This picture is valid.

I believe he is arguing the image he posted was "morally valid". If not, he will no doubt correct me. In the meantime I will argue that it is not morally valid. However, before I reply to the points he raised in turn I would like to put matters into perspective. The Boston Consulting Group released a report last month, which read: "Less than 1 percent of all households were millionaires, but they owned about 38 percent of the world's wealth, up from about 36 percent in 2008. Households with more than $5 million in wealth represented 0.1 percent of households but owned about 21 percent, or $23 trillion, of the world's wealth, up from 19 percent in 2008. " [1] This is profoundly unjust because it is the workers that create all the wealth under capitalism. A truly fair society can only be constructed when the citizens collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need rather than ability to pay. This is known as socialism, but the vested interests of the rich will prevent any such system being introduced on a global scale, at least in the foreseeable future. Now, to address the points in question: 1. Capitalist transactions are mutually beneficial. They may be mutually beneficial to the parties involved but can often be harmful to third parties. For example, fish is the most traded food commodity in the world and the European Union is its biggest buyer. A major source of freshwater fish is Lake Victoria in sub-Saharan Africa. Because all fish stocks are finite, buyers from supermarket chains in Europe bid against each other for each catch landed at the fish markets. The prices the fish reach are so high that they exclude the possibility of local buyers making any purchases. The problem is so acute that even fish heads are unaffordable to the local population. [2,3] This means that while the Kenyan, Tanzanian and Ugandan fishing companies and the European supermarket chains benefit from these transactions, the already impoverished locals are deprived of a valuable source of protein. 2. Countries with more capitalist activity have higher standards of living. The statistics my opponent provided are very convincing when taken at face value and if all citizens within those countries with the highest economic freedom were equally wealthy they would have some validity. Unfortunately, though, the distribution of wealth in the richest countries is extremely uneven. For example, in terms of economic freedom, the UK ranks 11th in the world, yet in that country the most wealthy 10% of the population own over half the wealth. [4] To compound matters, the UK is a very expensive place to live but the wages are not that high. As it happens, I live in the London Borough of Southwark, which does have "posh" parts but is mainly deprived. Even after the recent crash in property values, the average property in the Southwark costs ï¿½725,562 (US$1,073,094). This is actually one of the cheaper boroughs: in Kensington and Chelsea the average property price is ï¿½2,606,354 ($3,857,665) [5]. The reason that property prices are so high is that the UK is a capitalist country and the prices are driven by demand. There is a limited stock of housing and the UK is home to a large number of high net worth individuals, from both home and abroad. Meanwhile, the median weekly full-time wage in the UK is just ï¿½489 ($724) or ï¿½25,428 ($37,636) p. a. [6], so you can see that it is impossible for ordinary people to afford anything more than the smallest and most basic of properties. The huge cost of accommodation in the UK means that the majority of people have very little disposable income and thus have lower standards of living than citizens of less "economically free" countries much further down the list. 3. The starvation problems in Africa, described in the picture as a result of capitalism, is actually a result of government corruption, government handouts, and government oppression. There is no doubt that corruption in Africa is rife and that poor governance is the main obstacle to the economic development of the continent. However, corruption and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. There are no communist countries in Africa and the four countries my opponent mentioned: Sudan, which has an interim government pending free elections [7]; Ethiopia, which is a federal republic [8]; Somalia, which has an interim government pending free elections [9] and The Republic of the Congo, which is a republic [10], all operate on the basis of capitalist principles. In conclusion, the millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa who live in poverty are dispossessed and disenfranchised through no fault of their own. They continue to live in poverty because of a combination of poor governance and their exploitation by capitalist corporations. Finally, the picture my opponent posted recognises that capitalism has led to the position we now find ourselves in: where the children of the privileged few are able to conspicuously over-consume; while the developing world supplies the natural resources to enable them to do so. I don't think the concept that one child should be allowed to endulge its greed at the expense of another child's health and well-being is a morally valid one, and I don't think you do either. Thank you. [1] . http://www.bcg.com... [2] . http://www.oecd.org... [3] . http://ipsnews.net... [4} . http://www.statistics.gov.uk... [5] . http://www.primelocation.com... [6] . http://www.statistics.gov.uk... [7] . http://www.state.gov... [8] . http://www.state.gov... [9] . http://www.state.gov... [10] . http://www.state.gov...