Capitalism in practice does more good than harm

What are "advantages"? Advantages and disadvantages do not exist independent of comparison to something. "Advantage" is defined as "1 : superiority of position or condition 2 : a factor or circumstance of benefit to its possessor " http://www.merriam-webster.com... Capitalism has advantages either with respect to all alternative economic systems or to not having capitalism. Con's specified that we are talking only about capitalism as practiced, and only as proved by evidence. We cannot compare capitalism as practiced to systems not practiced, because there is no way to know how theoretical systems would actually be realized. For example, capitalism could be claimed to have disadvantages compared to rule by a benevolent omnipotent deity who materializes and rules the earth, but that comparison is ruled out as it never happened and we cannot know how it would work in practice. The advantages of capitalism exist with respect to all other systems, as given by data on the 208 countries of the world and history of past systems, and they exist with respect to all systems precluded by the definition of capitalism. 1. Ellen Wood is a Marxist and is not accepted by anyone other than Marxist ideologues=s as an authority on economics. Moreover, her opinion is only an abstract theory. Con insisted that evidence must be related to capitalism as actually practiced. Con must therefore show that in practice that Wood's claim that capitalism always produces a reduced quality of life is supported by observed data. I have shown the opposite, giving data derived from 208 countries and also all the examples known of capitalism versus non-capitalism on equal terms, such as East v. West Germany and North v. South Korea. Con must show that, for example, North has less exploitation, less poverty, less homelessness, and a better environment than South Korea, as Wood claims it must. The evidence that India improved due to capitalism is that nothing else changed in India except the economic system. The specific policies and their effects are detailed in Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree." A good example is the state-owned auto manufacturer Hindustani Motors that given all market protection and all the advantages of socialism. It started about equal with Toyota, that was put under all the duress of free markets. What happened is typical of the fate of state-owned enterprises. Con claims "Just because there is no current good system to achieve equality doesn't mean none exists, ..." It's true that a benevolent deity might descend at any moment. However, this debate can only compare capitalism as it exists to alternatives as they have existed. That's because Con insisted that comparison be based on evidence, and there is no evidence supporting dreamy theories. Con claims, "Equality must be a goal to ensure that EVERYBODY gets their livelihood improved. Capitalistic growth FAILS to provide equality." But Con did not address my contrary argument at all, nor did he offer any evidence that his claim is true. Specifically, Con must argue why having everyone dirt poor is better than having some people moderately wealthy and others very wealthy. Why is the equality of poverty supposed to be better? 2. Where is Con's proof that "Capitalism will eventually collapse into a "pure" system." Where has it ever happened? Where is there an arguably irresistible trend to pure capitalism? The trends are the opposite. As societies get rich, they tend to want to spend money on wasteful state-run enterprises that redistribute wealth. That's certainly the case in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Con again quotes a Marxist theorist accepted by no one other than Marxists as an authority, and provides no real-world evidence. Con then quotes Harman, a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party, that markets are insane. In fact, it is perfectly sane and logical that prices adjust to the point where supply meets demand. What's insane are ideological ranting that are unrelated to what happens in the real world. 3. Con says, "Capitalism is not the same as democracy." Yes, that confirms my advantage (2). Democracy is a political system while capitalism is an economic system. People succeed economically under capitalism because they bring useful goods and services to the market at better price or better quality than their competitors. The democracy is by consumers choosing how to spend their money. I have shown that capitalist free markets work with both democratic and undemocratic forms of government. Con again only offers Marxist theory. I provided data that shows that merit is rewarded under capitalism, and Con offered no evidence to the contrary. Con again claims that capitalism offers no advantage over a materializing benevolent deity, or whatever other fairy tale an ideologue dreams up. That defies Con's condition that the debate must be based upon evidence. Con must prove that what ideologues theorize actually happens. For example, if it is true that capitalism causes war then capitalist countries ought to be continually warring all the time. Having allegedly war-prone capitalists on both sides ought to much more dangerous than one side. But history is the opposite. Europe, now capitalist, is more peaceful than ever in its past. 4. If follows from the definition of capitalism that it is the only system that allows property rights. Property rights are fundamental human rights. Therefore I claim that respecting human rights is an advantage of capitalism. Con argues that I cannot use the definition of capitalism to argue the advantages of capitalism. He makes the claim that "not capitalism" cannot be compared to "capitalism." That's nonsense. The human rights advantage is inherent in the definition. 5. I offered significant examples of capitalism leading to democracy. It is logical that people experiencing economic freedom will come to want other freedoms as well. Con again trots out Marxist theory that capitalism leads to authoritarian rule. He claims that Stalinism was the result of a failure of capitalism to provide "minimally satisfactory lives." When was there capitalism in Russia? The Czars were authoritarian depots imposing central rule. Stalinism was a product of the Communist takeover, not capitalist. Moreover, recent history shows clearly that capitalism provides more wealth to "the masses" than any alternative. 6. I gave two examples of economic laws, the time value of money and the laws of supply and demand. They are fundamental to every modern text, like Samuelson's authoritative "Economics" http://www.amazon.com... Muslims are forbidden from charging upfront interest, so they have other ways to recognize the time value of money: "Modern banking and finance are based on the concept of money's time value. This value is considered a basic investment concept and also a basic element of conventional financial theory and, in return, is fully compatible with the conceptual system of economic science." Ahmad and Hassan: The Time Value of Money http://i-epistemology.net... Throughout, Con has not cited a single observable fact. In the course of presenting the advantages, I have refuted all of Con's claimed disadvantages with facts. Con only claim as evidence Marxist theory as espoused by Marxist ideologues. That is no more evidence than "Hansel and Gretel" is evidence for the existence of witches. Con cites Marxist theory that confidently predicts that North Korea must be in every way a better place than South Korea. But is it?