Profit within Capitalism is a result of the exploitation of the workers

1. Pro claims that the hypothesis that money has time value is the type of assertion that demands scientific proof. If that is true, then the resolution that is the subject of this debate is also in the class of assertions requiring scientific proof. Both are economic theories having to do with wealth. Pro, however, bears the burden of proof in the debate. He has presented no scientific proof of any kind, therefore if his demand for scientific proof is correct, then then he has lost the debate. Opportunity costs are observed in all societies at all times. One does A or B based upon which is perceived as the more valuable to the user. No one considers a fish caught a month from now to have the same value as a fish caught today. Pro claims that the fact that it is universally observed means that it cannot be falsified. By that standard, gravity is not a good theory because it is universally observed and cannot be shut off. By way of example, consider the proposition "People who do not know how to swim are likely to drown in rip currents." To prove this scientifically, we would need to perform an experiment in which equal numbers of swimmers and non-swimmers are thrown into rip currents under equal conditions of current strength, sea state, and water temperature. Then trained scientists would keep statistics on how many drown and perform a statistical test to see if the ability to swim proves significant. Without such science, all the evidence and logic must be discarded as merely anecdotal and unscientific. Right? No, we don't have to do the scientific experiment to come to a reasonable conclusion. "Self-evident" means there is ample evidence in everyday experience supported by sound logic to prove the point. Getting back to our current debate, there are virtually no examples that contradict the hypothesis that money has time value. People who do not know how to swim sometimes do not drown, but there are vanishing few examples of people not attributing time value to money. Moreover, Pro, bearing the burden of proof, must prove that money has no time value. If he does not prove that money has no time value, then it is not exploitation of workers to be compensated for the cost of capital. The way to falsify the theory of the time value of money is by contradiction and by offering a better explanation of what is observed. To start with, Pro must contradict or give alternate explanations for the examples. If money has no time value, why exactly won't Pro give me all his money right now with no promise of interest? Why is it that people prefer to go to the movies now rather than to postpone movie-going until they are retired? Pro offers no contradiction or alternative explanation, he merely argues that there is no scientific proof. His logical burden is the same as if he were trying to disprove the existence of gravity. Everyone sees it and depends upon it, so if in fact it doesn't exist, there must be some extraordinary alternative theory that provides a better explanation. It's no good to just claim that the universal evidence is all anecdotal and therefore unscientific. 2. Pro offers as a single counter-example that people will save, or at least they did so in ancient times, even if they do not receive interest. The presumption behind Pro's assertion is that there is no alternative. Sure, if there is no alternative of earning interest, then people will save without earning interest. Under those circumstances, they do whatever they can to avoid risk, because that is all they can do. If the situation is bad enough, people may even pay for security. That they pay for security contradicts Pro's theory that risk carries no value. Pro attempts to invalid Time Value by asserting that the value of risk may be greater. Operating under the constraint is no alternative is not a disproof. No one is going to put their retirement savings in a risky venture in the prospect that they may get their money back, but with no prospect for additional reward. The time value of money is universally true. In societies that did not have "money" in the modern sense, there were capital analogues like salt that demonstrated the principle. In societies that are basically hand-to-mouth survival, there is much less investment than in modern prosperous societies. Consequently the examples are not as widespread. Pro's vision has a measure of idealizing hand-to-mouth survival, which is a natural consequence of discounting investment. Pro invited me go read an ideological tract on "waiting theory," make up his argument from that, and then refute it. I'll decline that offer in favor of letting Pro make the arguments for himself. Pro says, "Con needs to explain why the Return for entrepreneurial risk should be infinite rather than something sane. Would 2 times the cost of the investment be good? How about 10? How about 100?" I am unaware of anyone who has ever gotten infinitely rich. As they get richer it attracts competition which naturally prevents that from happening. There is no need whatsoever for anyone to decide what an investment ought to be worth. Free markets determine the worth. How, for example, could we ever say what the skills of a singer, actress, or professional athlete are worth? Pro claims that all labor is of equal value. I think it is fair that they receive whatever people are willing to give them. Any attempt by society to impose some other rule is an unjustified infringement of freedom of both the artist and the customer. 3. I have nothing against anyone forming a cooperative. All of the legal mechanisms are in place to do that in our society. One may organize informally as a partnership or as a non-profit corporation. There are no legal barriers to the formation, so the interesting question is why there are so few cooperatives. The answer, I think, is that most people do not want to take the risk. Moreover, then cannot raise capital from anyone other than ideological zealots, and there are too few of those. There are some examples of cooperatives that succeed, but those are generally for limited purposes like agricultural marketing. The few examples of employee-run companies, United Airlines comes to mind, are generally disasters due to employees failing to invest adequately and subject themselves to the discipline required for good management. But I have no problem at all with Pro getting people to put all of the money at risk without any promise of a return on investment beyond labor costs. If Pro's theory were true, it would be working right now. It is not. I gave an example of a programmer inventing a successful computer game and later hiring a worker to help make the disks. What, I asked, would be a fair split of the earnings under Pro's theory? Should it be about a 50-50 split of the profits between the two employees? Pro failed to answer the question, preferring to blow ideological smoke as he avoided the issue. I think that the guy who came up with game deserves the profits in return for his idea and early investment. Pro's theory is that only the labor of production ought to count. If our hypothetical game company were very successful, there might be a couple dozen employees providing production labor. In that case the founders idea, investment, and risk taking are diluted to being worth almost nothing. Why does Pro think this is fair? Why would people undertake the risks and make the investment with the prospect of taking all the losses if the venture fails and getting 5% of the profits if it succeeds? Pro should provide straightforward answers to these questions. "Libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron. Free markets determine opportunity costs, the value of risk, and the value of special skills. the evidence abounds. Low rated bonds must pay more to attract investors. Treasury's offer low risk with low rewards. Pro's idea is that the free markets should not prevail.