Capitalism

1) Re: Capitalism Works Indeed the U.S. is considered the richest country based on 2009 stats from the International Monetary Fund considering GDP [3]. So, Pro's point here is that the U.S. is successful and thus whatever we're doing must be right and helpful. While I pointed out that tariffs helped sustained the American economy post Industrial Revolution, Pro asserts that this is irrelevant considering our economy expanded the most in the latter half of the 20th century after the U.S. minimized tariffs. However, during this period, the U.S. was undergoing its own economic expansion as corporate managers took over the state-coordinated wartime economy. Marshall Plan aid was tied to the U.S. purchase of agricultural products, which is part of the reason why the U.S. share in world trade with grains increased by about 50 percent by 1950 while in places like Argentina it declined by 2/3. Additionally, U.S. Food for Peace aid was used to subsidize U.S. agribusiness and undercut foreign products among other measures. Washington has used its power to bar independent development elsewhere and eliminate foreign competition. For instance, Kenya's textile industry collapsed in 1994 when the Clinton Administration imposed a quota, barring the path to development that has been followed by every industrial country. After WWII President Truman said the government should use the word "security" over "subsidy" to make them look better for choosing to interfere, and keep innumerable businesses afloat (as the U.S. thought the economy would head back to a Depression without interference) - most notably that of Boeing and other commercial aircraft. Even the alleged hero of the market - Ronald Reagan - was not a capitalist. According to Foreign Affairs, the Reagan administration presided over the greatest swing of protectionism since the 1930s, and without these and other extreme measures of market interference, it is doubtful that the steel, automotive, and machine tool industries would have been able to survive Japanese competition or forge ahead with emerging technologies [1]. This negates Pro's statement that I have failed to introduce enough evidence to substantively differentiate the US's success beyond the 1940s. In short, our policies have been FAR from capitalistic. Pro tries to discredit tariffs (which have proven to be instrumental in economic development) but yet there are far more examples throughout our nation's history - including post 1940s - which prove my point: that market intervention has been useful regarding the U.S. and other global economies. For instance, after Japan's stock and real estate bubble burst in the early 1990s, their economy staggered along for half a decade until the government finally stepped in to restructure the financial sector. During the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, state action was crucial to rebuilding moribund banks and companies [4]. History from all over the globe shows that government intervention can be useful if not necessary in sustaining a successful economy. 2) Re: Capitalism and Production Pro says, "Her entire argument seems to be under the paradigm that socialism can be capitalistic, and therefore capitalism is not necessary for people to capitalize financially." Obviously this is a straw-manned argument; where did I ever say that socialism can be capitalistic, or espouse socialism at all in the first place? What I did say is that there is still competition under socialism. Therefore Pro's argument that capitalism is necessary for production does not hold any weight, as he has given absolutely no proof of this claim. In the last round he writes, "Socialism does not inherently reward the successful with wealth unless you add capitalist elements to it." Pro seems to misconceive capitalism; there is a difference between capitalism and competition. Capitalism merely refers to completely private means of production with no government interference in the free market. I have stated that you don't need capitalism for competition, and that you can have successful production without capitalism. Pro has not proven otherwise. 3) Re: Market Interference Here I misunderstood Pro's argument -- He was saying that without capitalism, businesses can afford to be sloppy and thus just be bailed out by the government if they fail. I pointed out that bailouts were anti-capitalistic which he noted was in agreement with his argument. So, I suppose my point was that regulation could be a positive thing (and is a blatant violation of capitalism), but bailouts are not mandatory or relevant in a system just because it's not purely capitalistic. For instance, had safety mandates been issued to BP before the spill, the regulation may have prevented the disaster. However even if it hadn't, that anti-capitalistic policy of enforcing regulation does not mandate that the government or tax payers have any responsibility to BP whatsoever even post-spill. In response to my point that corporations make decisions that affect millions of people and the planet, Pro asks who instead should be making these decisions and why they are more capable. My point was that profit should not be the primary factor in decision making over the welfare of the people, and that people's health and other rights should be considered. Even if I agreed that corporations should be responsible for their own choices, it does not mean that profit should be the sole concern which is indeed the case under capitalism. In fact, in the U.S. we have business laws that literally mandate profit as the number one concern of employees for their shareholders. Now I'll turn the table and ask Pro why profit should be the sole motivating factor and is more important than the lives and health of those affected by corporations, with little to no say in the impact on their livelihoods. Pro continues, "Safety is a variable that the free market takes into account; it was simply removed by the cap on liability and gave [BP] a parachute in case something went wrong." Safety is a variable considerable in the free market, but it is not guaranteed or ensured. In a situation where a mistake can devastate not just a few lives but many - including the environment and many businesses - then those who could be affected should be protected or have a say in the going-ons of corporate acts that could destroy them. Without government regulations, BP would not have been liable for anything. Even if BP then went under and failed post-spill, it would mean their demise but not rectify the damage caused to those harmed by BP in the first place. Next Pro tries to correlate inefficiency and a lack of capitalism. This refers to the #2 argument that capitalism is necessary for production (which my opponent has not proven). He also provides an example regarding Japanese products saying that a tariff on Japanese goods would not ensure that U.S. products were successful. You'll note that (a) I've already pointed out tariffs are just one successful and useful means of intervention with great benefits but no guarantees - (b) he's using an example regarding a nation whose success relied on intervention in the first place. Next, Pro discusses how the private sector could easily take on all markets in which government tends to invest. In addition to the handful of discrepancies that would occur (i.e. a more uneducated society, for one), this doesn't address certain exploitations and divisions I mentioned in which people are inherently and necessarily kept down. It also ignores that public intervention can be useful or necessary. Finally, Pro concludes by pointing out that life's not fair and as such certain people will simply have more power over others. I will address this argument and others in the next round (outta characters). [3] http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com... [4] TIME magazine - 11/25/08