Capitalism is better than Socialism.

I have two purposes in this round: 1. Extend and Explain my original points. Considering CON adressed points one and two, I will therefore only extend and explain argument three as it is the most important and goes neglected by the PRO 2. Reply to CON's points. 1. Extend and Explain Incentives - This is devastating that the CON did not directly answer this point. Although, this makes sense because it is the biggest flaw of socialism. It is in human nature to achieve self-survival (this includes survival of one's children as they are an extension of one's self. If someone wants to achieve survival of their children - they will achieve as much as possible and work as hard as possible to receive as much as possible. In a capitalist world, this will happen and will continue to have incentives for their hard work. However, in a Socialist world, one who seeks 72 hours of straight work will reward him the same as 24 hours of work will obviously work less. 2. Reply Supply and Demand - I begin by discrediting the sources - for these are taken in examples of a non purely capitalist world. I don't see how this could apply when many restrictions on exports like food actually will interfere with the natural supply/demand of things. Having discredited the overproduction argument, I will also use logic to disprove this: People demand chairs. Current supply of chairs falls. People produce more chairs. People buy said chairs. Supply of chairs is high. People lower demand of chairs. Production of chairs lowers. More People have chairs less chairs in supply as result. --> This is the cycle of supply and demand. There is no overproduction in a purely capitalist society. Even when there is no demand of chairs, no one will make them. This shows that overproduction makes no sense. Also, modern advertising is not an interruption but a way of literally showing product. If people see an ad - this does not make them want it, and if it does then it is probably a useful product which results in an increase of demand and continues the cycle -- thereby being beneficial to the society as a whole. Private Property - The concept of 'making money' is not an 'enslaving mental philosophy' but is rooted in the desire for wealth and reward for living. Even without money and 'detached from the community', you do not want to remain in that position (obviously) and therefor you work, gain money, gain knowledge, gain social class, gain well-being, gain property, pass this down the family tree. Everyone can win, the only ones who don't believe they can leech off of others work, which is a socialist trait. If money is confused with 'direct wealth', then what is direct wealth? I would consider it private property, which is a capitalist trait. A socialist state would have no way of expressing direct wealth, especially considering everything is not even owned by you, but by the state itself. The CON brings up, 'you need money to make money' doesn't make sense - sure you need money to make MORE money, but an easy place to start is physical labor. Here you make money and then can use that money to make MORE money. This would be un-achievable in a socialist world too. Which means that even if you agree with CON, capitalism is the only attempt so you must vote PRO. Work and Play - This didn't really contest my third point therefore I extended and explained it above, however, I will respond to the arguments made in this point. Capitalism's eyes are neither fixed on short term or long term, instead they are fluid as the people's eyes. If the people are worried about global warming, capitalism will cause incentives to create Green Technology, to cite one example. The private banks help these students. Without a loan, they could not go to college and could not receive a better job to make more reward. Obviously they are not happy, but a capitalist mentality means they will work to relieve this debt and obtain direct wealth (in the form of public property). Socialism would at best restrict and decentivize creativity. People would be rewarded the same if they invented something or not, therefore why would anyone go through the work of doing so. Socialism at best would be a land of restriction and forced choice - the government owns what you think you should own and no freedom is allowed in the context CON thinks. Capitalism would be the only true way to keep the government little-to-not at all interfered with economics and therefore the people would truly have creativity, freedom and choice.