To support the labor or conservative parties in the uk is foolish

ARGUMENTS: "Firstly, I don't think that corporations are necessarily bad, it more complicated than that. And secondly I agree that the government should have ties with organisations, though only to better the society."I understand now. "The fact that they avoid tax and have had a blind eye turned to loopholes, effects us. Tax is your money, government don't have any money, they only decide what you should pay for. Letting companies get away with tax evasion is favouring them over us. We go to jail for it."How is the government turning a blind eye to loopholes? Everyone taxed can have tax deductions. What evidence do you have that they are letting companies get away with tax evasions? This is libelous to say the very least. You are accusing the government of doing something illegal without any proof of it. "Bankers where actually paid bonuses when the rest of us where taking cuts. Not money to help them 'get back on their feet' to stabilise the economy, but to just boost their wealth. Does that sound like a government who's number 1 priority is the people?"I would seem you are referring to the bank bailout bank in 2008. The government just bailed out the banks. The banks hose to give money to their executives. I would agree with you if you are stating what the money should of been spent on should of been regulated. However, the banks could do what they wanted with the money within the current regulations. The government's priority when bailing out the banks was to save the economy from a hard crash. if the government didn't bailout the banks the economy would take longer to recover.[1]http://www.theguardian.com..."It's the type of ties, the actual relationship they currently have, that I'm talking about. My opponent is using definitions to make his case, the definition of a corporation doesn't depict the reality of it in today's society. Nor does just saying that ties are needed, dispute the fact that corporations in the UK/USA are being adhered to over the common folk."This may be a contradiction on the part of my opponent. He is stating the governments in the USA and UK adhere to corporations rather than common folk. This is false. Who are the largest employers in the UK and the USA? Is it not a corporation? Who provides the most economic stability in both countries? The answer to all of those questions is simply corporations. By helping corporations in dotay's time, you are inherently helping the common folk."Probably true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the argument. Corporations being productive doesnt account for our politicians neglecting their democratic agreement to adhere to them, over the betterment of the population. Not even for the greater good, for the bonuses don't help us in the future, or at all."And who determines what is the "betterment of the population?" Politicians must adhere to corporations in order to strengthen the economy. Unions benefit, employees benefit, and most importantly the consumers benefit from corporations. To not adhere to them would be economic suicide. "Yes we all know how it works on paper, socialism works on paper too. But in reality, greed has gone to far and caused the system to generally neglect the population in favour of the corporations. We all know this to be true. Lighbulbs aren't designed to break for your benifit. Did you know the top 0.01% of Americans are allowed to have as much wealth as about 45% of the rest us? So that's 360,000 people owning the same as 162 million people. It's hard to even grasp how unequal our society is and the only people to blame are the government. (Don't hate the player, hate the game). The gov't make the game."And, how is this relavent? Do that 45% of people work in the same workplace as the 0.01% of Americans you mention? Does that 45% own stock in the same place as that 0.01%? Do that 45% have the same type of job as the 0.01%? What evidence do you have that the 45% should be making the same amount as the 0.01%? The economy grows as certain companies grow. If people start purchasing Microsoft computers in mass while I work in my neighbor's ice cream truck, should I have the same amount of money as a Microsoft executive, employee, or stockholder? Probably not because the ice cream truck has a limited economies of scale which has not grown due to the lack of purchases. The 0.01% of Americans wealth and income is based on the consumer behavior of the other 99%."Capitalism works on paper, but in reality the profit margin has gone to far, and now capitalism doesn't work so much for the benifit of the consumer, but rather for profit of huge businesses. And, at the expense of the consumer, the employee and the environment. For its the massive corporations that are the problem. For they get so big they can engulf all competition and have a monopoly on the market. How does planned obselecence fit into your theory? It has been left out because this sort of thing is the hard reality of capitalism that is left out of the textbooks. For the textbooks where made by that capitalist society!"Capitalism speaks for itself. Are most of the Fortune 500 companies, Scandinavian or American[2]? Socialism has failed and will continue to fail. That is why a person would struggle name a single product that was exported globally from the Soviet Union or currently from any of the Scandinavian coutries. Yet most people easily know that McDonald's, Walmart, and Ford are all American companies. Why? Capitalism works efficiently and the evidence is clear to any person living in any large city on the globe. After all, Ford has been extremely successful in China[3].[2]http://fortune.com...[3]http://seekingalpha.com...