Capitalism doesn't work.

Topic under debateThe debate is clearly entitled 'Capitalism doesn't work'. I make no suggestion that a communist system does work, hence it has no part in this debate. I should not have had to specify this in the first round."I will not change my argument because you are afraid of being associated with the USSR".Communism isn't part of your argument. The following is what you said you would be arguing:"I will be arguing as to why capitalism works and should be kept as the primary economic system in modern countries"...We have mutually picked communism as our "anti-capitalism" ideology. I made no mention of communism in the second round, It was not a mutual agreement andI will continue to refer to a non-capitalist society as a 'non-capitalist society'.Poverty-GDP relationship"Logic and common sense dictate that if GDP increases, production and output increase as well. As a result, the economy goes up and the people living under the poverty line decrease."OK, so my opponent saying that the greater the GNP the lesser the number of people under the poverty line. Yet my opponent goes on to say:"Capitalism rewards the smart. The dumb people stay at the bottom. Have you ever heard of a genius homeless person? No, because if they were a genius they wouldn't be homeless. It's a sink-or-swim system".Also; my opponent didn't suggest why the graph depicting the South African poverty line[1] didn't reflect the South African GDP rate[1].International RelationsAs I have already explained; communism is not what we are discussing. However, for arguments sake and for this point only, I shall assume communism to be the alternative to capitalism. "True Communism, which is what we are discussing, does not promote contact with other cultures. It is an isolationist worldview. Therefore, free trade, and communications are prohibited. It doesn't matter if England needs precious metal, no other communist country will give it to them"Unlike most animals we do not have razor sharp teeth, powerful muscles or venom. Instead we have powerful brains. Our powerful brains allow us to work together to survive and this is why a strong society is important. If Brian has a lawnmower but needs a pair of sheers and Dave has a pair of sheers but needs a lawnmower they will trade items as they trust each other. Con has not provided any evidence to suggest that this can't happen on an international scale other than that communism won't allow. I must reiterate that this debate has nothing to do with communism.War Prevention"Please quote my entire argument or don't quote it at all. By doing this, you are manipulating the facts. Not all countries have a vested interest in each other".PLEASE DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF SOMETHING I DID NOT DO! What I quoted was: "In a communist society, countries have no vested interests in each other". Then you went on to say: "However in a capitalist society, countries have a vested interest in each other. They are trading partners". You made no suggestion that only some countries have a vested interest in each other. "What did Iran and Afghanistan provide the U.S? Virtually nothing. There was a HUGE incentive to go to war. OIL. Oil makes money and money makes the whole capitalist system work like a charm. If the U.S had a serious vested interest in Iran, they would not have went to war. If they had a vested interest, the economy of the U.S would have dropped due to no goods being exported and imported from Iran and Afghanistan. Did it drop? No".What did you define as a vested interest?"However in a capitalist society, countries have a vested interest in each other. They are trading partners. For example, Japan provides the U.S with cars while the U.S provides them with weapons. It's a mutual agreement". So; if two countries have goods that they can trade with each other then they have a vested interest in each other. Well; Iraq and Afghanistan have oil and the US has commodities such as cotton and tobacco. Why is there no vested interest? I think the answer is: the US wanted CHEAP oil. It didn't matter that 100, 000 innoccent people had to die[2] as long as it 'makes the whole capitalist system work like a charm'.Rise to the top "Incorrect once again. Children under 18 account for 27% of homeless people[3]. On the other hand; many children start their lives with millionaire parents. They are two very different spots to start out from." Yes, that is true but can they rise to the top? Yes. Due to Capitalism, they can take out loans, go to nice universities, and do other stuff that allows them to rise. This would not happen in a Communist society. Also, I hate to say it but it is the parents’ fault that they are homeless. They had an opportunity to make Capitalism work for them but they screwed it up".As I have already explained: if children are born into debt then they can't take out a loan, especially in recessionary times. In a non-capitalist society people would not be prohibited from succeeding due to money issues. Education would be available to every-one and only the best would be provided. "I said and I quote "No, because if they were a genius they wouldn't be homeless." Apparently you and me have different definitions of genius. Today, any person can get a Bachelors degree. It is not a challenge. The smart people are the ones who make the system work for them. Not the ones who have a degree".A genius is some-one who can invent, create, do, or think of something that no-one else has invented, created, done or thought of before. Some-one who can make the capitalist work for themselves is lucky. In fact; you reiterate this: "Also, it's clear that Capitalism doesn't work for some people. No matter how hard they try. However, from a Utilitarian viewpoint, a 5% unemployment rate is amazing because 95% of the people are employed".If we said that just 5% of the population (~6.5 billion) is unemployed. That works out at 325 million people. If each of those people had one child that doubles the number affected. Of course the actual unemployment figure is closer to 9%[1] in the US but, according to my opponent, 5% of the population in unemployment is the acceptable figure for the number of people that 'capitalism doesn't work for'.Incentive"Emotions have no place in a debate other than LD. If you gave most people a choice of whether to make 20 toys or 1 toy and get the same pay, most people will choose to make less for the same amount of money".Choosing to make one toy instead of twenty involves two emotions: they're called laziness and thoughtlessness. Emotion plays a large part in our lives; that's why we both used emotion as an example in our debates."And your "love and care" comment is obsolete. Many if not all animals care for their young in the way that we care for our own children. Just because we believe that we are smarter and more advanced than them, doesn't mean that they don't have the same feelings and emotions as us".Yes; animals care for their young -- they have to for their young to survive but they don't care about each other. You teach a dog to behave by feeding it. You teach a baby more than just behaviour, though. You teach them to care and love by giving them care and love, not by feeding them."$2 trillion dollars are produced each year. Therefore, the current billionaires do not need to lose money".I quote from that same page: "This money is being given to US financial institutions in the hope that they will lend it and thus stimulate economic activity". This is a bail-out in disguise. The financial institutions probably won't lend the money out (if Ireland's anything to go by) but the extra money will cause inflation, driving the price of goods and services up. So the majority of people will have no more money but they will have to spend more on goods and services.ConclusionSo: capitalism promotes war, increases poverty, and gives unequal chances. Capitalism isn't going to last for much longer.See comments for sources.