Pure Capitalism With Basic Needs vs Marxist/Social Socialism Dbt 3

Short but quality argument. I thank my opponent for accepting the debate and for taking his time to produce a quality opening statement. Let's start with the first line, "Pure capitalism is fundamentally an amoral economic system." The way in which you phrase it gives it a negative denotation, so I am just a little confused. Are you saying that in the fact of allowing people to act in self-interest that we are actually doing harm? If so, I can cite many countries that have this free market system, a lot books, and one of the greatest all time economists, Adam Smith. But I suppose that in no way did you mean this to be a bad thing, you were just fueling your argument. The idea behind capitalism, and the reason it works I suppose, is because it is amoral as you put it. Next you bring up an extremely wonderful point, one that I had not given too much thought into, but in the back of my mind I sort of knew that this was not an issue. But you forced me to think about it. Let us talk about it in the form of an example. In our example we have an oil company, and, for some reason, it did not only monopolize oil in the country, but also in the whole world, so it is a global scale monopoly on oil. They then have two choices in terms of price. Well, three I suppose. They can either have cheap oil, expensive oil, or in-the-middle oil. The middle priced oil has the characteristics of both and thus is not entirely needed to be brought in depth, but I want to start with the expensive oil. They are a monopoly, so they have the choice of having very highly priced oil. If we don't mind paying this, or we need it, we could buy a small quantity of it, but allow me to make an educated guess based on economic theory once this happens. The company would not make much profit. Now let us suppose that the company is rich, so rich that they can afford to take such a loss. The amount of oil used in our country would go way down, leading to innovation that would have needed to happen (since oil is going to run out in about 200 years). A lot of supposes here, realize this is never really going to happen, but if it did, and of course according to statisticians there is probability, no big deal, and every "suppose" I take out the better the outcome. Let us talk now about having very cheap prices. Having very cheap prices is going to increase the amount that people buy. People will use it up a lot quicker, yes, but in the mean-time economic progress is at its peak. A short term burst if you will, and as we come closer to the end of our resource, we will find need to innovate. In the most extreme of cases even, this is not an issue. If we have a problem, our capitalist innovation will come to solve it. A planetary resource we need to plan for we would have simply run out of later, thus innovation would have been needed. In terms of innovation, capitalism provides it the best (I hope this is given). Thus, socialism is actually the system that is responsible for inefficient use of resources. Also, realize that by having the socialistic plan, you either lack leadership and have the population decide, or have leadership and occur the same thing that happened with businesses: a small group of people controlling the price and wage of their resource company. This first part does seem minor though, simply because you would likely say that it would be the community and not a group of people to decide, and that they would not be acting in self-interest so it is not greedy. Though, this does seem irrelevant, for no matter how greedy a person in control of a resource is, the resource is not distributed in an ill manner, but in a better manner than a large group of people. Do you take better care of public water, or your own? As a recap, capitalism's self-interest concept defines capitalism, it innovates solutions for inefficiency and the running out of resources best, and it also manages them better than a community.