Capitalism doesn't work.

Obviously this is a very large area to debate but I'll do my best to find a suitable start. I'm sure con won't mind if I start my debate in this round. ï¿½ The most obvious place to start I suppose is with the current recession we're in and the total collapse of the western economy. This will be my first premise. ï¿½ It creates a system in which hard working people are extremely likely to fail in the business world--my second premise. ï¿½ Capitalism is a relatively new thing. It has only existed since the industrial revolution began c.1800. This is my third premise. ï¿½ It causes war, destuction and crime--my fourth premise. I'll do my best to stick to these main points and in the order as above. P1) In September of 2008 the global markets crashed with, as we all know, disastrous consequences. But this was not an isolated event caused by a couple of gung-ho, irresponsible bankers who lost control temporarily. There have been dozens of recessions over the last twohundred years, arguably the most notorious in America being the wall street crash of the late 1920s and the recession in the 1980s being the most notorious in Britain. So in that sence the current world leaders ought to bare no blame. In the current system recessions are clearly inevitable. But, I'm sure you'll agree, a system that hosts a recession every few years isn't a system that works. Now; to cure a recession you need to get the banks trading again and to do this the banks need money. You must ask yourself: where will the money come from? The only two European countries that are barely keeping there heads above the water are France and Germany but even they can't afford to lend much more money. In south America you have countries that have never done well to sustain an economy, Mexico and Canada can't afford too loan money and the USA is getting closer to the condition that Greece, Ireland and Portugal are in every day. So want about Asia? Japan was driven back into recession by the nuclear disaster in Fukoshima south Korea has no money to give and china is already owed billions of dollars by the USA. African and middle eastern countries have no real economy as their best assets are already owned by the west. So unless the matins lend us a couple of trillion dollars these recessions are going to carry on happening every few decades. But let's ask ourselves where the money is. Money doesn't just disappear overnight. What's happened is the money is in the hands of a few billionaires who have continued to get richer despite the recession. You may argue that these enourmous anounts of money are necessary to create an incentive for production, that, for example, people would no longer develop technology if they werent treated as better, more elite people for it. But I ask you: would you decide to no longer work or invent things if you weren't paid extortionate amounts of money to do so? Would you go back to living in the medieval ages just because you couldn't have a swimming pool in your house? Our curiosity, imagination and injenuity extends back to times far before the invention of capitalism, back, even, to times before money was invented. No-one paid the cave men to paint. No-one paid for the invention of fire or the Cerne Abbis Giant in Cornwall or the neolithic tombs of the British Isles. or the numerous other feates of human capability throughout history and the world. Money is about greed, not motivation. P2)Despite the fact that I got a bit off course in my first premise I've lead myself neatly into my second premise. Not only would I say that capitalism is not an incentive for creativity - I would go as far as to say it stunts creativity. Why are there so few Bill Gates? Surely there are more people than that with the knowledge to create a business. Well, there are. The problem is people can't afford to create their own products, literature, art etc. This makes sense. For more billionaires to be created current billionaires would have to sacrifice money. Not something they'd be too keen on, is it? So, by definition not every-one can succeed. P3)I've already explained that capitalism is a new thing and isn't peoples incentive to invent and be productive, so I won't elaborate further on that point. P4)As I've already explained: not every-one can succeed in a capitalist society. So if, like at the moment, hundreds of thousands of people across the world find themselves unemployed--what are their options? They are offered social security; a small amount of money designed to merely keep people alive. But this simply isn't good enough for people who are capable of work and want to work. Some people think its their fault theyre unemployed and think that they must deal with the consequences and suffer. Others, though find themselves alienated from the system and gang culture increases. People who could be working end up vandalising and terrorising communities. The government plays this to their advantage by putting people into the prison system and hence the public think that crime is being fought. But the only long term solution to crime is to end unemployment--which capitalism can't do. My final premise is war. Capitalism has always started wars. Did Sadam Hussein posses weapons of mass destruction? No. He had oil. America needs oil--it's worth billions of dollars to them every year. But they couldnt stop at Iraq. They claimed that terrorism was Americas greatest threat. So they had to carry on fighting terrorism or face the consequences for starting a war under false pretensions. They invaded Afghanistan and carried on killing innocent civilians whilst getting the odd radical as-well. Now they want to invade Iran. And what are they accusing Iran of? The ability to create weapons of mass distruction of course. And who owns enough weapons of mass distraction to destroy the world several times over? Britain and America, of course.