Help with a Debate Project for My Sister

Make sure you throw in how there haven't actually been very many fully capitalist societies. They have usually been very protectionist.

1. Wheel in a cake.

2. Give half the cake to the teacher.

3. Divide half of the remaining cake up among the class.

4. Leave the rest of the cake untouched as it isn't up for loan or investment right now.

There're some cons I can think of that are relevant here, such as: the unfair distribution of wealth and power, tendancies towards market monopoly/oligopoly, exploitation of workers & the obvious one: economic instability.

Um, hii. xD I'm Spencer's sister and I really appreciate all of your help ^_^

In debate we have narrowed the pro side to 3 contingents which are:

1. Capitalism promotes freedom

2. Capitalism promotes compition and innovation

3. Capitalism improves standard of living

I have some more stuff with these contingents, but I don't have my notes here and this stuff was on my phone, so I'll maybe post that tomorrow if anyone wants to see that. So, what I need is arguments against them I guess. Thanks

Thats it?

The pro side will easily be crushed by the help of your brothers die hard loyalists..

Those three things are highly speculated as well, and isn't seen in everything in a capitalist society.

There is always the universal argument that it is an "ism". Meaning it's not flexible in design and often idealistic in nature, which can cause its followers to ignore reality in favor of ideology in times when change is needed.

That one is my personal favorite.

Capitalism as opposed to what? Socialism? Corporatism? I can talk about the China model.

It is beyond the nuts and bolts of its colossal 30-year transformation, however, that we find China’s true challenge. It exports something simpler, more appealing to many and indeed more corrosive to western pre-eminence. This is the basic idea of market authoritarianism. Beyond any other aspect of China’s example, and beyond everything else that China sells to the world, it functions as the world’s largest billboard advertisement for “going capitalist and staying autocratic”.
Its significance has less to do with “development models” and more to do with winning the “battle of ideas” about the optimum relationship between the rulers and the ruled. As detailed in “The Beijing Consensus”, China promotes values and norms that challenge the foundation of western governance and that hold great attraction for governing elites in the “world beyond the West”. It promises regime leaders authority without contentious legislatures or challenging media, and it promises the people employment, housing and a better future. It demonstrates that improving the environment, labour conditions and social services can be set aside—for a while—to accommodate “breakneck growth”. Crucially, it does not promise an open public square or the rights of free speech, belief, or association. The public is invited to respect the authorities and stay out of politics.
Still, China’s achievements are significant. It is a “third world” nation that has risen to the pinnacle of world power and is, unsurprisingly, the envy of others seeking to do the same.
A quick look at the numbers:
China has grown by an average rate of 11% over the past 30 years. Its hard currency reserves are the largest in the world, now approximately $2 trillion. While the West struggled for growth during the 2007-09 recession, China grew by more than 8%. Since 1980 hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty: according to Chinese government statistics, the poverty rate (defined as households earning $7,000 per year) dropped by 50.5% between 1981 and 2005. Infant mortality fell nearly 40% between 1990 and 2005; telephone access in this period increased more than 94-fold, to 57.1%. Disposable incomes and consumption rates have grown by about 18% a year, compared with just 2% in America. Moreover, there has been a surge of home ownership in China. By 2007, 80% of urban homes in China were owned by individuals.
These are remarkable achievements—yet ruling China is no walk in the park. Although there has been improvement in some areas, endemic corruption, environmental degradation, labour disputes, dramatic inequities between the coastal and interior provinces, an identity crisis with the decline of Maoism, rising class differences and a quixotic nationalism are all part of everyday life.
The Communist Party remains the sole source of state-sanctioned power, and notions such as “checks and balances”, “an independent judiciary”, “a loyal opposition” and “transparency” are largely absent. Commerce for many foreign companies is a nightmare; Chinese and western business practices are very different, with privacy violations, intellectual property theft—a $200 billion per year business—and the state-sanctioned theft of corporate secrets all too common.
Yet, if these accent the problems and faultlines in Chinese society, China’s market-authoritarian system is accepted by the vast majority of its 1.4 billion people. Moreover, trading employment, housing, stability and a steadily improving quality of life for an open public square is equally acceptable to a majority of the world’s 5 billion people, who have known little else.
As the government has expanded its commercial relations, political relations have followed, with China now the largest investor in Africa and many parts of Central Asia and Latin America. One local effect of China’s mentoring embrace is that its market-authoritarian example marginalises the principles of governance that have informed western progress for over 200 years. In people terms, it means that for those ruled by governments that admire and, even in small ways, seek to replicate China’s market-authoritarian example, the prospects of experiencing democratic civil society are remote—perhaps non-existent.
Thus the point is not that “China offers a better development model than the West”. Talk of models misses the point. Rather, China is quietly remaking the landscape of international development, economics and community—and by extension politics—in ways that progressively limit the projection of western influence and values beyond the NATO bloc. It is, in effect, catalyst-in-chief for a profound and disturbing process: China is shrinking the idea of the West.

*edited by Stalin to make it readable*

That is because most "capitalist" societies are indeed protectionist towards big business.

Also Danica, when you lose the debate, just blame the jews and you will become instant hero.

I approve, blaming the jews always works.

It works everytime.. don't forget those damn Commies!

The pros team will undoubtably be fighting an uphill battle.

Yeah, I'm not going to blame the Jews Dx I'll defiantly lose then...

And those are just contingents, we add speeches to them and we haven't done that yet, but like I said we have added a little to them I just don't have it with me at the moment.

Well at least you'll lose defiantly, and not like a pussy.

Inflation, Prolonged inflation leads to rediculous prices like we are seeing now.

Big con, Stock market.

I could say that inflation could be fixed by switching to the gold standard and eliminating the central banking system, and to think otherwise wouldn't be capitalist at all. What now?

Perfect! Then she could roll out the Great Depression argument.

I was not trying to support her, merely say how BoR's argument was not relevant, also the Great Depression happened long after we established a central banking system.

As far as we can tell the amount of recessions are getting smaller and less frequent since we established the fed.

And what does that tell you Shaw? Anyway, this thread isn't about the irrelevance of your inconvenient small-scale agrarian society to the modern advanced industrial world.

I don't know, is it supposed to tell me something?

My what?

Also for the last time I do not necessarily support the end of a central banking system or the return of the gold standard. Here, I was simply trying to prove a point, which you clearly missed as you jumped at another chance to discredit me.