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

I will start off refuting my opponent's round 2 speech. 1. How do Cooperatives and Traditional businesses compare? He just says that Co-ops have a higher likelihood of not going out of business. That is not a way to compare two businesses. I propose we judge a business on its value. The point of a business is to provide a product to a society. That is why I propose we use the weighing mechanism of what will increase Gross Domestic Product. Overall? This point makes no difference to the society 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. 2. Can cooperatives be successful? First off, on his Mon dragon Corp evidence. 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. He cannot say that co-op's are better than traditional companies when the worlds biggest co-op is governmental subsidized and is in tenth place in Spain. Secondly, notice how slim the margins are between the "who has more employees argument." The difference is slim at best, with a strange over 6 under 6 employees per business, number. Also the data is from a very select group, France and Uruguay (which is a developing country that relies on small business to survive, rather then big business). Why couldn't he have proven his same point with global data? Or at the very least more than one developed country? The number is slim at best and it sounds like the numbers are cherry-picked from a small percentage of the global marketplace that uses co-op's. 3- Potential argument against co-op's He claims four reasons why co-ops have the market rigged against them as a reason why co-ops are not everywhere. 1st- Banks loan to co-ops less. This is because a co-op's are not attached to an owner who will have collateral if the business fails. It is not a smart decision to loan to a co-op because the banker will lose all of his money if the co-op fails. In traditional business, the owner has to pay up the collateral (normally property or cash) he backed his loan behind. This is not a flaw with the "system" this is a flaw with co-ops. 2nd- The government does not bail out co-ops 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. 3rd- Co-ops are not set up to compete with other companies. 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. For example, If company A's product is overpriced then people will defect to company B's cheaper/better, and more competitive , product. 4th People do not know what Co-ops are. If co-ops were good then they would be well known. You are showing false causality. A mostly capitalist market would quickly reform to co-ops if they were better. The most efficient survive and the least evolved do not make it through the consumers checklist. More people would then know about co-ops and then your problem would be solved. Co-ops have the flaw, not people knowing about them. 4 Morality of cooperative businesses versus traditional businesses Clearing up concepts 1st- The idea that a business owner is unnecessary. First, Business owners will always be a necessity as long as their is a system of greed. 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. Secondly, the average grunt worker can never be expected to chose between economic decisions that people go to university to learn about. Thirdly, extend all of my impacts about how the national economic state is hurt more when a co-op fails then when a rich billionaire loses a million dollars instead. 2nd- 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. 3rd- The workers have no other options then their current employer. This mindset is just plain wrong. This is why we have anti-monopoly laws that increase competition in the market. If you employer is not paying you enough then you should defect to your rival company that will pay more. Or find a new trade. A business owner is not some tyrannical ruler trying to suck their employees dry. The owner needs to keep his employees happy and maximize output. These two factors are a check on corrupt institution within a business, and co-ops do not have this because they have no owner. 4th-The consent argument 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. Now for defending my case so we can have a polished last round. I am glad that you agreed you want to only talk about producer co-ops as it makes the debate about the idea of co-ops as a business owner v.s. worker controlled company debate. Your style of refutation is unique so I will try to respond biased on the arguments you made against my point as a whole. I will do my best to mach arguments 1 to 1. I will number my opponents response to my case. Morality 1. Not a problem with co-ops 1st- This style of argumentation leaves out my context so I will have to reiterate many of my points to answer your questions. I explained that the less then subpar workers would like to distribute the money evenly, regardless of work ethic. You end up with a system that rewards sloth and de-incentives hard work. For example, If I am a lazy worker then I will want a pay system that rewards everyone equal, while the hard worker will want pay biased on performance. This conflict between the sides always leave either the makers or the takers unhappy. 2nd- When the producer co-op destroys opportunity for advancement in the workplace, they are unjustly taking from the overachiever in order to keep every employee on the same playing field when everyone is due different things from their work. 2. People can fire lazy workers. 1st- In a co-op, firings are done by a vote. This can be time consuming and can lead to corruption. Workplace politics could have a rumor started by one worker to get back at another get people unjustly fired. Traditional business doesn't have this problem to the same magnitude because a boss needs good employees, and they cannot afford to let a good employee go. 2nd- A worker doesn't even need to be that lazy to cause drag on the over achiever. Even a average worker can great these moral issues when the majority of average workers vote for equal paychecks, despite the disparity between work ethic. 3 Capitalist companies are corrupt. 1st- Read above, I already addressed the check and balance system in this speech. 2nd- Business owner do not have pay rules, they get a percent of the profit. 3rd- I already showed consent above. Also "unfair" pay is resolved by the checks and balances set up. 4 The availability of jobs. 1st- the average person changes from many different jobs "Today, the average person changes jobs ten to fifteen times (with an average of 12 job changes) during his or her career." https://www.thebalance.com... If you have an abusive employer then that employer will go out of business. 2nd- Anti-monopoly laws make sure that there is always competition to defect over to. 5 Unions Unions can make another check and balance. In a co-op you cannot have a union because you do not have an executive to unionize against. 6 Corruption Checks and balances make all of the difference in preventing corruption. I have show two checks for traditional business and co-ops have none. Democracy is not flawless. C2- Co-ops harm the national economy. 1- New company creation. 1st- I was arguing that the loss of consolidation of capital reduces investment and ruins the chances for new innovative companies and you never address how a single, non-executive person is going to receive millions of dollars from a co-op without corruption. 2nd- you run off on a tangent that would almost never be possible with producer co-ops. When an average worker wants his wage raised he has to advocate for the money that is going to his harder working co-worker. He takes the money form the harder worker in the name of "equality" in the real world. C3 Fail co-op Chill effect. 1- The pro ignores the point I was making, Co-ops are less innovative because innovation is risky. The impact is that this directly hurts all of humanity's progress. 2- The Mon dragon evidence is pointing out how co-ops are risky for a government to let fail to the point where they cannot innovate. 3- When a co-op does fail, the debt falls to the middle class family. They cannot afford to spend as much and stagnate the economy. Impacts were in R2 speech.