Capitalism doesn't work.

I will not argue with him about whether we will use communism as the anti-capitalism but since our whole debate is now centered around it, I will continue to use communism. Remember, place your rules in Round 1. OK, so my opponent saying that the greater the GNP the lesser the number of people under the poverty line. Yet my opponent goes on to say:"Capitalism rewards the smart. The dumb people stay at the bottom. Have you ever heard of a genius homeless person? No, because if they were a genius they wouldn't be homeless. It's a sink-or-swim system"Yes, the greater the GDP the less people under the poverty line. GDP refers to the amount of products exported or produced in the country. More products equals more jobs which equals a better economy. I don't know why your graph state the GDP and poverty are unrelated, but according to practical and common sense, they are greatly interconnected. "Unlike most animals we do not have razor sharp teeth, powerful muscles or venom. Instead we have powerful brains. Our powerful brains allow us to work together to survive and this is why a strong society is important. If Brian has a lawnmower but needs a pair of sheers and Dave has a pair of sheers but needs a lawnmower they will trade items as they trust each other. Con has not provided any evidence to suggest that this can't happen on an international scale other than that communism won't allow. I must reiterate that this debate has nothing to do with communism. "This debate has everything to do with communism. Communism is the only large scale recognized politcal and economic system which opposes all aspects of capitlaism. Fascism, democracy, and conservatism all support capitalism in either a full-on or mixed stance. So lets stop arguing about whether 'our anti-capitalism is communism' and down to the facts. "Con has not provided any evidence to suggest that this can't happen on an international scale other than that communism won't allow". That is all i need to provide. If we are talking about an international true communist society, there is no way that countries could communicate with each other. Free trade and communicats are prohibited. My opponent can not seem to grasp this idea. "What did you define as a vested interest? "When two countries have a strong economical link between each other. If it were to break (them going to war) the results would be disastrous. "So; if two countries have goods that they can trade with each other then they have a vested interest in each other. Well; Iraq and Afghanistan have oil and the US has commodities such as cotton and tobacco. Why is there no vested interest? I think the answer is: the US wanted CHEAP oil. It didn't matter that 100, 000 innoccent people had to die[2] as long as it 'makes the whole capitalist system work like a charm'. "There was a vested interest to some degree, but not enough to cause serious consequences if a conflict ever occur. There is absolutely nothing bad about wanted cheap oil. This is not a debate about morals and ethics. Money in many cases, especially with the government , is more important than third world people. "As I have already explained: if children are born into debt then they can't take out a loan, especially in recessionary times. In a non-capitalist society people would not be prohibited from succeeding due to money issues. Education would be available to every-one and only the best would be provided "The debt of the parents isn't the debt of the child. As soon as the child reaches 18 (21 in US), he can take out a loan. The debt is not transferred onto the child, it stays on the parents. "If we said that just 5% of the population (~6.5 billion) is unemployed. That works out at 325 million people. If each of those people had one child that doubles the number affected. Of course the actual unemployment figure is closer to 9%[1] in the US but, according to my opponent, 5% of the population in unemployment is the acceptable figure for the number of people that 'capitalism doesn't work for'. "It's obvious that a system can't work for everybody. There is no system for which 100% of the people will benefit. A 5% unemployment rate is quite good. Also consider that the people that are unemployed get welfare and unemployment benefits (unique to capitalism. "Choosing to make one toy instead of twenty involves two emotions: they're called laziness and thoughtlessness. Emotion plays a large part in our lives; that's why we both used emotion as an example in our debates. "It's not laziness and thoughtlessness, its called effectiveness and being smart. Why labour for x hours to make 20 toys if for the same pay you can create two toys for X/2 time. "I quote from that same page: "This money is being given to US financial institutions in the hope that they will lend it and thus stimulate economic activity". This is a bail-out in disguise. The financial institutions probably won't lend the money out (if Ireland's anything to go by) but the extra money will cause inflation, driving the price of goods and services up. So the majority of people will have no more money but they will have to spend more on goods and services. "All the money that financial insitutions lend out all make it to the common person. Example. Buisness x borrows y amount of dollars. They use the y amount of dollars to pay their employess. Therefore, the money makes it back to the worker. ConclusionI know this is ad populum, but if over 6 billion people are effectively ruled and governed by capitalism with no revolutions or rebellions, this makes it a quite effective system. It's hard for 6 billion people to be wrong. Anyways, capitalism demotes war, reduces poverty, and increases chances of rising to the top. Capitalism is here to stay for a very long time.