Capitalism

The following are my rebuttals to: -Pro's Response Point 1: You mow 10 yards, and earn $150. $100 of that is taken away, and given back to you through free healthcare, education, insurance, etc; The money you keep pays for your food and leisure items. Also, the fact that Socialism works perfectly in Scandinavian countries is irrelevant, as this debate has nothing to do with nations. The argument at hand is "Capitalism is an OVERALL better economic theory". Not "Socialism/Capitalism is best for nation _______." Pro's statement is purely speculative, and is completely uncited. I would like to ask Pro to back up his statements with evidence. -Pro's Response Point 2: "Ruins itself through bad decisions". Once again, speculation without evidence. He asks that I "believe him" on his word, instead of providing source. To put it simply: his argument shows know knowledge of economics. I will dismiss it until it is proven relevant. -Pro's Response Point 3: I am not quite sure what Pro is saying here, but I am assuming it to accuse me of implying that "Having more money makes one fiscally irresponsible". I do in fact believe this statement to be true. Please elaborate more on this point. -Pro's Response Point 4: The only article cited was wikipedia, which is an unreliable source (I could go to the "Economic Growth" page and input false information if I so desired...) Pro also included other articles, which I assume he is trying to make me read. I would ask for Pro to make his own arguments, please. "Economic Growth puts more money into the Americans": Why would we want to put more money into America at the expense of the rest of the world? The money has to come from somewhere.... A Socialist State needs not grow, and therefore it can be completely self-sufficient. *Also, the United States of America is completely irrelevant to this debate on economic policy -Pro's Response Point 5: "yes.".... Yes to what? This argument baffles me: Please explain at greater length, as I am unsure of what exactly your argument is. -Pro's Defense Point 1: Forward Progress is NOT good for all, only some, because money you make must come from someone else's pocket. Until you are importing/exporting with ALL nations equally, there will be a worldwide economic imbalance between all nations. Also, I would ask you to elaborate on what economic "progress" is. I would like to define it here: "Economic Development: Progress in an economy, or the qualitative measure of this. Economic development usually refers to the adoption of new technologies, transition from agriculture-based to industry-based economy, and general improvement in living standards." [7] By this definition, progress is the RESULT of a strong economy, and not the driving force behind it. Socialism is not driven by a need for progress, rather it occurs because people have more freedom and less money. Once again, there is a clear reason why Finnish people are the happiest in the world despite high taxes: Because the high taxes are more than worth it, and they need not worry about their own finances when it comes to education and healthcare. Pro's Defense Point 2: All Pro has done is refute my statement without support. Pro's Defense Point 3: Completely false. There are hordes of people buying substandard, foreign manufacture products because they're cheaper than the legitimate brands. Pro's Defense Point 4: Evidence to support the claim, please. Pro's Defense Point 5: ? Response to Pros' Attack Points: Quoting Ron Paul from wikiquote? I don't think anyone can use a politician as a source and still maintain credibility. I would once again ask that Pro make his own arguments, instead of relying on Ron Paul and a collection of articles which he expects me to read. I elected to read them so I would have something to argue, since Pro neglected to make any valid points. Pro Article One: The Ant and the Grasshopper: Any economic system, including capitalism, would collapse if the entire population stopped working. Humans are biologically designed to function in groups [8] - In a Socialist Society people work for the good of their fellow people. The only way Socialism would collapse is if everyone took on the selfish, capitalist mindset and began to care for no one save themselves. You would be waiting for the day that a majority of the population disregarded their own personal responsibilities in order to become hedonists. I would call this theory "unlikely" at best. Pro Article Two: The Free Market: For an example of a Free market, I will use the United States from 1817 to 1929 [9]. This is the only time the U.S. had an economy that was unregulated by the government. This is also the period of time when we made the most advances in technology. This was ALSO the time of tenement housing, child labor/work accidents, Robber Barons, and of course The Great Depression. In the purest form of Capitalism, management of the economy is given to the people who, as described before, are forced to compete. This creates an incentive to win, therefore a reason to cheat, resulting in faulty business practices and the endangerment of the lives of workers. Power to the People, though it sounds quite romantic, is a terrible idea when the people have no clue how to use it properly. This is why the people choose the most qualified seeming men and women to manage affairs for them. Qualified men and women who have dedicated their lives to learning these skills. America has not been truly capitalist since 1929, when it was quite apparent that capitalism (even if it DID work effectively) left too many people poor, hungry, and miserable. Pro Article Three: Why Socialism is Bad for America: This debate has nothing to do with the United States. The debate is not whether Socialism is good for America, but rather it is good for the entire world. Please cite any claims you make in the future, so I can determine the difference between your own opinion and proven economic facts. Thank you. [7] http://www.businessdictionary.com... [8] http://teacher.scholastic.com... [9] http://money.howstuffworks.com...