I have an economic policy that will facilitate economic progress

**I don't know if I missed anything, when I hit review it erased some of my stuff...***CapitalismThe pro starts off that the K doesn't do anything because of it's theoretical objection. Our alternative is to reject capitalist action in every instance–in this round, we are presented with the plan, and we say you should intellectually reject capitalism instead. We don’t need to win that this one round spillover to all of capitalism, simply that intellectual is the best mechanism to solve. The role of the ballot is to use the ballot as an opportunity to criticize the system of capitalism as good and here to stay. Our responsibility as intellectuals is to consistently attack this notion –only by continued relentless criticism and spreading of this belief can we delegitimize the system. Each incremental victory is a rupture within capital Kovel 02 (Joel, Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studes at Bard College, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? pg 223-224)Our alternative also says, and I quote: "This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else.It calls for totally replacing capitalism with a new civilization. This is an important distinction because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms as a system."This change of civilization overrides the genocidal regimes - fascism, Stalin's reign - and Zedong, we are a long term change rather than the short term alternatives proposed before. Besides, this is just liberal democratic blackmail.They say capitalism is self-correcting: it's not, i.e., ecosystem collapse is a market externality. "i"ek 2008 [Slavoj, Professor of philosophy and psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee, Switzerland, and writer for Abercrombie & Fitch Quarterly, In Defense of Lost Causes pp.421-424] They also say just because the United States got rid of slavery all of a sudden it's gone? Slavery still exists, and to answer that I'll give you a quote by Zizek: "It is the very success of capitalism (greater efficiency, raised productivity etc) which produces unemployment, rendering more and more workers useless: what should be a blessing – less hard labour needed – becomes a curse. Or, to put it differently, the chance to be exploited in a long-term job is now experienced as a privilege" View their turns sceptically - it's flawed by the logic of capital, and is probably just liberal blackmail. Meszaros 95 (Istavan, Prof. Emeritus @ U of Sussex, Beyond Capital: Towards a Theory of Transition, p 71) Capitalism doesn't "deter" all of extinction, they provide one specific form that I will discredit in my next part, my card talks about larger things than medication - socioeconomic, political, etc.Disease exists in the squo because of capitalism, and ensures any action against an outbreak will fail - "The environmental preconditions for the rapid inter-species evolution of influenza have spread far wider, including the developed world, in the wake of the rise of the intensive, factory-line industrialisation of poultry and pork production. The “viral food supply” has dramatically enlarged, especially in the “disease factories” of the massive slum peripheries, home to 1 billion people, in the poor world’s mega-cities." Shannon 2007, book reviewer of The Monster at our Door, by Mike Davis, professor of history at the University of California [Phil, “Bird Flu – the not-so-natural-disaster of our times,” Cultural Dissent, July 18, http://www.greenleft.org.au...]They also say the Meszaros card (extinction) has no warrant - but rather it talks about how capitalism's accumulative destruction of socioeconomic and politics. It talks about how two world wars were created by this process, and creates SELF-DESTRUCTION for the social reproductive system and humanity. The implications of this power of uncontrollability only secures capitalism's victory. - Our Herod evidence is incredible – rejection of the capitalist system is unprecedented – it deconstructs capitalism while replacing it with noncommodified relations and the debate round is a site for transformative pedagogy – voting con has the potential to replace capitalism with an ethos of democratic discussion Giroux 2005, phD, Carnegie-Mellon University; Chair Professorship at Penn State University [Henry, “Cultural Studies in Dark Times: Public Pedagogy and the Challenge of Neoliberalism,” Fast Capitalism 1.2 2005] (Richard Peet, prof of economics @ London School of Economics, 1975, “Inequality and Poverty: A Marxist-Geographic Theory”) Capitalism in the present fails- reform to eradicate poverty possible using social business- debaters key to future Yunas, Managing Director of Grameen Bank, co-winner of 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, ‘07 .” http://web.ebscohost.com... They say we don't do anything for education but if you read further into our Zizek and Daly ev, it says:"global liberal capitalism is one whose ‘universalism’ fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation."The developing world doesn't have much education, considering how much we've exploited them in the name of "Growth"CaseThey conceded my first part that all of these have a trade-off, proving they can't solve for any of the three. Means you presume con, because there's nothing that they do. They missed the BIG part of my infrastructure argument. Empirically, infrastructure development - including terms of low investment rates still displaces people. I will repeat that it says: " Building interstate highways through the middle of cities destroyed functioning neighborhoods, hastening suburban sprawl (and enabling both white flight and school re-segregation) [which will, of course, hurt education.]" The economist doesn't ever take into account what HAS happened and repeats the same mistake TWICE. It's also the creation of new tech that makes the older obsolete - and causes the states/companies to acquire resources THEY DON'T HAVE. I'm going to call into the question of their fiated solvency, since when has building infrastructure actually created jobs? Many people already hold these jobs. It doesn't give power to the people, part of the argument says that big, politically connected contractors give the little guy nothing to work with by taking his house.