Facist economics vs Capitalist economics

Misspelling a couple words and making mistakes is one thing, it"s a whole nother thing to drop out whole arguments. My opponent chooses to avoid too many points and focuses on a few points I addressed. After All a few misspelled words can still provide arguments but not addressing arguments properly definitely cannot provide counter refutes. It"s much better to misspell while making a point than to not make a point at all and many would agree. Once again my opponent thinks fascism is somehow anti-private property and anti-initiative. All fascist regimes support private initiative and private property. Fascist governments do not actually own the companies as that is simply not fascism, that is communism. If my opponent wishes to debate why communism is bad then he can save that for another debate. Since it would not be beneficial for the nation to have the government seize control of 7-11 or Costco, fascist regimes simply won"t do that because that is once again, a communist thing and not a fascist thing. My opponent goes on to say capitalist free markets allow initiative entirely and fascism hinders the development of things harmful to the nation. Given common sense it"d be more efficient to get rid of what"s harmful to the nation. I once again bring back my opium and tobacco examples. The Chinese had a free market that allowed the import and production of opium which when consumed by the everyday chinese worker made him/her overdose and work less efficiently. Tobacco has the same effect. Once again fascist regimes are not socialist and private property is initiative is still protected unless its harmful like Opium. My opponent clearly does not understand fascist regimes allow private initiative. In fact " Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" A direct quote from a fascist dictator should be enough to get the point across. https://en.wikipedia.org... Fascism had its chance to test it"s economics and it was fascist regimes especially Nazi Germany and not communist nor capitalist regimes that pulled out of the Great depression. I will explain once again, taking out bank loan interest provided more investing security and initiative allowing fascist regimes to prosper due to increased efficiency. Once again fascism does not use economic policies not useful to the nation so if it happened that taking a private industry like 7-11 was bad then it simply doesn"t happen. My opponent once again cannot tell the difference between fascism and communism. My opponent"s response to my claim of fascist governments are more efficient at protecting environment is that capitalist regimes dig up oil faster. Digging up oil faster does not make capitalist regimes more efficient with environmental protection, in fact quite the contrary for obvious reasons. Thus he never actually tried to refute it by proving how capitalist regimes are better with environmental protection. The argument of fascist regimes being better protectors of the environment still stands. My opponent addressed less than half of the arguments presented in this round and since he provided nothing to refute them I will simply copy paste those arguments to make a point. If say a communist red army began invading a country to seize private property to distribute it and destroy the economy in the process then fascism would protect its economy much more efficiently. Under capitalism like in the above example military funding would be very hard because each corporation would avoid donating money and hope others contribute large sums. In fact some might hope other industries are overturned to destroys competitors! They would ineffectively try to protect themselves from a doomed inefficient economic system. However under fascism the government would take immediate action to withdraw funds and make the corporation contribute a lot more the war effort. This would increase the chance those corporations could protect themselves from communist invaders spreading inefficiency and all corporations would benefit from this. A big difference between government influenced and privately incentivized is end goal. Government would want companies to make best possible products while companies only need to appear to have best products. If a company could have a good quality product or a cheaper made product that appears just as high quality then companies would make that cheaper product as many do under capitalism today due to profit being end goal. Under fascism companies would manually have to make more usable products that customers can use more efficiently rather than ones that appear pretty. For a specific example if a company under capitalism wanted to sell fabric, it would be in its best interest to sell buffed up fabric because it appears big. Under fascism a company would have to make that size fabric with more actual fabric material. This means other industries who are unaware of how that company makes fabric will run more efficiently from the better quality fabric when making things like clothes. Also shockingly my opponent drops out his main point about companies X, Y, and Z. W doesn"t want X,Y, and Z to drop out so W rather than being foolish and just sell directly, will probably instead just join the agreement. Like if x,y, and z were selling flying cars for 20 million dollars and my company could sell it for 10 million and cause those companies to drop down to 10 million price or I could join up the high price wager and we all do 20 million then I"d much rather go with 20 million rather than have other companies drop out of an agreement that I want them in. And of course my opponent finally admits pure capitalism is hard to achieve in this round implying that he agreed that pure capitalism has no taxes. Not only that but fascist regimes putting more money into road building than capitalist regimes do will cause the nation to industrialize much faster. Another point my opponent does not address is governments are simply better at finding the nation"s people and resources. Under fascism individual choice to occupation is performed unless it's economically inefficient. Sometimes individuals themselves don't know what job best suits them and hence we have lots of government funded personality and work tests to find out best occupations suited. Fascist government helps individuals find the job they work most effectively which the individual may not have realized until the government helped out. Sometimes individuals don't have enough contacts and ability to reach co-workers who may have a specialized skill they may need to rely on but under fascism, government will actively seek out and put people who would be otherwise unreachable together so they together can work efficiently. For example if I needed an artisan who can decorate a pottery in a special way, the government which acts over the country can help establish communication between the few people that can do this and me rather than me going all over the country for this. This would promote efficiency. My opponent"s dropping out arguments is very much like forfeiting the debate. This makes the debate a lot less interesting much in the same way a forfeiture does even if lesser so. Vote Pro!!!!