Capitalism

Many thanks to Rob for sending me this debate challenge (and for his patience). This will be 1 of 2 debates where my opponent and I will be discussing both sides of laissez faire capitalism. In this debate, I'll be addressing Pro's three main arguments, and illustrating how government regulation or intervention in the market is or can be overall productive and more beneficial than leaving the market to its own vices. --- 1) Re: Capitalism Works Pro brings up a few arguments here - namely that the U.S. has thrived off of capitalism, and that there is no other comparable model which yields positive results like capitalism does. I disagree on all accounts. First, let's consider whether or not the U.S. has truly been a pure model for capitalism throughout our nation's history. The Industrial Revolution was a historical turning point in determining the fate of many markets. England, for instance, shipped 40% of their textiles to colonized India which strengthened the English economy while not allowing India's to develop (all profits were outsourced). On the contrary, British steel was kept from U.S. markets via high tariffs which allowed the U.S. to develop its own steel industry. Japan applied similar methods, and thus we were both able to compete in the global market as opposed to many other nations which became what we know today as "third world." So as you can see, this blatant example of government interference in the market is largely responsible for what allowed the U.S. economy to develop in the first place. This disproves Rob's theory that the U.S. has pure capitalism to thank for all of its success. Moreover, there are plenty examples of countries which espouse non-capitalistic policies and yet are thriving economically. In a recent issue of the World Bank 'Research Observer,' the Chair of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers draws "lessons from the East Asian Miracle," among them that "government took major responsibility for the promotion of economic growth, intervening to enhance technology transfer, relative equality, education, health and industrial planning." He noted that no other part of the world had seen income rise so drastically as well as so many people moving out of poverty in such a short amount of time [1]. Additionally, we only have to look to a model like Japan's to see how other economic options yield successful results. A group of prominent Japanese economists recently published a review of Japan's economic principles post WWII. They pointed out that Japan rejected the neoliberal (capitalistic) policies of their U.S. advisers and opted instead for a more state controlled manufactured economy. The results are more than impressive: by the 1990s Japan was the world's biggest manufacturing economy as well as the world's leading source of investment. It also accounted for half of the world's net savings and financing U.S. deficits. Also, let's not forget that the most financially stable and significant country to loan money to according to the World Bank is China. So, in short, there are plenty of other financial models with success stories and that produce results equal to or better than capitalism. All points here have been dismantled. 2) Re: Capitalism is Necessary for Production Pro says that without capitalism, we would have to either force people to work arbitrarily or provide for them regardless of whether they contribute. What I'm wondering is why. First, you can have market interference from the government without espousing socialism. Second, even under socialism there is an incentive for wealth. Just because certain aspects of life may be covered at government's expense doesn't mean that people want to remain at the bottom of the barrel in terms of monetary success. People don't JUST want health care or education - they want wealth and luxury too. The aforementioned examples of success from non-capitalistic societies such as Japan prove that people don't need capitalism in order to thrive or be productive. 3) Re: Market Interference is Bad Pro's point here is "Regulations usually only interfere with the efficiency of the system." Once again, the various examples of successful non-capitalistic nations prove otherwise. Regardless, I'm pretty sure Pro presented a less than accurate representation of capitalistic policies. He notes that with government regulations of business, "business can afford to be sloppy sometimes" and mentioned the BP oil spill and government bailouts of big business as examples to prove his point. However, the government bailouts of business are exactly what capitalism is AGAINST. A true capitalistic society would have let the corporations fail instead of guarantee help from the tax payers. Further, it can easily be argued that capitalism is directly to blame for the BP oil spill in the first place. Corporations controlling vast social resources make decisions affecting millions of people (and animals / the planet) on the basis of profit. Had the government imposed various safety regulations beforehand, measures would have been taken that could have saved a dozen lives, the environment, and people's businesses that were directly affected from the spill. --- There are many critiques of capitalism; I'll briefly introduce some here. For one thing, history proves that government intervention (especially via tariffs) helps economies develop and grow which keeps them competitive in global markets - one example of why many countries have been far more successful than others. This not only ensured jobs for citizens, but kept the cash flow in our markets. Additionally, the government playing a role in markets has allowed various countries to control the input and export of goods which affects profit and where people's money is spent. Investing in infrastructure, manufacturing and even education also helps in ensuring an educated society with the ability to work and make a living for fair wages. Perhaps a moral issue regarding capitalism is that all people are not given equal say in the public sphere. For instance, the public is supposed to "vote" in the free market via their purchases. How they choose to spend their money dictates the whims of the public. However, an obvious discrepancy is that certain people have far more wealth and therefore far more influence in society. Therefore a true representation about the wants and needs of the public can never truly be discerned. Just because one cannot afford something does not mean that this something is not necessary or at least useful - like education. Other critics of capitalism view the system as inherently exploitative. Karl Marx for instance discussed an inevitable class war rooted in the reality that workers had no control over their production. Plus, if workers tried to fight the system in order to negotiate higher wages (for example), there will always be someone from the reserve army of labor willing to work for cheaper wages [2]. History has also shown us that capitalism mandates a huge disparity between the rich and poor, thus guaranteeing exploitation as exploitation can exist even with consent. I'm out of characters for now, but in short, having some (even minimal) government interference in the market can prove far better for society than expecting pure capitalism to achieve fair or favorable results. For one thing, a minimal standard of living represents humanity's progress; we've matured as a species far beyond our innate animal instincts to achieve higher morality. In some cases, social need should trump corporate greed. For another, investing in education and various aspects of the economy proves useful at creating a competent, innovative and competitive workforce. References: [1] Chomsky, Noam. Profit Over People. 1999. Seven Stories Press. pp. 32 [2] http://findarticles.com...