Capitalism is an Inherently Immoral System

I will begin by strengthening my case, before moving on to reinforce my rebuttal. A. opportunity I acknowledge the truth behind my opponent"s analogy. The analogy, however, poorly depicts this debate. Someone should not only make 500 million if their hard work and business success should have allowed them to make more. Simple math can be used to understand why people at the bottom of the ladder should favor capitalism. With greater competition in the economy, there is more wealth for businesses due to less taxation and more businesses survive. This allows for low unemployment and low levels of inflation. Getting a job in the US and moving up to the middle class is feasible. If the United States were socialist, people would not have even close to as many opportunities. Welfare programs offer a chance for the less fortunate, so no one is punished. B. Social Welfare My opponent"s attacks on this point were guided by the idea that heavy taxes and more spending and regulation on businesses is a good thing. There indeed is an extent to which the government must fund agencies, but my knowledge in macroeconomics will give me the upper hand on this point. To blindly say that the government increasing spending would surely help people is very irresponsible. When the government increases funding, it increases the demand for loanable funds. This increases interest rates, crowding out private investors. This is terrible for the economy. A capitalist economy generally has a large population. This means that the people thrive off capital flow. A capitalist government will not tax enough to harm investment to the breaking point. I want to clear up my point on healthcare. I was showing that there is a more diverse and less expensive market for healthcare in capitalism. Operations such as liposuction or hygienic operations are available, for example, due to competition. Cancer patients not being insured is awful. Regulations that ensure they can keep their insurance can coexist with capitalism. Therefore, my opponent"s arguments should my disregarded, as they do not directly deal with capitalism. C. Pure Morality As Winston Churchill once noted, "The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." What he meant by this is that in socialism, the corrupt politicians in power ensure that no one is truly successful. It is inexcusable to argue in favor of socialism. The very few at the bottom benefit because the rest of the population in giving up their wealth. I challenge my opponent to show how capitalism is bad for middle class families who do not have to pay huge taxes to support people on welfare. They pay a moderate amount for those people, and still have the opportunity to be successful. To go back and reinforce my rebuttal: 1. My opponent is not familiar with the concept of exponential growth. That CEO does not need to work a million times as hard. He just needs to work a lot harder, and money multiplies with investment and success. Explain to me how people like Warren Buffet should get taxed more when he already is part of the group that pays SO much more in taxes than the rest of the country. I understand it may seem unfair, but telling a man he needs to pay millions in taxes more than a man who may not work half as hard is unfair. The gap has indeed widened. However, it is not exponentially widening forever and ever. It is a natural process that beats out any viable alternative such as socialism. 2. Free market functions for profit. Businesses thrive off money. They often do quite greedy things. Maybe the free market wasn"t going to correct the problem for cancer patients. But my opponent fails to notice that even after the government corrects the problem, it is still capitalist. Capitalism does not strictly prevent necessary intervention. My opponent gave up the argument by saying that the government corrected it, although capitalism was still present. We do not need to free market to regulate if the government can do it itself. 3. Even if the government is composed by the people rather than corrupt and greedy individuals, that does not mean that everyone will be properly represented. There cannot by 200 million office-holders, only a much smaller amount. It will only help the lower class, at the expense of the middle and upper. Sarah Palin is wonderful.