Cooperative/socialist businesses(pro) versus Traditional/capitalist Businesses(con)

1. I propose we judge a business on its value. -ImaWinDoesn't it make sense that if the business stays in business, it is offering products that people want, and therefore has value? If it wasn't offering things people didn't want to buy, then it would have gone out of business. Cooperatives generally offer what people want more likely than traditional businesses, and I believe this is because you have more people in the decision process of what to sell in the business. When one person does it, they can easily sell something only they would buy, while workers in a cooperative would do the same thing, the difference is you have more people doing that, so it's more likely that a higher amount of people want to buy the product they sell than in traditional businesses. Also, use his evidence as a Con voting issue, because this "more likely to succeed" attitude is born of playing safe in the marketplace and hampering innovation. The full reasoning with a link is in my round 2 speech, argument #3. -ImaWinKeep in mind that con didn't explain why the idea he presented in round 2, argument #3 wouldn't also apply to co-ops. It's a rather weak argument as I pointed out. He admits that it is in tenth place of the Spanish businesses. That means that there are TEN better traditional companies in Spain alone. Turn this evidence over to a reason for voting for the con.Considering there are more than 2.4 million businesses in Spain[12], 10th place is very good. You can't just dismiss the fact they are in the 99.9th percentile of businesses in Spain. And, again ...the worlds biggest co-op is governmental subsidized... -ImaWinDid you stop to think that the reason it is subsidized is because it is too big to fail? I'm sure it wasn't subsidized until after it got so big. Every government pretty much subsidizes their businesses when they are huge, coops are no different from traditional businesses in that matter. Name me a large company that hasn't received government money. This is because a co-op's are not attached to an owner who will have collateral if the business fails. -ImaWinThe business owners are the workers, I don't see why they can't offer up collateral between themselves. This isn't a good point since workers can also offer up collateral. Cross apply the evidence about the largest co-op in the world, the Mon dragon Corp, had to be subsidized by the Spanish government. The government really gives special treatment to co-ops depending on the country that the co-op is in. My intent was that I was referring to the United States government, but in general, Mon dragon corporation is probably the exception rather than the rule for cooperatives not being bailed out.Then why do they deserve to exist if they cannot compete? If a company cannot provide a service to consumers that the consumers want then the company deserves to go out of business.Coops DO provide services that consumers want. There would be no cooperatives if they didn't, and they wouldn't have a higher success percentage than traditional businesses if they didn't. My opponent fallaciously thinks that competing means to offer products the consumers want. Also, I specifically said "out-compete". Cooperatives generally do not participate in shady business deals in order to out-compete a competitor. They don't stiff their employees with smaller wages like traditional businesses, in order to offer products at a lower price. That's what I meant by that they aren't set up to out-compete other businesses, they're set up to cooperate with other businesses. If co-ops were good then they would be well known.That's not true at all. For example, Hitler is well-known and talked about in school all of the time, but he is evil. Alternatively, you learn nothing about Sweden in history classes, despite that they have a higher GDP/capita than the US. Sweden's economy is not well-known to majority of people. The government is biased in favor of capitalism, or at least a mixed economy. You've never seen a politician in the United States, at least, outright support socialism. Even in other countries that rarely happens. Cooperatives are not taught about in economics classes or anywhere really. When a group bands together, like a co-op, then there will always be one group unhappy with the arrangement that the group democratically elected. If you want proof just look to the last presidential election. Those in the minority will feel cheated and will try to gain an advantage in the next decision. Workplace politics can ruin the workplace environment.I don't think this would even happen. There are always plenty of other businesses to go to if you're unhappy with the decisions of your company. The reason the US has such a problem with this in their government is because it's not very feasible to move to another country, as it costs a lot. However, it can be more feasible to switch from one local cooperative to another local cooperative if you're unhappy with the decisions yours make. Secondly, the average grunt worker can never be expected to chose between economic decisions that people go to university to learn about.Business degrees or college education is unnecessary to make proper business decisions, it offers very little[13] Really, all you need to know is know what sells. As a consumer, you know what sells because you know what you would personally buy yourself. Also, the best way to learn is through trial and error. People can learn over time after making bad decisions to make better decisions.My opponent says that because co-ops exist, business owners are not needed. I argue that co-ops are inefficient because of the democratic principles it is founded on. If you do not have a central region who's goals align with his/her workers then you have corruption. Much like the United States system of checks and balances, workers and bosses have checks to make sure output and worker conditions are balanced. The alternative is corruption within the co-op because no organisation can claim that their workers have such a good intents as not to want more money.All of this is unsubstantiated claims that will be dismissed. In "theory" there is more corruption in cooperatives, but is that what the facts show? I, personally, could not find any studies on this matter, and so this point shouldn't be considered since no evidence was offered to show cooperatives are even more corrupt than traditional businesses.This is why we have anti-monopoly laws that increase competition in the market.Anti-monopoly laws are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, what I said would be true if we did not have them. Why have a system with traditional businesses that needs so many laws to make it work? Do you know how many regulations there are on traditional businesses? Those regulations would not be necessary on cooperatives, because cooperatives already do what the workers want. Workers, for example, would almost never vote to put themselves in unsafe working conditions, but if they do, then that's their choice and they are consenting to it.You consent to work at a place when you sign up. When you do that you have consented to the employer's wages or payment setup. You have accepted the hours you now have to work and you have accepted the fact that if you are not a valuable asset to this company you will be fired. If you did not consent then you would have worked somewhere else.It's hard to argue that you consented when your life depends on the job you have and it takes hundreds of applications before an employer hires you. People only "consent" because they have no other option, as other employers will not hire them. Morality:1. This assumes that majority of the people in the coop are lazy. If they are, the coop probably won't do well. 2. Again, opponent offered no actual proof of corruption in cooperatives, this is all conjecture. 3. All of this I addressed I think above.4. Only 2% of applicants in a job even receive an interview[14], this means, on average, you have to put in 50 applications before you even get an interview, which isn't a guarantee to have the job. So, it takes probably over 100 applications before you even get a job. So, a person is more likely to settle for a job they don't necesarily want. In fact, the fact that my opponent pointed out should be thought about in a different way: why are those people changing jobs so much? Probably because that they are not happy with any of those previous jobs because it's impossible to get a job and an employer you actually want since you have to settle for the first job you can get. If you have an abusive employer then that employer will go out of business.This also seems to just be an assumption. Anti-monopoy laws and Unions:If traditional businesses were so great, they wouldn't need those laws or unions. If anything, the voters should ask why con brought up these points since it shows traditional businesses are not good to be without these things."Checks and balances"And yet there is still rampant corruption among traditional businesses[15] and you have yet to show any actual corruption from cooperatives.you never address how a single, non-executive person is going to receive millions of dollars from a co-op without corruption.Why would a single non-executive person need to? Again, the workers can pull together and offer up money necessary for business.I don't really have room to respond to any more of con's points unfortunately, but I think what I've said before seems to refute most of the remaining arguments.Source:[12] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...;[13] http://www.forbes.com... [14] http://careers.workopolis.com...;[15] http://www.ibtimes.com...;