On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism

Introduction CON ignores economic concepts like scarcity, value ,and the wealth generating effects of trade that capitalism produces. CON’s trying to create an airplane through ignoring gravity. The result is disaster. Economic wealth is not just arbitrary since it leads to greater life satisfaction, life expectancy, and a reduction in crime. CON’s only argument is that capitalism is needed to get rid of these evil known as “work”. Of course, not only is this wrong that work is required for survival, but one has to question how a society can become so wealthy without work. Work is not so evil. Lack of material prevents us from doing stuff. I cannot debate unless there’s a debate site. The for-profit companies Juggle and Webcorp made this platform. Capitalism increases material and wages so basic needs and wants can be satisfied quicker. Con’s own arguments are internally inconsistent. Capitalism is wrong because people are not compensated fully for their wages, yet communism does not seek to compensate people for work. Arguments: Private Property CON believes “sharing” is the solution. However, with a population of 7 billion, this sharing mechanism is increasingly difficult, since I do not know where these people are nor would these people care enough about me to return it It also does not guarantee that I can use the object anytime I want. There are models of sharing in capitalism. Renting is just a form of sharing, with legal obligation to return it and keep it in good condition. Just the main idea that there is no monetary incentive to work is enough to reduce resources. CON asserts that capitalism is the cause of hunger without evidence, even though non-capitalist countries tend to have greater hunger problems[1]. Capitalism I demonstrated how CON is wrong about the nature of capitalism in round 2. Capitalism is simply volunteer exchange that benefits both parties. The Social-Calculation Problem CON again bases a system that ignores economic laws. People value things, under any given system. To value nothing is to be a machine devoid of any emotion, not even caring whether one lives or die, since that would be valuing one’s own life. This is absurd. CON’s own theory of “wage slavery” relies on the idea that labor has value. So CON has made no argument in solving the social calculation problem, Con just ignores it. There would of course be a need for trade, since that’s how stuff efficiently comes into existence. I previously demonstrated an example in which it takes millions of people that do not like one another, coming together to trade, base on market self-interest to make a pencil. Trying to stop this process from occurring would require massive amounts of enforcement resources as the restriction of drugs demonstrates. Of course, stating that everyone can become an entrepreneur is not the same as everyone will become one. Anybody can seek funding, since there are banks, venture capitalists, and other financial institutions for funding. And they might not be intelligent enough to come up with the ideas, but they have the opportunity to try, which is the point. These fine points though, ignoring my original point, that the profit and monetary system allows people to obtain the stuff that is valued and avoids major shortages and surpluses. Producers produce material for profit. Profit redirects producers to the stuff that needs to be created. If there’s a profit opportunity, producers will go for it. People pay for stuff they are willing to buy. If sources become scarcer, then prices rise and producers and consumers act accordingly (consumers consume less and producers try to find ways to produce more). Con states idea that “you will not survive if you are not useful” is not a true statement, as pointed out previously which CON ignores. A person in America can survive simply through begging. But there is welfare and other sources of income. Starvation is not a problem. Furthermore, the resolution is about “what’s better for mankind”, not “which system is moral”, since morality is highly subjective. Success of capitalism CON believes that I am making a correlation =/= causation fallacy. However, nations like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan adopted capitalistic measured when they were poor and became rich afterwards. This removes doubt that it was based on correlation alone. An economy exists no matter what system exists since an economy is simply the production, allocation, and distribution of resources. Stating that there is no economy in communism would mean there are no resources. But ignoring GDP, I also showed that these nations also have higher quality of life, greater life expectancy, and reduction of violent crimes. Tragedy of the commons The difference between “nobody” owning property and “everyone” owning property is semantically. This especially goes against what CON has previously stated about “abolishing property”. Any personal effort for improving is diffused. Overutilization leads to personal benefits, but social expenses. This is known as the “free-rider problem”[2] Imagine if everyone were a moderator on debate.org. It would be a disaster. Rebuttals: Communism- A primer North Korea has an economic system that did not run on a profit-system and did not have strong property rights, the same institutes CON advocates and which I demonstrated are needed. Authoritarianism is not the explanation due to Hong Kong’s success. I assume that CON did not have any “true” communists in mind, since CON did not point them out earlier. CON’s example shows a commune that only lasted 2 months. It did not even have enough time to implement policies. Nor does CON show that they were communist since indicators of no trade, abolishment of property, and no work-requirement are provied. CON provides no objective indicators of their success, while I have used GDP, higher life expectancies, and less crime as indictors of their success. CON also wants to believe that the success is due to technology, not capitalism. However, due to innovative incentives and providing mechanisms to maximize productive efficiency, it is capitalism’s doing. My pencil argument also demonstrates how trade leads to efficiency. It seems strange that hunter-gathering societies that existed for hundreds of thousands of years has not been as successful as implementing technology that states and capitalism have.Any person in their spare time can create art in a capitalist society. The difference is, a communist society will not be productive enough to create the resources (paint, paper, brushes) for this. Why would anybody work in paper production without montary incentives in a communist society? How would the millions of workers collaborate together to create paper which occurs through trade? Wage-Slavery In round 2, I have demonstrated the absurdity of the idea. It would mean that Hollywood actors are slaves. The wage theory rests on the two wrong ideas that: a) the price of a product is equal to the value of a product b) the value of a product is equal to the labor put into it. Instead, consumers buy a product because it is more valuable than its price. The value of labor is based on its productive, not the labor put into it. Need-Based Freedom I have dismantled this argument in Round 4. I have demonstrated that Need-based freedom is also wrong due to welfare. A communist nation cannot “guarantee” that a person will be able to do what he or she wants, because the resources to even do these are limited in nature. Fulfillment of Human Satisfaction Argument was rebutted in Round 4. Capitalism does in fact achieve human satisfaction. CON’s ideas that working hours have increased is wrong. Furthermore, people work more because they don’t mind working and want to obtain material wealth, not because they need to for survive. Increasing Innovative Incentive and Productive Efficiency: My argument in round 1 has not been rebutted. [1]http://www.heritage.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...