Capitalism

IntroductionIn order to negate the resolution, all that I have to show is that there are reasons not to favour capitalism - both in terms of positive alternatives to it (health care and externalities), as well as refuting the basis for it. While both Pro and I agree that a broad market framework is best to allocate resources, I contend that this occur in a mixed economy, in order to be feasible and to deal with the failures of the market when it comes to specific areas.Case for CapitalismHuman natureI agree with Pro that in the main, people should be able to pursue their own interest, but see absolutely no reason to see why this cannot be incorporated into a social democratic system. It seems to me that Pro is essentially arguing for a point we both generally agree, and which is not exclusive to a capitalist system, nor a social democratic one. In fact, given my arguments for a mixed economic system - the fact that it is feasible (while pure capitalism, as my opponent admits, is not), as well as reliance one has on government regulation to prevent negative externalities which threaten one to pursue these interests. Pro has given no reason to even suggest why this point is remotely specific to a capitalist system, and, I would suggest, must do so in order to argue for capitalism on the basis of it.Productivity and TaxThe first thing to say is Pro quoting the abstract of an article does not constitute an argument. Even if true, Pro has to use the facts and figures provided by the research and explain how these correlations = causation. He has not even attempted to do this, and so one could disregard Pro’s case immediately. Nevertheless, it is true that Americans do work more hours, but are they more productive? According to estimates from 2010, productivity measured per worker per hour is much higher in Norway, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - all of which are European countries (1). Also, the difference between French and US tax rates are negligible - a couple of percent lower in France with regards to corporate tax and a slightly higher income tax rate, so it’s questionable how accurate this analysis is (2). Lastly, much of the welfare apparatus in countries like Britain are actually used to incentives longer working hours, through Working Tax credits, for example.In order to even make an argument here, Pro has to show that the differences in working hours are caused by tax increases, that these differences are significant, and that one should seek to change them. He has barely even made an argument in terms of any of these factors, let alone provided a comprehensive case for capitalism in most areas.Case against capitalismA1 UtopianismAs readers will recall, I gave some reasons to think that capitalism was an unrealisable goal:1. Capitalism exists nowhere in the world, and all best approximations to a capitalist model have extensive state involvement in some way.2. It could not exist, nor (if it ever did exist) could it be sustainable because it would rely on unachievable assumptions.Given these 2 points, I argued that on pragmatic reasons alone, the mixed economy was the only feasible solution, and capitalism was not a viable alternative because it could never exist in reality.Astonishingly, Pro agrees with 1 and 2, saying this:“Pure capitalism may never be a reality . . . (this) does not do anything to rebut the notion that capitalism is superior to all other economic systems in practise.”So Pro argues for capitalism, but is willing to concede that it may never exist. Now given that Pro criticises Communism for example because it has unrealistic interpretations with regard to human nature, and then concedes capitalism to be just as “assumptive” when trying to deal with complex societal problems is baffling to say the least. Secondly, Pro opines that neoclassical economics has shed much of the assumptions which I suggested, but this is exactly my point - the assumptions are dumped because they are inapplicable in the real world - they are utopian. Also, the level of assumptions of neoclassical economics is likewise “insufficiently unrealistic (and) largely based on outdated views of competition and entrepreneurial activity”, because things like market uncertainties cannot be calibrated, and one cannot act rationally (or even sufficiently rationally) with poor information, or when trying to predict things which are very volatile, such as consumer taste or changes in technology (3). Lastly, Pro’s comments about prices is again just begging the question. The price mechanism can only be effective if one has relevant information. Demand, for example, will not fluctuate at all, no matter what the price does, if people don’t know it is fluctuating. Price elasticity assumes a level of knowledge of market information, but given the huge problems with this, again, we are left to conclude that while capitalism may or may not be desirable in theory, in practise, it is at least problematic. This point has implications later on as well, and it is simply that capitalism, like certain forms of communism doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, as one simply cannot employ it as an economic system.A2 -Health careThe very first thing we see here from Pro is an application of A1. Pro states that US health care is not market-based. Of course it isn’t, it is broadly market-based, because as per A1, market-based health care, such as capitalism demands, doesn’t exist anywhere. Pro literally fails to make a case here, with his whole argument based upon claims with no sources, no empirical data and no theoretical framework. There is simply nothing to rebut. Pro tries then tries a different strategy, criticising the NHS on the grounds that it offers “lower care”, and although he provides yet more unsourced figures (his last source links to a page not found), he did not deal with my empirical data, nor did he even address the claim that economies of scale and sharing information provide a theoretical framework for such a system. Instead, he hopes to combat this by providing figures seemingly from nowhere.I argued that universal health care was better overall, and Pro fails to respond this, instead citing one example in health with the US performs well - cancer. While it may be the case that the US has better survival rates for cancer than Britain, this may be because it spends almost double, in terms of GDP (4). Also, the fact that one could look through this or that illness is irrelevant - the fact is that the only sourced empirical data we have to go on in this debate is that the UK health care system is better overall than its American counterpart - with better results across the board (in terms of life expectancy and so on), is more affordable, covers more people, employs around 1 million people and is indicative of an overall trend, like I sourced and stated before. Indeed, the WHO report classes France as the best health care system in the world, which is a universal health care system run by the government through a compulsory insurance scheme (5).Due to the undeniable trend of better, cheaper, affordable health care being provided in social democratic systems all over the world, it seems not only is this an area where the government have a moral obligation to provide on the basis of need, and empirical justification to act on this imperative.A3 -ExternalitiesNo response. Extend all arguments.ConclusionPro has failed to provide a compelling case for capitalism, which alone negates the resolution, and does not deny any of the arguments against capitalism, which he also must do.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_hour_worked2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. Industrial Organisation, Lipczynski et al, 2nd ed, Prentice Hall, Edinburgh. (p73-75)4. http://news.bbc.co.uk...5. http://www.who.int...