Cooperative/socialist businesses(pro) versus Traditional/capitalist Businesses(con)

Overview Arguments 1. Impacts is the impact of your point that you are making on society. Impact Calculation shows both sides worlds going forward, For example I could say that an Impact of voting for the Pro is a less stable society with rampant unemployment. You could then argue that they either won't happen (low probability), would happen so far in the future that solutions could be made available (no time frame), or that the effect won't be as bad as I argue (Magnitude). In the final round we are then able to argue which world is better and it will be measurable, rather then abstract realities. 2. Which kind of cooperative are we talking about? All of them in general? I need to be able to know for this to be a clear debate. For you to know "there are different co-ops to satisfy different needs: Mutual Societies Building Societies Credit Unions Consumer Co-ops Producer (worker) Co-ops Another key distinguishing feature is to whom the co-op belongs. A co-op is sometimes owned collectively by its members, belonging to its members as a group. The group changes as members leave or new members join. Examples are the kibbutzim. "(. http://www.solhaam.org...) I will assume you are talking about producer co-ops, but for your next speech if you outline a different specific advocacy, make it clear. Producer Co-ops are worker owned. I assume you want to talk about Producer Co-ops because you cite the Mon dragon Corporation which is a Producer Co-op. Now for the real arguments, 1. Morality Throughout history it has almost been impossible for a person to change their economic class. If you were born in poverty you were resigned to poverty for your entire existence. When this revolutionary idea of a society where if you had a good idea, and some people skills, you could make a business and go from rags to riches. restricting a persons opportunity to achieve their best for what they do is unjust. If I work harder then my co-worker, I deserve more money then he. It is my due. Co-ops controlled by the worker is giving the worker jurisdiction in matters that he does not deserve to control. A group of workers that are lazy or un-knowledgeable could reduce or eliminate work incentives, or destroy the company. The only way a Producer Co-op can work is through having an executive area. As with any executive area, they can become corrupt and bend the pay rules into his/her favor. Also when a person chooses an employer they can quit to join that employers competitor. This creates a balance between workers rights and executive profit. A employer needs to pay an employee well so that the employee will not defect to his rival. Also, workers can unionize for better conditions. The employer knows more about how to keep the company afloat while the grunt worker does not and should not be given that responsibility. Impacts 1. Co-ops do not give each their due while a traditional business does. 2. Co-ops are more corruptible then traditional business. Contention 2. Co-ops harm the national economy. It takes a lot of initial capital to start a business, and many companies need reinvestment in order to survive the first few years. When you distribute profit evenly across a company you disable opportunities for new company creation. This is why the United States, the home of capitalism, has the highest GDP by far(13.77 Trillion), while sudo-communist China only has 9.24 trillion GDP despite having almost three times the population. American billionaires are able to take their profits to make more companies and more jobs for Americans as a result. Also adding to the correlation between GDP and large amount of free capital is that China is transitioning its government to be more of a free market institution. "China wants to overtake the U. S. to become the world"s biggest economy. That could happen in about 10 years if China can pull off the tricky transition from a government-run, centralized growth model to a more market-driven one where services and consumption play a greater part. " . https://www.bloomberg.com... Impact The amount of wealth a nation has is directly correlated to the amount of free capital the entrepreneur's (company creators) have. 3 The effect of a failed co-op are felt even more by the nation. In a traditional business economy, business have a low success rate. This is a good thing. In a capitalist society which businesses survive and those that don't are decided by the consumers. This means that the ones that do survive are custom made for the consumers buying the products at the end of the day. When the business's fail the initial investors (rich millionaires) foot the bill for the lost money. The economy has little to know noticeable after-effect of this failed company. In a co-op the initial invests are the workers, and when a co-op does fail the effects are more dramatic. Instead of just one bad financial year, former workers not only do not have a job any longer, but have lost any savings they have built up throughout their lifetimes. This can ruin lives and harm the about of goods that are bought which causes recessions. The government has to now go out of it's way to protect these companies, for example "The Spanish government provided a good deal of support, providing from 12.5 to 20 per cent of the capital required by a new co-operative, at a fixed low rate of interest. And there were tax concessions. Co-operatives paid no corporation tax for the first ten years, and half the standard rate after that. Further, the Mon dragon co-operatives were protected from foreign competition by import controls. " . http://www.solhaam.org... This has a few noticeable impacts, 1st a co-op takes money from tax payers to promote something the original tax payer who is not apart of the co-op will receive no benefit from. That is not just. 2nd- It proves how unstable even the biggest co-op is, and how this system is a ticking time-bomb for an economic recession that governments have to baby to in order to stop a crisis. 3rd- This effect will make it so that co-op will not be able to experiment in product because the cost of failure is too high. Jobs that could have been made because of some risky idea striking gold will never happen. This loss of inventiveness explains why the United States GDP is so high.