spy66 will take over for jennybee35 and has 24 hours from the time stamp of this post for his Opening Argument.
JT Round 3 - spy66 vs OnceReturned - Generational Servitudes, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
reply posted on 13-2-2011 @ 01:29 PM by OnceReturned
Modern American Capitalism Is Worse Than Medieval Monarchy.
I'm going to argue that the above statement is false. My position is that modern American capitalism is better than medieval monarchy. As I will show, the relevant facts support this position overwhelmingly.
Based on my opponents opening argument, I suspect that his tactic will be to convince readers that America today is a slave state and that life as a common person is terrible and hopeless because of "the elite" behind the scenes who secretly control and manipulate everything and everyone for their own benefit. The tale that he will tell is a fictional one, and as such he will be able to provide no evidence in support of it. I intend to make it impossible for him to reconcile his preposterous position with the facts.
Capitalism reduces poverty and increases economic opportunity for the populations which participate in it more than any other system. Consider the following excerpts from the 2001 CATO Institute article, "Ending Mass Poverty."
Source
The CATO Institute is a high profile economic think-tank. The article quoted above was published in the U.S. State Department Journal, Economic Perspectives.
The fact is that free economies in systems which support and protect private ownership and property rights, and which promote free-market practices are better (for the people) than economies in systems which don’t. Capitalism - including modern American capitalism - is a system which embraces this idea. The medieval monarchies did not. Democracy is conducive to a free market. Monarchies are not.
Consider the following generally accepted definitions of capitalism and feudalism:
Capitalism - an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.
Feudalism - a set of political and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the ninth and fifteenth centuries, which broadly defined was a system for ordering society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor.
It is self evident which one of these systems is more conducive to economic growth and widespread prosperity, given the assessment expressed in the CATO report (an assessment which is widely accepted and expressed by many other groups and individuals).
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article “Poverty,” under traditional (non-industrialized) economic systems, poverty was the norm. This would have been the case in under a medieval monarchy. Today, under American capitalism, poverty is consistently under 15% even during the worst of the recent economic depression (according to the Census Bureau, www.census.gov...) This pair of facts alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that my position is correct and that my opponents is not.
Questions:
1) How can you reconcile the economic realities with your assertion that modern American capitalism is worse than a medieval monarchy?
2) So far we have discussed living conditions and economic opportunity in general. To what extent do you intend this debate to be about Generational Servitude? (The title of the debate but not the topic. . .)
3) You’ve painted the situation in America rather grimly, yet you’ve avoided a comparison with a medieval monarchy. Comparatively, how exactly is American capitalism worse?
4) You said that we’re living in slavery right now. By accepted definitions of slavery, this is not true. What definition are you using?
5) How do you account for the countless number of people born into a certain economic class who move up in the world throughout their life?
I'm going to argue that the above statement is false. My position is that modern American capitalism is better than medieval monarchy. As I will show, the relevant facts support this position overwhelmingly.
Based on my opponents opening argument, I suspect that his tactic will be to convince readers that America today is a slave state and that life as a common person is terrible and hopeless because of "the elite" behind the scenes who secretly control and manipulate everything and everyone for their own benefit. The tale that he will tell is a fictional one, and as such he will be able to provide no evidence in support of it. I intend to make it impossible for him to reconcile his preposterous position with the facts.
Capitalism reduces poverty and increases economic opportunity for the populations which participate in it more than any other system. Consider the following excerpts from the 2001 CATO Institute article, "Ending Mass Poverty."
The historical record is clear: the single, most effective way to reduce world poverty is economic growth. Western countries began discovering this around 1820 when they broke with the historical norm of low growth and initiated an era of dramatic advances in material well-being. Living standards tripled in Europe and quadrupled in the United States in that century, improving at an even faster pace in the next 100 years. Economic growth thus eliminated mass poverty in what is today considered the developed world.
[...]
The West's escape from poverty did not occur by chance.
[...]
The most comprehensive empirical study on the relationship between economic policies and prosperity is the Fraser Institute's "Economic Freedom of the World" annual report. It looks at more than 20 components of economic freedom, ranging from size of government to monetary and trade policy, in 123 countries over a 25-year period. The study finds a strong relationship between economic freedom and prosperity. Divided by quintiles, the freest economies have an average per capita income of $19,800 compared with $2,210 in the least free quintile. Freer economies also grow faster than less free economies.
Source
The CATO Institute is a high profile economic think-tank. The article quoted above was published in the U.S. State Department Journal, Economic Perspectives.
The fact is that free economies in systems which support and protect private ownership and property rights, and which promote free-market practices are better (for the people) than economies in systems which don’t. Capitalism - including modern American capitalism - is a system which embraces this idea. The medieval monarchies did not. Democracy is conducive to a free market. Monarchies are not.
Consider the following generally accepted definitions of capitalism and feudalism:
Capitalism - an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.
Feudalism - a set of political and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the ninth and fifteenth centuries, which broadly defined was a system for ordering society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor.
It is self evident which one of these systems is more conducive to economic growth and widespread prosperity, given the assessment expressed in the CATO report (an assessment which is widely accepted and expressed by many other groups and individuals).
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article “Poverty,” under traditional (non-industrialized) economic systems, poverty was the norm. This would have been the case in under a medieval monarchy. Today, under American capitalism, poverty is consistently under 15% even during the worst of the recent economic depression (according to the Census Bureau, www.census.gov...) This pair of facts alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that my position is correct and that my opponents is not.
Questions:
1) How can you reconcile the economic realities with your assertion that modern American capitalism is worse than a medieval monarchy?
2) So far we have discussed living conditions and economic opportunity in general. To what extent do you intend this debate to be about Generational Servitude? (The title of the debate but not the topic. . .)
3) You’ve painted the situation in America rather grimly, yet you’ve avoided a comparison with a medieval monarchy. Comparatively, how exactly is American capitalism worse?
4) You said that we’re living in slavery right now. By accepted definitions of slavery, this is not true. What definition are you using?
5) How do you account for the countless number of people born into a certain economic class who move up in the world throughout their life?
reply posted on 15-2-2011 @ 08:33 AM by spy66
My opponents questions.
Well, the modern American capitalism has created more debt per person than any other nation, empire or kingdom has ever done. Debt enslaves people in a capitalistic world, so I would say that modern American capitalism has enslaved more people than any other before it.
There are less people who own personal property and capital to day then in the medieval times.
This is not just about money or who has earned more wealth. It is also about the ethics behind the creation of wealth and who actually owns it. The kings, emperors and the elites where very wealthy in the medieval times as well. The common man was kept from rising do to class, rank and lack of personal property “wealth”. The same tactic is used to day with capitalism.
I haven’t talked about the American situation yet. I have tried to create a view that describes what liberties we human beings have taken. Like taking ownership over land, owning animals and other human beings, because they are key factors to the development of Capitalism and monarchy. As I said earlier, it is not just about the money. It’s about human ethics as well. Because that is what determines what is worse.
Correct, but to have a modern capitalistic system. The majority of the human population cant own wealth, capital or property. Because that reduces the demand for human labour, leasing and borrowing. Which is modern American capitalism.
This is the reason why the world is in such debt. The people who wants to move up must borrow or lease from the rich/government. Only a very few move up do to the product they trade or wage they get from their trading position.
My opponents view of my last post:
Based on my opening argument I was laying the grounds and explaining the fundamentals and liberties that we human beings have taken upon our selves "for granted". Which have lead to the creation of Capitalism and Monarchy.
It is true that I want the readers to have a specific view about what I am saying. I think it is important to view society from more than one vantage point. I am not the only one who has to make a choice about which is worse.
Capitalism:
Statism:
Modern American Capitalism is regulated by government doctrines. It is not a free and open market. A capitalist cannot trade with whomever he wants or how he wants. How the capitalist conduct he’s businesses is regulated by the managing system of the government. The capitalists have borrowed money from the government. Which makes the modern American capitalistic system a government sponsored enterprises. When modern American capitalism is really suppose to be a Countervailing power for corruption and other illegal activities.
So the definition for capitalism is false when used to explain modern American capitalism. The modern American capitalism has become a government state interest. The question now becomes. Does the government have the peoples interests at hand or does it just want to do business?
Here are some tools that the modern American capitalism use if the counter capitalist don’t fallow their doctrine. This does not support the definition of capitalism. But political ideology.
Embargoes:
Blockade:
Sanctions:
Political ideology:
If the capitalistic system or government was interested in creating wealth for every human being, the consumption chart wouldn’t look anything like this:
20% of the worlds richest consume 76% of the worlds produced wealth. And 80% of the world population produce the wealth for these 20%. This trend will never change with a capitalistic system, it will only get worse, and it has. When it is not being drifted as it is being portrayed by its own definition. Because only the riche really benefit from making the poor and the middle class work for them.
Why do we have poverty? Or better yet, economic prosperity?
Well, we have poverty when 80% of the world population don’t really have ownership over any property or real capital. The 80% either have to lease or borrow capital from the 16 to 20% that have capital and ownership over property. This creates economic prosperity because the 80% must promise to pay back the rich, plus interest and tax.
This is the model of capitalism. Capitalism can only work when only a few have real ownership over property and capital. You can now imagine why we have fought all these wars throughout history, and why we still do. We have either been fighting wars to secure our leaders property, or we have helped them fight wars to gain more property ownership “wealth”.
The reason why Modern American capitalism is worse than Medieval Monarchy, is because the governments of the world today have perfected the failures from the medieval times with new tactics.
Modern American capitalism have perfected the Roman model of slavery and taxation, to a point where we no longer see our selves as working slaves, but as free indivduals with human rights.
But not without a cost. More freedom means greater debt and higher taxes. In the modern American capitalistic system the common man has debt in one form or another "tax" all he’s life.
If you are not granted work, trade or debt you will live in poverty, and have restricted freedoms and will not be able to take part in the capitalistic system. Because you have no real ownership over property.
Sources:
History of slavery.
en.wikipedia.org...
The state of consumption today.
www.worldwatch.org...
Statism.
en.wikipedia.org...
Political ideology.
en.wikipedia.org...
The Crisis of the 14th century and the "pre-history of capitalism.
en.wikipedia.org...
War.
en.wikipedia.org...
1) How can you reconcile the economic realities with your assertion that modern American capitalism is worse than a medieval monarchy?
Well, the modern American capitalism has created more debt per person than any other nation, empire or kingdom has ever done. Debt enslaves people in a capitalistic world, so I would say that modern American capitalism has enslaved more people than any other before it.
There are less people who own personal property and capital to day then in the medieval times.
2) So far we have discussed living conditions and economic opportunity in general. To what extent do you intend this debate to be about Generational Servitude? (The title of the debate but not the topic. . .)
This is not just about money or who has earned more wealth. It is also about the ethics behind the creation of wealth and who actually owns it. The kings, emperors and the elites where very wealthy in the medieval times as well. The common man was kept from rising do to class, rank and lack of personal property “wealth”. The same tactic is used to day with capitalism.
3) You’ve painted the situation in America rather grimly, yet you’ve avoided a comparison with a medieval monarchy. Comparatively, how exactly is American capitalism worse?
I haven’t talked about the American situation yet. I have tried to create a view that describes what liberties we human beings have taken. Like taking ownership over land, owning animals and other human beings, because they are key factors to the development of Capitalism and monarchy. As I said earlier, it is not just about the money. It’s about human ethics as well. Because that is what determines what is worse.
4) You said that we’re living in slavery right now. By accepted definitions of slavery, this is not true. What definition are you using?
Correct, but to have a modern capitalistic system. The majority of the human population cant own wealth, capital or property. Because that reduces the demand for human labour, leasing and borrowing. Which is modern American capitalism.
5) How do you account for the countless number of people born into a certain economic class who move up in the world throughout their life?
This is the reason why the world is in such debt. The people who wants to move up must borrow or lease from the rich/government. Only a very few move up do to the product they trade or wage they get from their trading position.
My opponents view of my last post:
“Based on my opponents opening argument, I suspect that his tactic will be to convince readers that America today is a slave state and that life as a common person is terrible and hopeless because of "the elite" behind the scenes who secretly control and manipulate everything and everyone for their own benefit. The tale that he will tell is a fictional one, and as such he will be able to provide no evidence in support of it. I intend to make it impossible for him to reconcile his preposterous position with the facts.”
Based on my opening argument I was laying the grounds and explaining the fundamentals and liberties that we human beings have taken upon our selves "for granted". Which have lead to the creation of Capitalism and Monarchy.
It is true that I want the readers to have a specific view about what I am saying. I think it is important to view society from more than one vantage point. I am not the only one who has to make a choice about which is worse.
Capitalism:
is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.
Statism:
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
Modern American Capitalism is regulated by government doctrines. It is not a free and open market. A capitalist cannot trade with whomever he wants or how he wants. How the capitalist conduct he’s businesses is regulated by the managing system of the government. The capitalists have borrowed money from the government. Which makes the modern American capitalistic system a government sponsored enterprises. When modern American capitalism is really suppose to be a Countervailing power for corruption and other illegal activities.
So the definition for capitalism is false when used to explain modern American capitalism. The modern American capitalism has become a government state interest. The question now becomes. Does the government have the peoples interests at hand or does it just want to do business?
Here are some tools that the modern American capitalism use if the counter capitalist don’t fallow their doctrine. This does not support the definition of capitalism. But political ideology.
Embargoes:
is the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country, in order to isolate it.
Blockade:
is an effort to cut off food, supplies, war materiel or communications from a particular area by force, either in part or totally.
Sanctions:
Economic sanctions - typically a ban on trade, possibly limited to certain sectors such as armaments, or with certain exceptions (such as food and medicine)
Political ideology:
"In the developing world, there is a pattern of inequality caused by the powerful subjugating the poor and keeping them dependent. Outside influence is often a large factor and access to trade and resources is the usual cause. It is often asked why the people of these countries do not stand up for themselves. In most cases when they do, they face incredible and often violent oppression from their ruling elites and from outsiders who see their national interests threatened"
If the capitalistic system or government was interested in creating wealth for every human being, the consumption chart wouldn’t look anything like this:
20% of the worlds richest consume 76% of the worlds produced wealth. And 80% of the world population produce the wealth for these 20%. This trend will never change with a capitalistic system, it will only get worse, and it has. When it is not being drifted as it is being portrayed by its own definition. Because only the riche really benefit from making the poor and the middle class work for them.
Why do we have poverty? Or better yet, economic prosperity?
Well, we have poverty when 80% of the world population don’t really have ownership over any property or real capital. The 80% either have to lease or borrow capital from the 16 to 20% that have capital and ownership over property. This creates economic prosperity because the 80% must promise to pay back the rich, plus interest and tax.
This is the model of capitalism. Capitalism can only work when only a few have real ownership over property and capital. You can now imagine why we have fought all these wars throughout history, and why we still do. We have either been fighting wars to secure our leaders property, or we have helped them fight wars to gain more property ownership “wealth”.
The reason why Modern American capitalism is worse than Medieval Monarchy, is because the governments of the world today have perfected the failures from the medieval times with new tactics.
Modern American capitalism have perfected the Roman model of slavery and taxation, to a point where we no longer see our selves as working slaves, but as free indivduals with human rights.
But not without a cost. More freedom means greater debt and higher taxes. In the modern American capitalistic system the common man has debt in one form or another "tax" all he’s life.
If you are not granted work, trade or debt you will live in poverty, and have restricted freedoms and will not be able to take part in the capitalistic system. Because you have no real ownership over property.
Sources:
History of slavery.
en.wikipedia.org...
The state of consumption today.
www.worldwatch.org...
Statism.
en.wikipedia.org...
Political ideology.
en.wikipedia.org...
The Crisis of the 14th century and the "pre-history of capitalism.
en.wikipedia.org...
War.
en.wikipedia.org...
reply posted on 18-2-2011 @ 03:22 PM by OnceReturned
I apologize for the delay, thank you for being accommodating.
My opponent’s argument has missed the mark. In his most recent post, he has described what he believes to be the undesirable elements in the theory of capitalism and in its practice in the United States. He has also identified economic disparity and poverty on a global scale. Neither of these issues address the topic of the debate. I have not suggested that modern American capitalism is perfect, or that the entire world participates in it. Capitalism is not perfect, and many countries do not participate in it. These facts are unrelated to the question of whether or not modern American capitalism is better or worse than medieval monarchy.
As I stated in my opening argument, it is a matter of fact that the population participating in modern American capitalism is better off economically than the population that participated in (or rather, lived under) medieval monarchies. Even though capitalism is not perfect, it’s better than medieval monarchy. The fact that poverty is common in other parts of the world that do not participate in modern American capitalism is irrelevant.
First of all, debt is a zero sum game. For every dollar that is owed, it is owed to someone for whom it will be revenue. Loans and debt are just exchanges of money between people participating in the system, it doesn’t decrease the total resources within the system. In fact, over time, lending leads to growth in an economy.
Secondly, debt in America comes in only two forms: 1) money that an individual or organization borrows, of their own choosing, in order to buy something, and 2) the national debt which paid for by the tax payers. In both cases, the loan/debt system benefit the participants. Most companies are started with borrowed money, and loans are a huge component of the engine that drives economic growth. Individuals who borrow money to buy a house or a car do so because they feel it’s worth it, and usually it is. Personal loans allow individuals to draw on their entire lifetime earning potential relatively early in their life. This allows many more people to own cars and homes than could otherwise. As for the government debt that tax payers pay for, much of this money goes to supporting the sick, elderly, and poor. Other significant sources of government debt are infrastructure related. All of these government services make things better for those who participate in our system, and no comparable programs existed in medieval monarchies. Taxes benefit our poor more than any other group because they pay the least and receive the most valuable services.
Finally, borrowing money doesn’t “enslave” anyone. Private and corporate debt is accumulated by choice, and if you owe money it doesn’t mean that someone owns you, it just means you have to pay back the person you borrowed from. Government debt is only paid for by tax payers, and you only pay taxes if you earn money. The government doesn’t own anyone, but you participate in the system that the government maintains and you earn money by doing so, you are obligated to contribute to the maintenance of development of the system. None of this resembles slavery.
That’s patently false. There are more people who own property today than were even alive in medieval times, and a vastly greater percentage of people participating in modern American capitalism own property (and own more property) than people who lived under medieval monarchies. Consider the following facts:
From The Ecyclopedia Britannica, "Poverty"
From the CATO report linked in my opening argument.
Source
If it’s about ethics, capitalism is superior in every way. There is more economic opportunity, the value of goods and services are determined by their actual value to society; the amount of money people are actually willing to pay for them, and at the end of the day the population as a whole is much, much better off. For the simple fact that the quality of life for the most people is higher under capitalism than medieval monarchies, it is ethically superior. More people faces more hardship in medieval times because of the economic system, that means it’s a worse system.
The fact that rich people exist is irrelevant. They got rich because people gave them the money in exchange for some good or service. The service was valuable to someone who was willing and able to pay for it, so the provider was compensated. That’s not an unethical practice. Even if you take a hard line communist approach and say that it’s unethical to allow people to become rich, it is a matter of fact that the population as a whole, rich and poor, is better of now than in medieval times; there are less poor people, more rich people, and the middle class has a higher quality of life.
The human population is not our group of interest. We’re discussing modern American capitalism. The participants of that system are all permitted to own property and capital, and many more of them do than did in medieval times. Contrary to you apparent impression, wealth in America is less concentrated than it was in medieval times.
The fact that capitalism in America is regulated is of little importance to this conversation. The system is more free than the economies of medieval monarchies, and as a result it more productive and better for those who participate in it. The government’s participation in the economy does not change the fact that it’s a capitalist system, even if it means it’s not a theoretically perfect capitalism. We have one of the freest economies in the world, and as a result it is the most prosperous.
It’s not interested in that. Neither were medieval monarchies. Capitalism creates more wealth for more of it’s participants than medieval monarchies did.
Again, the parts of the world that aren’t engaging in either of the systems that we are comparing aren’t of interest to us. Globally, modern American capitalism is clearly the dominant system:
Source
My opponent is clearly interested in a straw man argument. The perfection of capitalism is not at issue here, and neither is the welfare of populations who didn’t/don’t participate in modern American capitalism or medieval monarchies. That’s at issue a virtue of these two systems relative to one another, not in isolation. When the comparison is made, the reality is clear; capitalism is better because it is better for the people who engage in it.
Questions:
1) If the economic system in America is not capitalism (as the economists seem to believe it is…), what type of economic system is it?
2) Which of the two systems of interest do you believe did/does more to aid it’s poorest people?
3) Which of the two systems of interest do you believe grants the government/king more control of the economy?
4) Based on your assessment, what economic system would be ideal?
5) If taxes amount to slavery in your opinion, why do you think American’s intentionally elect politicians who support higher taxes?
My opponent’s argument has missed the mark. In his most recent post, he has described what he believes to be the undesirable elements in the theory of capitalism and in its practice in the United States. He has also identified economic disparity and poverty on a global scale. Neither of these issues address the topic of the debate. I have not suggested that modern American capitalism is perfect, or that the entire world participates in it. Capitalism is not perfect, and many countries do not participate in it. These facts are unrelated to the question of whether or not modern American capitalism is better or worse than medieval monarchy.
As I stated in my opening argument, it is a matter of fact that the population participating in modern American capitalism is better off economically than the population that participated in (or rather, lived under) medieval monarchies. Even though capitalism is not perfect, it’s better than medieval monarchy. The fact that poverty is common in other parts of the world that do not participate in modern American capitalism is irrelevant.
Well, the modern American capitalism has created more debt per person than any other nation, empire or kingdom has ever done. Debt enslaves people in a capitalistic world, so I would say that modern American capitalism has enslaved more people than any other before it.
First of all, debt is a zero sum game. For every dollar that is owed, it is owed to someone for whom it will be revenue. Loans and debt are just exchanges of money between people participating in the system, it doesn’t decrease the total resources within the system. In fact, over time, lending leads to growth in an economy.
Secondly, debt in America comes in only two forms: 1) money that an individual or organization borrows, of their own choosing, in order to buy something, and 2) the national debt which paid for by the tax payers. In both cases, the loan/debt system benefit the participants. Most companies are started with borrowed money, and loans are a huge component of the engine that drives economic growth. Individuals who borrow money to buy a house or a car do so because they feel it’s worth it, and usually it is. Personal loans allow individuals to draw on their entire lifetime earning potential relatively early in their life. This allows many more people to own cars and homes than could otherwise. As for the government debt that tax payers pay for, much of this money goes to supporting the sick, elderly, and poor. Other significant sources of government debt are infrastructure related. All of these government services make things better for those who participate in our system, and no comparable programs existed in medieval monarchies. Taxes benefit our poor more than any other group because they pay the least and receive the most valuable services.
Finally, borrowing money doesn’t “enslave” anyone. Private and corporate debt is accumulated by choice, and if you owe money it doesn’t mean that someone owns you, it just means you have to pay back the person you borrowed from. Government debt is only paid for by tax payers, and you only pay taxes if you earn money. The government doesn’t own anyone, but you participate in the system that the government maintains and you earn money by doing so, you are obligated to contribute to the maintenance of development of the system. None of this resembles slavery.
There are less people who own personal property and capital to day then in the medieval times.
That’s patently false. There are more people who own property today than were even alive in medieval times, and a vastly greater percentage of people participating in modern American capitalism own property (and own more property) than people who lived under medieval monarchies. Consider the following facts:
"Under traditional (i.e., nonindustrialized) modes of economic production, widespread poverty had been accepted as inevitable. The total output of goods and services, even if equally distributed, would still have been insufficient to give the entire population a comfortable standard of living by prevailing standards. With the economic productivity that resulted from industrialization, however, this ceased to be the case"
From The Ecyclopedia Britannica, "Poverty"
Harvard economist Robert Barro notes that per capita income in the United States grew at an average 1.75 percent per year from 1870 to 1990, making Americans the richest people in the world.
From the CATO report linked in my opening argument.
Source
This is not just about money or who has earned more wealth. It is also about the ethics behind the creation of wealth and who actually owns it. The kings, emperors and the elites where very wealthy in the medieval times as well. The common man was kept from rising do to class, rank and lack of personal property “wealth”. The same tactic is used to day with capitalism.
If it’s about ethics, capitalism is superior in every way. There is more economic opportunity, the value of goods and services are determined by their actual value to society; the amount of money people are actually willing to pay for them, and at the end of the day the population as a whole is much, much better off. For the simple fact that the quality of life for the most people is higher under capitalism than medieval monarchies, it is ethically superior. More people faces more hardship in medieval times because of the economic system, that means it’s a worse system.
The fact that rich people exist is irrelevant. They got rich because people gave them the money in exchange for some good or service. The service was valuable to someone who was willing and able to pay for it, so the provider was compensated. That’s not an unethical practice. Even if you take a hard line communist approach and say that it’s unethical to allow people to become rich, it is a matter of fact that the population as a whole, rich and poor, is better of now than in medieval times; there are less poor people, more rich people, and the middle class has a higher quality of life.
The majority of the human population cant own wealth, capital or property. Because that reduces the demand for human labour, leasing and borrowing. Which is modern American capitalism.
The human population is not our group of interest. We’re discussing modern American capitalism. The participants of that system are all permitted to own property and capital, and many more of them do than did in medieval times. Contrary to you apparent impression, wealth in America is less concentrated than it was in medieval times.
Modern American Capitalism is regulated by government doctrines. It is not a free and open market. A capitalist cannot trade with whomever he wants or how he wants. How the capitalist conduct he’s businesses is regulated by the managing system of the government. The capitalists have borrowed money from the government. Which makes the modern American capitalistic system a government sponsored enterprises. When modern American capitalism is really suppose to be a Countervailing power for corruption and other illegal activities.
The fact that capitalism in America is regulated is of little importance to this conversation. The system is more free than the economies of medieval monarchies, and as a result it more productive and better for those who participate in it. The government’s participation in the economy does not change the fact that it’s a capitalist system, even if it means it’s not a theoretically perfect capitalism. We have one of the freest economies in the world, and as a result it is the most prosperous.
If the capitalistic system or government was interested in creating wealth for every human being. . .
It’s not interested in that. Neither were medieval monarchies. Capitalism creates more wealth for more of it’s participants than medieval monarchies did.
Well, we have poverty when 80% of the world population don’t really have ownership over any property or real capital.
Again, the parts of the world that aren’t engaging in either of the systems that we are comparing aren’t of interest to us. Globally, modern American capitalism is clearly the dominant system:
Source
My opponent is clearly interested in a straw man argument. The perfection of capitalism is not at issue here, and neither is the welfare of populations who didn’t/don’t participate in modern American capitalism or medieval monarchies. That’s at issue a virtue of these two systems relative to one another, not in isolation. When the comparison is made, the reality is clear; capitalism is better because it is better for the people who engage in it.
Questions:
1) If the economic system in America is not capitalism (as the economists seem to believe it is…), what type of economic system is it?
2) Which of the two systems of interest do you believe did/does more to aid it’s poorest people?
3) Which of the two systems of interest do you believe grants the government/king more control of the economy?
4) Based on your assessment, what economic system would be ideal?
5) If taxes amount to slavery in your opinion, why do you think American’s intentionally elect politicians who support higher taxes?
reply posted on 8-3-2011 @ 09:02 PM by OnceReturned
1) What, exactly, is superior about a medieval monarchy when compared to the modern American system?
I will say this as my answer: Modern American capitalism will be the shortest lived economic system ever. The system is on the verge of collapse as we speak. And that is only after it has been in motion for barely a hundred years compare to Rome’s 482 years.
First of all, the notion that modern American capitalism is on the verge of collapse is a fringe view that is totally unsupported by the facts. America has by far the largest economy in the world; we produce and consumer much more than any other country both in total and per capita. Just because the stock market has a few bad years doesn’t mean we’re on the threshold of the next Dark Age. We still have free wi-fi, space-ships, and super-computers that can defeat humans in Jeopardy. We’re no where near the end.
Second of all, even if you could make an incredibly strong argument to support this notion - which can’t be done - it’s still speculative. We know for a fact that medieval monarchies are all gone. If capacity to exist is your metric for success, all you have to do is look around. Modern American capitalism is thriving more today than any system ever on this planet - except modern American capitalism a few years ago - and medieval monarchies are nowhere to be found except in history books.
Thirdly, what does expected lifespan have to do with anything? More people possess a higher quality of life in America today than ever did in all of the medieval monarchies combined. We produce more, consume more, and live better. I’d like to redirect your attention to a couple images I linked in a previous post:
Image 1
Image 2
Consider that there were about as many people alive in medieval times on the planet as there are today in the United States:
Image 3
Modern American capitalism is better for more people no matter how you slice it. Ridiculous apocalyptic predictions aside; this system is booming and medieval monarchies are dead.
That we don’t see anything that is fundamentally wrong with our own present modern American capitalistic system.
That is why it will be the shortest lived and most painful economic system ever experienced by us common wage slaves.
That we have progressive movements in this country is proof that some people do see things wrong with our present system. That amendments are made to our constitution is proof that we as a nation don’t think the system is perfect. That political descent is as common as it is proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your first statement here is false. We don’t think the system is perfect.
On the other hand, based on the results, we have the best system in the world and in the history of the world. If you think that Americans are living in “the most painful system” as “slaves,” you simply don’t know how good you’ve got it. Try Somalia. We’re the richest country in the world and we live outrageously well because of it. You can go to a hospital right now with a stroke, and hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent to save your life even if you’ve never paid a dime in taxes or to health insurance. There are entire communities today in third world countries that don’t have an operating budget that high. If you think being an average person living in poverty (because that’s what average people did) in the Dark Ages was better than living in America today, you’re either crazy or misinformed.
You’re not going to convince anyone that America is “the most painful” system to live in, or that Americans are “slaves.” It’s obviously untrue.
reply posted on 9-3-2011 @ 12:39 PM by spy66
First of all, the notion that modern American capitalism is on the verge of collapse is a fringe view that is totally unsupported by the facts. America has by far the largest economy in the world; we produce and consumer much more than any other country both in total and per capita.
Exactly. That is why:
Net Energy Will Lead To The End Of American Capitalism And To A Rapid Decline In World Population.
The soul reason that there are close to 7 billion people on earth to day; Is because of our large modern fossil fueled industry, fossil fueled mechanized agriculture and Oil resources. Because of our easy access to fossil fuel energy; there is a significantly larger population today than could have ever survived without it.
The image under corresponds perfectly to image 1 and 3 which you provided and the information i am going to provide.
We mine our minerals and fossil fuels from the Earth's crust. The deeper we have to dig, the greater our need for access energy becomes.
We hardly ever stop to thinks about the energy that is utilized in systems that supply our energy, such as oil consuming power plants.
But energy is also utilized when exploring for fuel, building the machinery to mine the fuel, mining the fuel, building and operating the power plants, building power lines to transmit the energy, decommissioning the plants, and so on.
The most concentrated and easy accessible fuels and minerals are mined first. After that more and more energy is required to mine and refine poorer and poorer quality resources. New technologies can on a short term decrease energy costs, but neither technology or cost can repeal the laws of thermodynamics. "Heat needed to convert energy into motion that works the machinery". These are the facts we are facing when depleting finite resources at present rate. The US Is Consuming More Energy Than It Can Discover.
“we produce and consumer much more than any other country both in total and per capita”.
What is the for most biggest problem with modern American capitalism?
It is its demand for exponential growth. It’s the constant demand for more energy, more consumption, more new products, more jobs, more spending and more economical growth. It acts as if there are no limits.
Modern American capitalism “business-as-usual” model, which requires endless economic growth and endless job creation, is no longer physically possible because net energy is on a rapid decline.
Net Energy Gain (NEG) is a concept used in energy economics that refers to the difference between the energy expended to harvest an energy source and the amount of energy gained from that harvest.
During the 1920s, 50 barrels of crude oil were extracted for every barrel of crude used in the extraction and refining process. Today only 5 barrels are harvested for every barrel used. When the net energy gain of an energy source reaches zero, then the source is no longer contributing energy to an economy.
In 1972, the Club of Rome "COR" shocked the world with a study titled The Limits To Growth.
The Limits To Growth. en.wikipedia.org...
Three main conclusions were reached by this study. The first suggests that within a time span of less than 100 years with no major change in the physical, economic, or social relationships that have traditionally governed world development, society will run out of the nonrenewable resources on which the industrial base depends. When the resources have been depleted, a precipitous collapse of the economic system will result, manifested in massive unemployment, decreased food production, and a decline in population as the death rate soars. There is no smooth transition, no gradual slowing down of activity; rather, the economic system consumes successively larger amounts of the depletable resources until they are gone. The characteristic behavior of the system is overshoot and collapse.
The second conclusion of the study is that piecemeal approaches to solving the individual problems will not be successful. To demonstrate this point, the authors arbitrarily double their estimates of the resource base and allow the model to trace out an alternative vision based on this new higher level of resources. In this alternative vision the collapse still occurs, but this time it is caused by excessive pollution generated by the increased pace of industrialization permitted by the greater availability of resources. The authors then suggest that if the depletable resource and pollution problems were somehow jointly solved, population would grow unabated and the availability of food would become the binding constraint. In this model the removal of one limit merely causes the system to bump subsequently into another one, usually with more dire consequences.
As its third and final conclusion, the study suggests that overshoot and collapse can be avoided only by an immediate limit on population and pollution, as well as a cessation of economic growth. The portrait painted shows only two possible outcomes: the termination of growth by self-restraint and conscious policy—an approach that avoids the collapse—or the termination of growth by a collision with the natural limits, resulting in societal collapse. Thus, according to this study, one way or the other, growth will cease. The only issue is whether the conditions under which it will cease will be congenial or hostile.
In 2008 Graham Turner at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia published a paper called "A Comparison of `The Limits to Growth` with Thirty Years of Reality".[6][7] It examined the past thirty years of reality with the predictions made in 1972 and found that changes in industrial production, food production and pollution are all in line with the book's predictions of economic and societal collapse in the 21st century.[8]
My opponent:
Modern American capitalism is better for more people no matter how you slice it. Ridiculous apocalyptic predictions aside; this system is booming and medieval monarchies are dead.
You are right about that medieval times is dead and will probably never be experienced again; When the capitalistic system has drained the earth for valuable resources, polluted and destroyed the land and waters beyond repair for thousands of years; Humanity will rapidly fall to a age when humans were once scavengers; if they are that lucky.
Modern American capitalism and its energy consumption is what made population growth reach close to 7 billion people possible. Medieval times didn’t have the resources and technology to make that happen. It only laid the foundation for it to happen. But there are no access resources left to sustain the modern American capitalistic system as it is being drifted today.
Modern American capitalism won’t last because of the constant demand for exponential growth, and as medieval time’s humanity will most likely never ever experience modern American capitalism again.
A medieval monarchy drifted system is a more long term and sustainable system than modern American capitalism. “Medieval monarchy = 482 years, Modern American capitalism = 100+ years.
The only negative with a monarchy is that it is dangerously close to becoming/being a dictatorship or tyranny. But people can at least do something about that. But Modern American capitalism is a fast exit to a possible human extinction event and there is nothing we can do about it; if we keep a present course of action.
Pages: ^^TOP^^
