias towards those who already have property 2. monopolies can exist 3. there are multiple classes 4. externalities 1. No one is born with property. All property is earned during one's lifetime from one's work. One's property never effects how much money is made through a job. Correction: -minute bias towards those born with property 2. Small business often succeeds in competition against large companies due to specialization, quality, or whatever is lacking from the current 'monopoly'. -Microsoft was once a large monopoly, but it now faces competition from many companies, including Apple. -Small business often competes with Wal-Mart. Examples include Randall's, Wallgreen's, Kroger's, etc. -Intel is hardly a monopoly. Several other companies compete in that industry. Correction: -monopolies are rare and temporary 3. My argument was that jobs with various wages are not only good, but also just, because input relates to output. When input has an effect on output, input is larger. Further, if ouput serves as a reward for input, then input is also just. My opponent has argued that companies would be scrambling to hire more people to take out the trash if many sanitation workers suddenly disappeared. The result would be an increase in the wage of sanitation workers in order to attract more to that job. When the demand for a job increases, the wage increases. The same goes for lawyers. When there are fewer lawyers, there is more demand for a lawyer and individual lawyers are paid more as a result. This wouldn't affect individual companies, though, because we aren't talking about companies right now. The answer to the inquiry about the lunatic that would spend twelve years of his life studying only English is that my opponent is simply wrong. A doctorate in English can lead to a proffessorship, which pays much higher than someone that spends four years in business school and may or may not become a rich entrepreneur. No correction. 4. Economic change is sometimes necessary to improve the local economy. Harder times are temporary and their effects improve the situation. An example would be a city that has most of its employees in a coal mine. The coal is mined and sold to other areas for a profit, while the employees are paid from this money. The pay is then circulated to stores and businesses for various needs. We're pretending that the mine runs dry of coal. Major unemployment occurs and the money that businesses need is lost. This is an 'external problem'. This is not a reason for the end of capitalism, though. The free market quickly adapts to this problem in one of the following example ways: oils is found and replaces coal as chief export; another coal mine is started nearby; the people move; a factory comes and produces things that were always sold to the people (there are many people that want a job and the company decides to move there for that reason); etc. Capitalism is flexible, so externalities only have a temporary effect. Correction: -externalities have a slight and temporary effect Capitalism's 'flaws': 1. minute bias towards those born with property 2. monopolies are rare and temporary 3. fiscal inequality 4. externalities have a slight and temporary effect The first flaw is minute. The second is temporary and minute. The third is actually a good and just thing. The fourth is temporary and minute. Now we can see how capitalism fairs when compared with the other systems. Regulated Capitalism- "flammable material in cars is a public safety concern, which is of the utmost importance to the state" As I have already proven, it is not a public safety issue because the market corrects these issues independently. The state does not have to take part in mandating safety when the market will do it on itself and the result will be more flexible. Polarized wages and monopolies cannot exist in a free market. Varying wages can occur, but extremely low wages cannot exist; otherwise, no one would want that job, forcing the wage for that job to increase in order to have someone take it. In addition, there is nothing wrong with someone making a lot of money. Further, a harmful monopoly cannot exist in a monopoly because if a company were to price gouge, competition would rise up and compete the prices down. Monopolies also create competitin with their existence, because there is an easier market to start a company in. In a regulated market, regulations can limit the flexibility of the market and keep it from adapting to problems it must face. As I have already argued, externalities cause temporary instabilities. A regulation cannot perfect the markets. The regulations can, however, limit the market's ability to adapt to such an instability. Regulated capitalism has all the same problems unregulated capitalism has, but the markets cannot adapt to problems and instabilities as well. Therefore, Regulated Capitalism is not as effective as Capitalism. Libertarian Marxism- Education and effort do not effect what one gets from the system because in marxism, there is no fiscal inequality. There is no competition in this system to drive innovation (because government companies are monopolies). Competition creates innovation because people strive to do things in a better way than eachother in order to dominate the market.The people benefit from this competition because lower prices, higher quality, and innovation are all used to compete. http://www.amd.com... Further, people all make the same under this system. As already decided, fiscal equality is unjust. Therefore, this system, which harbors on fiscal equality, is also unjust. People should be able to work their lives out in a manner in which they can be whatever they want and accomplish and invent and compete and be rich if they want. Libertarian Marxism's flaws, as I have already pointed out, are: - a lack of competition - a lack of individual motivation - fiscal equality These problems are much worse than the slight issues with capitalism. Therefore, I urge an affirmation. My opponent has not debated the justness of fiscal equality; therefore, he has conceded this point. I have proven that capitalism is the best economic and political system. You, the reader, must vote PRO. I thank the reader for reading this debate and my opponent for contending.