I have an economic policy that will facilitate economic progress

This debate has come down to the perspective of two prevalent issues; 1) My economic policy consisting of low federal interest rates and investment in education and infrastructure; and 2) the capitalism "kritik". On the first issue, I believe it is accepted in this round that my plan will in fact facilitate growth because the con has advocated a cap K to dissuade the growth. Furthermore, the con assumes that "cap" provides solvency for education and infrastructural investments. This is totally missing the boat: the aim of the projects was not solvency on the issues of education and infrastructure but to promote econ. growth. The con poses the following concerns in terms of infrastructure investment -relocation of suburban communities -infrastructure investment is obsolete because new technologies usurp old ones Premise 1: The relocation of suburban communities is not a bad thing. As stated by Balaji Viswanathan, "When you put a road through a backward area, you bring them close to employment options, markets and better healthcare. Infrastructure is the key to wiping poverty. " The rebuttal as stated by the con ,"[ Balaji] doesn't ever take into account what HAS happened and repeats the same mistake TWICE. " accentuates the negatives but blatantly denies the positives. Beyond urban sprawl, as I stated in my opening arguments, America needs infrastructural investments. " According to The Washington Post :"The gloomy bit: America's infrastructure only warrants a D+, with the ASCE estimating that we'll need to spend an extra $1.6 trillion between now and 2020 to patch things up. " Infrastructure investments are not a want but a need. On one side of the coin you have a dilapidated infrastructural system that holds america back from competing on the global scale; on the other hand, you have an infrastructural system that promotes efficiency and thus econ growth. Suburbanites pale in comparison to national well being and thus preference should be given to infrastructure investment. Premise 2: Infrastructure investment is obsolete because new technologies usurp old ones This argument is ironic given the cap k. If we refuse to invest in infrastructure to give way to new technologies, then the con automatically links into their own k. Let me explain it like this, new technologies lead to innovation, innovation leads to progress, and progress leads to growth. So, either the con advocates for new technologies or the con advocates for the cap k. These promotions are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Henceforth, if we refuse to invest in infrastructure, then I surmise we will invest in our own economic deterioration. We must enhance our national infrastructure period. On to the K. Again the con fails to supply a feasible alternative. Rather than provide a concrete substitute for capitalism,like socialism, communism, or fascism, they advocate an ambiguous policy which "replac[es] capitalism with a new civilization"; and "Our alternative is to reject capitalist action in every instance. .. we say you should intellectually reject capitalism instead. ." What does this intellectual rejection of capitalism look like. Should we starve ourselves just to boycott capitalist practices? Or what if every time we went to the store we picked up an item just to put it down? Anyway, this alternative is much worse than capitalism and should thus be rejected. Furthermore, the idea that "Disease exists in the squo because of capitalism" is outright false. This advocacy would suggest that an eradication of capitalism would alleviate all diseases. However, as I stated before, capitalism promotes medicinal progress. Extend Stossel '15: "Trying to take money out of medicine will deprive us of the very innovation we want. Drug companies are the ones with the resources to create cures. It's insane to limit their access to medical research. Tom just wrote a book about this titled Pharmaphobia: How the Conflict of Interest Myth Undermines American Medical Innovation. One way that the anti-capitalists want to purify medicine is by urging people not to trust scientists who consult for industry and to ban them from government advisory panels and scientific studies. But it's usually the smartest researchers who are hired by industry. Banning them means banning the most qualified scientists. " On to the slavery argument, your Zizek quote mentions nothing about slavery, rather it is an observation about unemployment, which will be alleviated with an overall increase in economic growth. My plan will facilitate growth, low interest rates create an incentive for consumers to spend, infrastructure increases economic efficiency, and education produces a more innovative labor force. Combine these factors and you have an atmosphere that gleams with the potential for economic growth and development. Finally in summation, let me compare the pro vs. the con interpretations of capitalism. In my world, capitalism provides innovation and creativity. Individuals are inspired to work hard and ingenuity is awarded. Although there is poverty, bias, and corruption sprinkled within the inherent structure of the system, capitalism provides a way for the poor to move forward, the oppressed to find their voice, and the corrupt to be displaced by men of good will. In the other world, a "intellectual rejection of capitalism" leaves people dazed and confused. Creativity and innovation become stifled because ingenuity is seen as a means to "[refortify] the [ideas] of slavery and genocide. " Strides in medicine are squandered and poverty becomes an inescapable abyss. The choice is simple, choose my capitalist plan because it not only facilitates growth but also provides the freedom for individuals to pursue their passions. The alternative provides a stark and bleak future with little hope for a better life. Great Round, I thoroughly enjoyed it!