Few things here: Most millionaires (around 70%) are self-made, so going back 200 years to the 1900s when the wealthy become so by inheritance is irrelevant. This indicates capitalism allows for individuals to prosper from their merit. Disparities in starting point, that is the conditions to which an individual is born into, isn't sufficient to argue for socialism in place of capitalism, despite these conditions generally being key players in the outcome of peoples. Firstly, the poorest people in capitalist countries have better living conditions in socialist countries. This is the point I think that the pro-capitalist debater should've touched upon. The pro-socialist debater premised his argument for the insufficiency of capitalism to help poor people on the fact there are disparities in starting points and outcomes within a capitalist system, but this has been the case for most humans through out most the modern world and more so throughout the past, despite the economic model under which they lived. Claiming you want to help poor people is easy to say, most people want that, but what is more difficult is to show that a socialist system is a better economic model to achieve this than capitalism. Most socialist countries that have existed in the last hundreds of years have had terrible living conditions when compared to those working class living under most western capitalist economies. There is not one socialist country you can point out to prove otherwise (and Scandinavian countries aren't socialist lol, they just have a large social safety nets acquired by taxing everybody, not by disproportionately taxing the rich through a incentive-crushing progressive tax system). If you want Scandinavian outcomes that's fine, just apply Scandinavian economic policies but that isn't socialism because most there are many Scandinavian billionaires and millionaires who become wealthy by starting businesses in their domestic nations. The necessity of government to hold together a capitalist system has nothing to do with socialism. The classical definition of socialism is the the government owning the means of production and property, and in modern times this definition has also extended to include severe government involvement through intense market regulations and heavy taxes (mostly progressive in nature). Therefore, this it's a logical fallacy to claim socialism should replace capitalism because a government must collect taxes for infrastructure, and other public costs, as the vast majority of capitalist would agree. Money itself isn't was makes people wealthy (in economic terms) but the the access to good and services. Capitalism has a much better track record in allowing basic things to be available and affordable to the average person, such as shelter, water, food, job opportunities, better spending power, etc. Most technological inventions and the process by which they become cheap enough to be accessible to most people is all capitalism baby. There are many technical economic reasons for this but I tell you to look at living standards of the poorest people in England, Germany, USA, Sweden, Japan, compared to the Soviet Union, Venezuela, and compare all the other socialist countries that ever existed. There is a clear-cut winner. Overall, I think the socialist debated was better prepared and a good debater, his concerns are valid, but I just think he hasn't thought in terms reality instead of an idealistic values. I care about poor people as much as him but the evidence points to capitalism as a better way to help than socialism.
I believe being a billionaire is understandable but the ethics behind the people reach that point isn’t just. To reach that point you have to prioritise profits over everything even if that means making others lives worse for sake of profits(typically workers) I believe that workers should have more power to choose who gets to lead in businesses so that the Board of Directors and CEOs have accountability towards their workers who are.
Billionaires exists as they are the byproduct of not just capitalism but also socialism. In a society that services a need. Some become billionaires not because they want to but because their ideas generated the billions and therefore often give back. Michael Jackson is a prime example. He was a Billionaire but his heart was also about giving. He was also an astute business man and a phenomenal artist. It is always those who lack finances of that level who say there should be no Billionaire but when you inner-stand the way life works. Common sense starts to kick in. Respectfully
Few things here:
Most millionaires (around 70%) are self-made, so going back 200 years to the 1900s when the wealthy become so by inheritance is irrelevant. This indicates capitalism allows for individuals to prosper from their merit.
Disparities in starting point, that is the conditions to which an individual is born into, isn't sufficient to argue for socialism in place of capitalism, despite these conditions generally being key players in the outcome of peoples. Firstly, the poorest people in capitalist countries have better living conditions in socialist countries. This is the point I think that the pro-capitalist debater should've touched upon. The pro-socialist debater premised his argument for the insufficiency of capitalism to help poor people on the fact there are disparities in starting points and outcomes within a capitalist system, but this has been the case for most humans through out most the modern world and more so throughout the past, despite the economic model under which they lived. Claiming you want to help poor people is easy to say, most people want that, but what is more difficult is to show that a socialist system is a better economic model to achieve this than capitalism. Most socialist countries that have existed in the last hundreds of years have had terrible living conditions when compared to those working class living under most western capitalist economies. There is not one socialist country you can point out to prove otherwise (and Scandinavian countries aren't socialist lol, they just have a large social safety nets acquired by taxing everybody, not by disproportionately taxing the rich through a incentive-crushing progressive tax system). If you want Scandinavian outcomes that's fine, just apply Scandinavian economic policies but that isn't socialism because most there are many Scandinavian billionaires and millionaires who become wealthy by starting businesses in their domestic nations.
The necessity of government to hold together a capitalist system has nothing to do with socialism. The classical definition of socialism is the the government owning the means of production and property, and in modern times this definition has also extended to include severe government involvement through intense market regulations and heavy taxes (mostly progressive in nature). Therefore, this it's a logical fallacy to claim socialism should replace capitalism because a government must collect taxes for infrastructure, and other public costs, as the vast majority of capitalist would agree.
Money itself isn't was makes people wealthy (in economic terms) but the the access to good and services. Capitalism has a much better track record in allowing basic things to be available and affordable to the average person, such as shelter, water, food, job opportunities, better spending power, etc. Most technological inventions and the process by which they become cheap enough to be accessible to most people is all capitalism baby. There are many technical economic reasons for this but I tell you to look at living standards of the poorest people in England, Germany, USA, Sweden, Japan, compared to the Soviet Union, Venezuela, and compare all the other socialist countries that ever existed. There is a clear-cut winner.
Overall, I think the socialist debated was better prepared and a good debater, his concerns are valid, but I just think he hasn't thought in terms reality instead of an idealistic values. I care about poor people as much as him but the evidence points to capitalism as a better way to help than socialism.
Thank you for watching and sharing! Real interesting read !
I believe being a billionaire is understandable but the ethics behind the people reach that point isn’t just.
To reach that point you have to prioritise profits over everything even if that means making others lives worse for sake of profits(typically workers)
I believe that workers should have more power to choose who gets to lead in businesses so that the Board of Directors and CEOs have accountability towards their workers who are.
Billionaires exists as they are the byproduct of not just capitalism but also socialism. In a society that services a need. Some become billionaires not because they want to but because their ideas generated the billions and therefore often give back. Michael Jackson is a prime example. He was a Billionaire but his heart was also about giving. He was also an astute business man and a phenomenal artist. It is always those who lack finances of that level who say there should be no Billionaire but when you inner-stand the way life works. Common sense starts to kick in. Respectfully
Are you a billionaire or even a millionaire?😅
NHS was originally proposed by a Conservative Politician.
First country to introduce a 40 hour working week in Europe, Germany, Adolf to be exact.
Thank you for watching !