2025 Undergrad Econ Debate: Is capitalism the most efficient system?

Good to go. Y good afternoon everyone. Uh thank you for coming. My team and I are excited for this opportunity. Uh and we wish the best of luck to our opponents. Uh I'm Matt and our team is the affirmative side for capitalism being the most effective economic system. When it comes to economies, we should all agree that some aspects of an effective economy would include putting money in the hands of consumers, incentivizing advancement, encouraging innovation, providing people with freedoms and opportunities, and increasing the standard of living. Capitalism is the best economic system to achieve these goals through its free and competitive markets and private ownership of businesses and properties. When it comes to putting money into the hands of consumers, capitalism has been proven to do this better than any other economic system. In this graph, the x-axis is the country's score in the index of economic freedom with a higher score, meaning a more economically free country. The y-axis is GDP per capita. A clear trend shows that a freer economic system increases GDP per capita. In the economically free capitalist countries, uh GDP per capita comes in at $63,588. While in the least economically free countries, GDP per capita barely reaches $7,716. The most economically free countries including Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Singapore are all considered to have economies based on capitalism. Additionally, when it comes to development over time, in the last 25 years, countries gaining economic freedom have an average annual growth of GDP per capita of 2.6%. While countries losing economic freedom have a growth rate of only 1.5%. To go more in depth of how capitalism produces these results, capitalism puts money into the hands of consumers mainly through wages. Private businesses compete with each other to produce goods and services and achieve this by hiring workers and paying them a wage. However, capitalism doesn't limit people to just that income as people can invest their money into things like the stock market and real estate, making it so consumers can gain wealth through labor and ownership. Due to capitalism's ability to put money into the hands of consumers, there is no economic system more effective than capitalism. Hello everyone. My name is Andrew and I would like to thank you for listening to me speak today. In in this debate, I will argue that capitalism is the most effective economic structure because of its incentive incentive structure which drives both innovation and economic growth which in turn improves the lives of everyday people. Let's start with one core principle. Incentives drive human behavior. Capitalism is built upon the simple yet powerful truth. In a capitalist economy, individuals and businesses are rewarded by m for making better products and iterating on processes to make them more efficient and cost-effective. This is all driven on by the profit motive. The profit motive acts as a signal both as a signal and a reward. When somebody creates a product or service that service that people want, they earn profit. That profit isn't just money. It's feedback. It tells businesses that you're doing something right. This feedback loops pushes companies to improve, to adapt, and to listen to consumers and to simply be better. For example, the profit found in the medical industry leads to life-saving innovations in medicine. So, in short, capitalism harnesses self-interest and transform it transforms it into social benefit. And contrasting this with a centrally planned or command economy with the absence of profit incentives of often leads to stagnation, inefficiency, and waste. People have no reason to work more than the bare minimum to go above and beyond or go over the quota. When bureaucrats instead of consumers decide what gets produced, there's no reason to innovate or improve. And history shows this clearly. from the consumer goods shortages and black market in the Soviet Union to the inefficiencies of state-run enterprises around the globe. Moreover, capitalism is inherently adaptable. When consumer values shift towards sustainability, companies respond. Why? Because the incentive to survive and profit demands it. That's why things like green energy, ethical sourcing, and corporate responsibility are on the rise. Not because of strict government mandates, but because market incentivizes people to to give the people what they want. And let me be clear, capitalism is not a perfect system. But but perfection isn't the standard we're talking about here. It's effectiveness. And effectiveness means allocating resources, encouraging innovation, and improving lives on a large scale. Capitalism does does all three better than any known alternative economic system. In closing, this is why capitalism powered by incentives remains the most effective economic system because it dynamically responds to what people need and want. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Owen. The next part I would like to touch on is innovation within capitalism. Throughout history, capitalist societies have consistently led the way in producing groundbreaking technologies, life-saving medical advancements, and sweeping improvements in all quality of life. The industrial revolution, often considered the starting point of modern innovation, was not orchestrated by centralized states, but emerged naturally from competitive capitalist economies like Britain. Steam engines, textile machines, and railways transform industry living standards in the course of history. Fast forward today when we think about the technologies that define our era. Smartphone, electric vehicles, the internet. We are looking at products that were developed and refined in capitalist economies. In fact, according to the global innovation index in 2024, the world's most top five most innovative countries, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and the United sorry, Switzerland, Sweden, the United States, Singapore, and the United Kingdom are all capitalist economies. Why is this pattern so consistent? Capitalism fosters the kind of environment innovation needs to thrive. Offers freedom of experimentation and creative risk-taking. It supports decentralized decision-making, enabling thousands of individuals and companies to simultaneously explore different solutions to complex problems. Economist Joseph Joseph Nipper, I'm sorry, captured this dynamic through the concept of creative destruction. The continual process in capitalism where older industries give way to newer, better ones. In capitalist economies, this destruction isn't fear, it's embraced. Companies that fail to innovate lose relevance. While those who bring transformative ideas forward flourish without this constant renewal, economies stagnate. Capitalism ensures that progress doesn't just happen, it accelerates. Moreover, capitalist economies don't just invent, they scale innovation. When the first computers and cell phones were created, they were expensive, rare, and exclusive. However, through capitalist competition and max production, those innovation became accessible to billions. Today, farmers in rural Africa use smartphones powered by capitalist technologies to access weather forecasts, market prices, and banking services. A leap that would have been unimaginable just decades ago. Even in these sectors where public research plays a role, such pharmaceuticals or aerospace is just overwhelmingly capitalism that transform research into real world applications. In short, capitalism creates the conditions where innovation is not just possible but inevitable. By encouraging experimentation, embracing change, and rapidly spreading new technology, capitalism has repeatedly shown itself to be the best system for advancing humanity's collective future. For these reasons, I strongly encourage you to affirm the resolution. Capitalism is and remains the most economic effective economic system when it comes to driving innovation. Thank you. All right. So for freedom and economics opportunities for the base theory capitalist theory emphasizes that competition between uh between businesses and consumers overall the increased competition benefits the consumer side. Competing firms must offer better quality or lower prices to win over consumers which is drastically more prevalent in capitalist economies that have uh freedom of choice and more overall choices for consumers. This essentially empowers consumers and forces businesses to serve at the pleasure of the consumer also forcing efficiency leading to much more natural and econ and incentivized economic growth. Economic freedoms are also have been throughout history portrayed as a subset of human freedoms. Economic freedom concerns economic activity such as working, transassing, holding and using and holding and using productive and private property. When individuals are more economically free, there are few and less severe constraints on economic choices besides forms those constraints that protect the rights of others. Then um in his theory, Milton Friedman argued that competitive capitalism separates economic power from political empower. When livelihoods do not uh depend on state permissions and controls, citizens can finance opposition parties, independent media, nos and lawsuits that check rulers leading to more uh free and incentivized political structure. According to the institute of de libertat economica, the most economically free and market driven countries have an average GDP of six of nearly eight times. As previously said, this um not only leads to lower poverty levels but also increased funding for social programs through taxation and a ra standard of living which also increases personal choice and freedom and opportunity for all individuals. Uh to visualize this we using this chart right here. It shows uh the correlation from the human human freedom index on both personal and economic freedom. The the scale is an 0 to1 scale and it has a uh 0.73 correlation showing a clear positive correlation between both personal and economic freedom which has various impacts both and the economic state and political state of each country for capitalism as a social means for social funding and expanding on and kind of the overall political scale of state control. Capitalisms can enhance social programs and public welfare through mechanisms such as economic growth, innovation, job creation, philanthropy, and uh public private partnerships. Capitalist economies often experience higher growth rates leading to increased tax revenues that fund social programs. Okay. For instance, countries that have embraced market reforms have seen significant income scrapes income gains. For example, a study by the independent institute found that nations becoming more capitalists over a 25year period experienced a 43% increase in average income and nearly half a decrease decade increase in life expectancy. Additionally, capitalism fosters competition and innovation leading to advancements that can be leveraged in public welfare programs. According to the center for strategic and international studies, the US private sector in 2021 invested 62 billion in research and development, accounting for nearly 75% of the nation's total R&D spending. These innovations often translate into proved public services such as healthcare technologies and educational tools. Overall, due to the higher revenue generated by capitalist economies, there's much more money available for the public sector investments such as education and public healthcare programs. And there are many approaches made by various countries to public sector investment and government integration economies. Um in the I don't know in the US news list of most um the high highest standard of living countries the one or countries 1 through 23 had either a capitalist or mixed market capitalist economies and making up the vast majority of today's advanced economies. Examples include the countries of Western Europe, Canada, Australia and others. These nations have substantial government sectors such as taxfunded education, healthcare and social safety nets. But the core productive engine is still capitalism. The as income is funded by private businesses, market prices and competition that drive most of the research allocation. um m common misconception is in Nordic countries countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Norways that are off that are frequently rank high among the standard of living indexes. Um these countries are oftenly mislabeled as socialist or state controlled. However to the critique is however most of their own leaders are quick to correct this as as once said by Denmark um prime minister Lars Ramusen. Uh he said Denmark is far from a socialist plan economy. Denmark is a free market economy. The Noric model combines free market capitalism and um with also a strong sector of public sector investment that are capitalist funded but organized and paid through through higher taxation. uh overall the outcomes of the capitalist economy includes higher GDP, higher innovation and lower poverty and but it's and although despite the crucial role the state and public center advances isn't crucial that the underlying economy remains flexible and market driven. Hi everyone, my name is Kunal. Um capitalism improves the quality of life through social funding initiatives providing consumer choice and increasing social mobility. When we talk about the effectiveness of an economic system, we must ask a simple question. Does it improve the everyday lives of people and capitalism consistently does? Capitalism creates wealth that funds social initiatives. Capitalism provides consumer choice and capitalism enables social mobilities. It through wealth it uh it also allows us to fund social initiatives like healthcare, education and infrastructures. countries often held up as examples of strong social welfare like Nordic countries have all adopted the model of capitalism. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Affirmative side. Next is the negative side for another 15 minutes and I'll give you guys time to plug in your computer. Capitalism has proven itself to be an ineffective economic system. America is in freef fall. The unprecedented nature of the levels of vast opposition and political allegiance have resulted in a completely unpredictable economy and social environment. To start, the US has dropped on the world happiness index since 2012. And while non-capitalist countries including swin Sweden and Finland have seen an increase, the 2008 financial crisis cost the US government over 498 billion in revenues amounting to 3.5% of GDP at the time. The co9 pandemic resulted in a 9.5% decline in the US GDP. The Congressional Budget Office uh estimating that roughly 7.6 trillion will be lost in GDP between 2020 and 2030. And other capitalist economies in the U, the EU, Canada, and the UK suffer as much as a 194.4% drop. Many mixed economies as opposed to traditional capitalist systems suffered significantly less during the affformentioned events with the Nordic countries experiencing less than 4% declines during COVID and Japan experiencing a 4.6% decline. This merely scratches the surface of such statistics such as GDP fluctuation, consumer confidence index, financial risk, inequality and government intervention, and negative externalities in capitalist versus non-capitalist economies. At the root of any capitalist economy is the business cycle monitored by the central bank, the Federal Reserve in the US. The Fed can stimulate economic growth. However, this does not foster continuous growth because after so long, people will begin to ex invest excessively or malinvest. Uh the excess supply is met with a lack of demand and the bust cycle sets in where investors begin to lose money as their assets decline in value and the economy shrinks into a recession. The 2008 financial crisis highlighted this. People who had invested in the housing market became unable to afford their mortgage payments and the market collapsed. Another aspect of capitalism that has been scrutinized by economists and social critics is the wealth and power allotted to shareholders. As Milton Friedman articulated in his doctrine, the only real goal of business should be to generate profits for the shareholders. He further elaborated that no company is obligated to engage in social responsibility unless the shareholders choose to. By this mentality, the shareholders choices are the only say whether or not a business should operate for social benefit. Not all businesses decisions are ethical or made with social interest in mind. Contrarily, decisions that solely benefit shareholders often have negative consequences for society as a whole. Focusing only on generating profits leaves out consideration for potential negative externalities like pollution, fair wages, or donations to the community. Shareholder investment makes up a substantial portion of a capitalist economy. The attitudes of investors dubbed animal spirits by John Maynard Kanes have detrimental effects on the level of GDP. It is this volatility, Kanes argued, that virtually controls the economy. It could change at any time and therefore is there is no reliable way to predict or anticipate it. Capitalist economic systems are set up in a way that the higher a person's income, the lower percentage of taxes they pay. Some argue that those who make more deserve to pay less, while others argue that person's income alone shouldn't determine their tax percentages, as countless other factors can be worked into such an analysis. For example, many people argue that small business owners uh are supported by regressive taxation. However, just because a business makes over a certain threshold in revenue does not necessarily equate to the owner's ending salary. Capitalism creates an environment that not only allows but also encourages inequality to flourish. In capitalist enterprises, there are very few people who hold the seats of power or leadership. The majority of people are employees who provide labor but are never fully compensated for the full value that their labor adds to an output. Despite the laws in place, which are by no means enough, capitalism results in the exploitation of labor that causes unparalleled inequality. We can observe how capitalism has perpetuated inequality by examining historical events particularly in the United States in the 1930s. The primary argument for capitalism during this time period was that it facilitated the development of a more powerful middle class. And this was true following the great depression. The working class experienced significant gains due to the new deal and the establishment of social security and the introduction of minimum wages. These innovations were seen as evidence that capitalism was superior to other economic systems throughout the world, specifically that of the USSR. But this assertation ignores two key facts. One quote, "The middle class status achieved by a large portion of the working class happened despite not because of capitalism and capitalist says um Richard D. Wolf and a professor Matrius at UMass Ammerst and these developments were primarily employed were primarily employed socialist policies and ideas which are standard in mixed economies not capitalist ones. Additionally, these victories were hard battles and their strength appreciated over time. As of today, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 which has remained unchanged for 16 years. Additionally, with each capitalist crash like that in 2000, 2008, and 2020, we have seen inequality worsen. Capitalism also causes significant wealth inequality. In the US, the top 10% of people own 74% of the wealth. According to the Credit Swiss Research Institute, wealth inequality is built over generations through inheritance and participation in a system that lacks equalizing measures. In other countries using that that use mixed economy system, there are significantly smaller wealth gaps. These countries continue to experience economic growth, suggesting that capitalism is not the sole means of achieving high levels of economic growth. The Nordic countries are an example of this. In an Iris University article, it says, "The Nordic countries provide a good example of welfare states, which together with well-developed educational systems have provided an economy with a highly educated labor force, and this has boosted overall development. The economic model used by the Nordic countries focuses on economic security, efficiency, and productivity, which contrasts that of the capitalist country of the US, which tends to have higher insecurity, higher unemployment rates, and a greater fear of poverty. Inequality is a very real and hazardous result of capitalism. But there is not simply a connection between capitalism and inequality. Capitalism causes inequality. It does this through two value assumptions. The assumption that wealth provides happiness and the assumption that wealth provides power. The first assumption, wealth brings happiness, is the underlying assumption behind profit motive, one of the basic building blocks of capitalism. While this brings incentive to create technological advances, it also brings incentive to hoard wealth, fostering inequality. Furthermore, capitalism has no use for those unable to obtain wealth in the first place. As they are of no use to the system, the system has no regard for their well-being. The second assumption, wealth brings power is more insidious still. Those holding wealth can buy their way to political power and keep their wealth regardless of their investment ability. Even worse, they can pass this wealth and power down to their children and their children's children children's children. Preserving inequality throughout time on the basis of what family one is born into instead of the hard work one puts in. If a system built on these two assumptions, wealth is happiness and wealth is power leads to an unjust inequality, can the system be justly called effective? The answer is clear. No. Next, we'd like to discuss yet another ineffective result of capitalism, a lack of government intervention. Although Liz is fair, where supply and demand controls prices and private enterprise directing economy may lead towards economic growth and innovation, there will eventually be instability with not enough regulations and intervention by the government. No regulations in an economy will lead to inequality, environmental damage, decline in welfare, and fewer public services for society. Firms will become monopolies and all gopies under capitalism as they take advantage of the minimal regulations from the government. Capitalism creates profit based incentives for firms to primarily focus on maximizing profit and save the quality of life of residents. Some could say that having the government intervene with businesses set rules may slow economic growth, but the spending the government does when implementing regulations would create economic growth and equality at the same time. Government spending is a comp component tracking GDP and is an essential contributor to economic growth. There are talks of a recession occurring right now since there are a lot of cuts in the department of government efficiency. Well, which proves that government plays an important role in economic growth and stability. According to a Massachusetts Daily News article, there's a high demand for housing but a low supply buildings in Amherst which which promote which which leads to higher costs to afford living space. An example of a regulation is rent control which promotes promotes stability by limiting the rent a landlord can charge to their tenants each month. This creates equality since a wider range of buyers who have different levels of income can spend on their living expenses. In a capitalist economic system, minimal government regulations benefit landlords since they can charge higher costs without having to deal with certain limits and loss. This leads to heightened stress and decreased well-being for the vast majority of renters. There are acts supportive of government intervention and equality and economy. The envir environmental protection agency of 1970 supports the supports the environment from being negatively affected by firms. The Federal Trade Commission of 1914 helps protect consumers and avoids unfair business practices. And the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 helps prevent monopolies from occurring to create fairness in an economy. Overall, government regulation helps promote a platform for equality in society and growth in an economy through spending for the welfare of the public. The short-term benefits of government regulation outweigh the long-term net cost society pays through taxes. Industrial policies are important since governments can prevent market failures, stimulate the economy, and address social and economic inequalities. The spending from the government produces a less capitalist economic economy, which promotes equalizing institutions. Economic growth from government spending will replenish the growth of private enterprise and generate equality for the public. Capitalism is a fundamentally flawed economic system as it is evident that they will prioritize economic gain over environmental sustainability, human welfare, and equity every time. When it comes to the depletion of natural resources, can a system be truly effective when it does not care about the well-being of those living under it. Capitalism is incompatible with environmental conservation, and it has shown it will prioritize profit and monetary gain over environmental well-being. Firms under capitalistic policy will consistently ignore ecological harm in order to increase short-term gain, completely disregarding environmental health. Historically, industries under capitalism externalize environmental costs such as pollution and carbon emissions. Because if they were to pay attention to these issues, they would have to sacrifice profitability. Oil and gas, two of the largest and most influential sectors in the world, continue to fight against the use of renewable energy despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that has highlight that has highlighted fossil fuels are the main contributor of climate change. As the CDP's groundbreaking carbon major research reveals, the 100 active fossil fuel producers are linked to 71% of industrial greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. This is not just a coincidence, but rather a direct consequence of the systems framework itself. In a profit-driven model, environmental degradation comes the price that companies are willing to pay. Capitalism views the earth as a pool of infinite resources. However, it only has a finite number, and as such, it is apparent that the current overuse of them is unsustainable and threatens to cause irreversible collapse if left unchecked. Consumerism is also a major flaw of capitalism. Accredited professor Dr. Diana Stewart dives into her research on how in the US production drives consumption and advertising promotes false needs and excess leading to negative externalities. These power relations are concealed and they undermine social and ecological well-being in the process. Continued support of increasing production and economic growth will undermine efforts to reduce carbon emissions and limit global warming. Effective mitigation efforts will require significant systemic changes in work, production, consumption, advertising, and social norms. None of which would be possible under the current system of capitalism we see specifically in the United States. Studies, including one by National Geographic, prove the obvious that reducing material consumption would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, US companies continue to push the narrative that consuming has a positive return for all because it stimulates those businesses and provides the consumer with the short-term satisfaction of a product. Why aren't our citizens happy then? Dr. Stewart states that producers, the capitalists and owners rely on consumers for increasing economic growth and use ideology primarily communicated in the form of advertising to create willing subjects. These subjects keep consuming because they believe increasing consumption results in increased happiness. Consumption is part of the good life. Consumption relates to their identity and status and they need certain commodities to address dissatisfaction. This connects back to the low happiness index of the United States and how we are eternally stuck in this capital loop of consuming to try and achieve a happier and more fulfilled life. To look at an opposing way of life, we can see how successful the Nordic model has been in Denmark, which is a welfare-based economy, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention of economy. The focus on welfare and social support has kept them in the top two for global happiness. Whereas the US has fallen to the 20s. Instead of a system where happiness relies on working in order to over consume, feeling limited rewards so you continue to fall into that endless cycle like in America, Denmark offers free university tuition, a high quality of education, no fee public healthcare, has a focus on community activities, all with a fair work life balance leading to better lives for their citizens without susping to a full form of capitalism. There is clearly a direct correlation between a country taking care of their people and maximizing utility of resources and influencing overconumption leads to wasting these resources and wasting our money. Exposing the hypocrisy of this system, capitalism focuses on maximizing profits, prioritizing production over people. The high pressure economy that capitalism has created pushes for more output without regard for the well-being of workers. Under capitalism, labor is not a valuable human contribution, but rather a commodity that can be bought and sold. Capitalism uses technological advancements to maximize efficiency at the expense of workers. These technological advancements have neglected the workers that are less skilled. AI is not a tool for efficiency. It is replacing real people. As a result, workers are being laid off and jobs are being outsourced. This objective to drive production, cut costs, creates instability in the job market. Capitalism promotes cyclical unemployment as a system follows a boom and bus cycle where it is inevitable for unemployment to go up during economic downturns. Especially when inflation is high, the Fed takes measures to cool down the economy, which will lead to a spike in unemployment. and the Fed's tools in raising interest rates to slow down inflation and bring up unemployment through the low slowed economic activity. Capitalism is a system that rewards reckless financial risks, supports unjust inequality, lacks government intervention and leads to the negative externalities including environmental damage, overuse of natural resources, consumerism and unemployment. These things necessary in capitalism do not emerge from all other economic systems. It is for these reasons that capitalism is an ineffective economic system. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Negative side. Uh we'll now go into a 5m minute break and then we'll go into rebuttals where teams will go back and forth starting with the affirmative side and you'll have four minutes for rebuttal but first a little fivem minute break. Okay everyone please sit back down affirmative side you guys have four minutes to start your rebuttals. So what was previously mentioned in the uh human development index um although it was um nuanced in that it was mentioning HDI as opposed to GDP and the argument itself ended up centralized on human happiness. Um there have been several studies uh within the discipline of political economy in which it has been shown multiple times that personal wealth um does correlate with health outcomes in a gradient. Um so and another component of that is half of the countries in that map um like the ones with the highest HDIs um ended up being from Western Europe, the Gulf Cooperation Council, East Asia and uh North America. So it is pretty telling uh the stat the statistics alone. Um, I think a lot of what we've been seeing in the other team's opening arguments have been uh strong levels of what they're describing as either welfare capitalism or forms of capitalism that are heavily regulated. Um, regarding uh regarding the one of the main themes of uh the other team's arguments is that capitalism exploits workers to maintain profits. But within the United States, uh we have seen a long history of um concessions being made from both public and private sector actors in the low part of the business cycle. [Music] Um in who rules America, for example, William G. Donhoff distinguishes between ultra-conservatives and regular neoliberal conservatives uh alongside the liberal labor alliance. Um the the main distinction between the first and second group is that ultra-conservatives tend to um want to crush labor as opposed to being driven by an actual incentive uh to support labor. Um and I think capitalist economies could do that very efficiently. So as long as the right regulations are in place. Um, for example, in the 1930s, FDR's administration forged a coalition between labor unions and Democrats, known as the Liberal Labor Alliance, which was instrumental in advancing New Deal legislation such as the uh Wagner Act. Um, and this is what bounced us back from the Great Depression. Um, building off of uh the volatility argument is that whenever there ends up being a risk uh in the long term we basically are able to stabilize booms and busts as we innovate policy through capitalism which is highly adaptive. Thank you. Capitalism also uh there there has been an argument against us saying capitalism causes exploitation exploitation of labor. Um historical data has been showing that developing countries have been actively participating with capitalist economies have resulted in their very high growth on their end and the exploitation can definitely occur but it is we have to also consider the part of the argument that there are ineffective government systems in place which can which could lead to such execution and it is not the core capitalism concept itself that leads to that. Thank you. Okay, negative or yeah, negative side now has four minutes for rebuttals and then it comes back to affirmative for four minutes. Uh so I think one of the big things that both sides have brought up um has been uh happiness looking at happiness as a measure of uh an economy's effectiveness. I think it makes sense um because you know what can what is an economy um and what is good in the world if not happiness? Um and so I think that our um opposition here has brought up two very good points. Uh the first that economic freedom and happiness are both positively correlated and the second that uh happiness and GDP GDP per capita are both positively correlated. Um but what I where I think they went wrong is um in the assumption that all happiness is equal. uh you know, how can you really say that the glee you get from I guess vanquishing your enemies is equal to the love that you get from building community? You know, one of the one of those is inherently good and one of those is inherently bad. Um and that I guess the question posed to all of us is where does consumerism fall? uh once you take account for um once you take the uh happiness score and then you divide it by e uh GDP per capita and then you relate that to the economic freedom there is a glaringly obvious negative relationship. Um what this pretty much does putting happiness over GDP per capita is it gives us a measure of non-consumerist happiness. you know the uh kind of happiness that you can get um from not necessarily buying material things. Uh all that capitalism gives us as you can see in these two graphs are is a consumerist happiness you know based on not what one is but what one has and so I guess the question kind of to all of us is how do you value consumerist happiness? How do you value a a happiness based on based on, you know, what car you buy, what car you drive, or what house you own? You know, uh I think that pardon me for being idealistic, but I think that something based upon community, based upon, you know, freedom, and based upon uh just an overall, you know, feeling of connection both to your surroundings and to your purpose in the world is much better. Capitalism does not give us this. Thank you very much. Um and then just to add on to the argument of waste as well. Um ultimately we can't really look at how capitalism is uh assisting our GDP when for example even the economic impact of just food waste costs an estimated 22 $218 billion which is 1.3% of GDP. So when we really break down these elements of capitalism that seem to be profiting, they're leading to these effects that are actually causing a decline in our GDP, especially uh I think it's important to focus in on America because it is one of the greatest capitalistic uh economic systems in the world. So looking at that, seeing how much waste is created and looking at how these welfare, even these welfare capitalistic uh economies in other countries are still based in socialist values instead of the pure capitalist values that we see in countries like the United States creating all these negative externalities and waste. And yeah, I'll end it there. Okay, we're going back to the affirmative side for another four minutes. Okay, so the opposition has made very uh various claims that disprove capitalism. However, they're very hard to actually depict. For example, h happiness. It's very difficult to quantify happiness, it's a very theoretical theoretical and personalized index. However, unlike the human development indexes and GDP, it's a lot more easily quantifiable and measurable as well as being less personalized and skewed towards bias. Also um since the Nordic countries have been depicted as capitalists by their own leaders, it is safe to say that they are still capitalist based and less uh socialist base as their um programs that are used to to limit um and uh reduce inequality are actually funded through free market capitalism and capitalist gains. They're just taxed at a very higher rate which means that they have slightly more government control. However, all the money still comes from capitalists. However, this also does lead to the fact that the opposition has still not given an alternative form of an economic system that would be inherently better than capitalism as their only references have been towards more socialist countries. As for the environment, um capitalism also does offer a very effective path to environmental progress by providing flexibility and incentives needed for innovation. However, um also capitalist offers the opportunity for market based incentives which are a lot easier and incentivized for companies to follow such as carbon pricing, green investment and um pagobian taxes. Additionally, um the state controlled economies such as China and have had traditionally and the USSR have much traditionally poorer environmental records as well. I just want to touch on two arguments made by the um other side and it has been of happiness. Happiness I think it's uh as Matt has already said it's really difficult to quantify happiness into a into a particular state and uh he has given the example of Nordic countries using um their reforms uh and adding happiness and like leading the uh stage on that. Uh I just want to add to that and and and and give it as a base that capitalism provides a base for other socialist reforms to exist in the first place. These countries made a lot of uh their wealth through capitalist systems that they had in place and they made sure that uh once they are in place and they and they took their social benefit out of it so that the other systems like healthcare, education could be benefited more. Uh I would also like to uh talk about the waste that has that has been claimed capitalism ended up generating. Um, capitalism has always been centered around the value and the value is quantified in terms of the demand what the people are looking for. And if people are prioritizing their goods, their prices beyond if people are prioritizing their goods and their uh needs beyond the waste that's created by them, those are consumer preferences and capitalism makes sure that consumer preferences are taken care of. What could be added on here is more regulations and uh a mix in terms of uh the consumer demands, the consumer choices. If the consumers have been adding on let's say in terms of the electric uh mobility and and the and the electric car market, people have been demanding more energy conscious uh solutions and then the market has reacted to it. we now have the greatest uh uh mobility solutions in terms of movements uh in place to actually make sure that there are more sustainable solutions in place. Thank you. Okay. And then finally back to the negatives for another four minutes then you have a two-minute break before questions from the judges. Uh so a couple things I wanted to point out. First of all, uh when talking about the Nordic countries, I know they've been brought up a lot from both sides. Uh mixed market economies differ from capitalism in the sense that uh welfare capitalism is based on government means governmentowning means of production which directly contradicts the pure definition of uh true capitalism which is a completely unchecked economy. uh you know the the firms have all pricing power and and are not like overseen by any government or any type of regulation. Um this is not the case in many of the Scandinavian countries that we've mentioned. Um there's direct government intervention and government oversight of firms and corporations. Um, I also wanted to bring up Japan is uh uses a system that's referred to as collective capitalism, but basically what it is is companies own shares of other companies. So like it's the the basis of if one goes down, they all go down, which directly contradicts uh what capitalism is is meant to represent. Um in terms of I know you brought up economic incentive. Uh the efforts of consumers collectively are stronger than that of the companies alone and consumers are influenced by things like uh we mentioned green initiatives and uh environmental factors and also uh workers wages and labor unions. I know you guys stressed that in your argument, but labor unions are specifically uh fought against by the corporations that hold power in um capitalist systems. So, if anything, uh corporate power works against labor unions and and the government does not stand in the way of labor unions in the way that individual corporations do. Um you brought up innovation and technology. uh cap uh technology and capitalism have no direct correlation. Checking the power of corporations does not hinder economic uh and technological progress. If anything, government intervention incentivizes companies to publicize their innovations rather than uh keep them uh private which has been known to take place. Um success in technology does not necessarily equal progress because of unequal distribution of wealth and privilege um that are caused by the capitalist structure. Um company power and company ethics. I know you mentioned uh pharmaceuticals uh and that immediately made me think of um Purdue Pharma and Johnson and Johnson in the opioid crisis and to think that the corporations knew the lethal uh qualities of Oxycontton and the drugs that they released and didn't do anything about it. Also, uh there's an example of General Motors and Ford uh in 1971 released uh the Ford Pinto which um its engine would combust on impact because of a design flaw. and Ford knew about this and they not only uh failed to make the design uh innovation to to the simple design fix to to remedy this. They put a dollar value on the human life and estimated that the rough uh an estimate of 180 deaths per year caused by uh crashes of the Pinto would be less costly than making the innovation to to change that into to make the design not lethal. Um you mentioned you mentioned economic freedom being associated with capitalism and I I just don't see a direct correlation between the two. You also talked about poverty. Um poverty will be the direct result of the wealth gap uh brought on by capitalism. Thank you. Okay. Thank you both. Now you guys both get two minutes or just a little two-minute break and then we go into judges questions for about 10 minutes. Each judge is going to ask a question to a side. So they're going to be six questions total, three on each side. And each side will have two minutes to answer the question. Well, so thank you both sides. Uh really nice and excellent. Um I guess I guess I will ask uh to to both sides if you'll take just a a minute or two to define what you mean by capitalism on on each side and especially in the context that you're both referring to Nordic countries as uh evidence for your side. Our team would be defining capitalism as private ownership of the means of production. uh the means of production being land, labor and capital which is a key characteristic of the economies that we see that have functional monetary systems as opposed to central planning. Um obviously the Nordic countries would be much closer to uh this definition of capitalism than a traditional form of market socialism or social democracy. Obviously, um at the same time, I think a really good example of this is the fact that these Scandinavian countries end up benefiting from uh large scale capitalist activities, right? Um yeah. Yeah. So essentially we summarize capitalism as just it's characterized by private ownership of both business and property and is also has various characteristics such as free and competitive markets, wage, labor, commodification and of all like incentives for innovation and technology. The Nordic countries specifically are still free markets as they're actually ranked among the highest countries in the world in terms of economic freedom and also their um economies are still lack state controlled. their um programs to fund uh inequality measures to improve that are funded through taxes which are essentially the income comes from capitalists and free markets and it's just um used with taxes at a high rate. Um yeah so as to the point uh that there is uh capitalism is the private ownership um in the Nordic countries that we've been so referring to and so loving um the state owns the not the majority but they own key kind of industry areas um and they are run throughout like in Sweden they have public healthare um as opposed to um the US uh and they also have I know in Norway they have a the largest oil company is also uh owned by the state and these things uh give them kind of an advantage. Um and these things you know especially these key industries um where the economic system is really important they tend to be more socialist or maybe even communist um and not necessarily capitalist. Um the second thing with economic freedom, uh the way I see it, you either define it as how capitalist a country is and um you uh kind of you go from there, uh and um you you have to kind of bite the bullet that it's really giving you a a happiness based on consumerism or you find another definition for it in which it's not necessarily capitalist and then you don't get the Nordic countries as they are. So either way, you kind of you lose. Um yeah, thank you. I think it's important to also look at the fact that for example a country like um Denmark which does have a welfare based technically capitalist uh economy because it is the uh businesses that own it. The government intervention is so much stronger than we see in a purely capitalistbased um economy. And I think we have to remind ourselves that the question is um if capitalism is the most effective economic system and a solely capitalist country as we've broken down like with the United States for example is evidently not the most effective because where there are pieces of capitalism in the countries like the Nordic areas it is not their sole economic system because they are um valuing welfare and social practices and complete government intervention. Um thank you very good cases. Um I have a question on um the role of each system in another system. So we all know that uh there is an affordable care act uh like in the heart of the most capitalist system in the world in the US and also there is the case that uh there was a new economic policy uh in the former Soviet Union. So my question to both sides. So to you uh to the yes side um what is the role of the socialist system in the uh capitalist frameworks and for the no side um what is the role of the capitalist system in the socialist systems? So do they benefit or they're harmed by that? So what do you think about that? Thanks. Uh yeah. So the role of the I guess the capitalist part of uh a country like Sweden or like Norway uh would be that in like in the non-essential um in the non-essential categories and in the non-essential industries I guess you would have those be privately owned. Um and I think really if you're looking at comparing two systems you kind of go got to go all in on one or all in the on the other. I think we've kind of made our point as as what to what can happen when you have complete capitalism. Um, and I would argue that is much uh much worse a scenario uh than if you had complete socialism where if the um the state took over the running of the of the non-essential industries as well. Um, going off of the idea of how uh a capitalist society would work for a socialist society. Uh we were talking about the profit maximization of capitalism and how it was just would just harm a socialist society because of its um exploitation of the workers as we mentioned before and how it just hurts the quality of life for workers and how inherently uh innovation creates exploitation of workers because of the profit maximization. I know you mentioned the Soviet Union and if I'm not mistaken how it might benefit from or how we should argue to assessments. Yes. Sure. Sure. So, I do want to go back to the idea that capitalism is an economic structure and not necessarily a government structure. And we're arguing that um it's an ineffective economic structure, but we can't necessarily say that that a government at its core will like abuse its power or not. And in like the example of the Soviet Union, obviously the government abused its power, but this went farther than just the economy in the sense that um like the social welfare as a whole was was taken away by the fact that the USSR that is time. Okay. Unfortunately, thank you. And final questions. Um to answer the question what is the role of social systems in the capitalist economy I would first like to mention distribution of welfare um social elements like progressives of taxation public healthare and social security um help red dist red dist red dist red dist red dist red dist red dist red dist red dist red dist red dist redistribute wealth throughout the economy um addressing inequality and also um unfettered capitalism can produce correcting market failures is another one we also have economics uh stabilization within um regulation and protection within labor laws, antitrust regulations, consumer protections. Um we also have public ownership and strategic sectors within within like water, transportation, energy may remain under public control to avoid monolithic abuse and ensure universal success and access across the economy. In essence, basically um social systems don't necessarily oppose capitalism. Um they make it more humane, inclusive and sustainable by checking it by checking its excess and red rest redistribution its gains which and yeah it's about it for us. Uh to build on his point I think that the role of uh socialist system in in mixed market economies is to correct market failures. And also I would like to point out that uh the market is also a great mechanism that it can work faster and respond more dynamically than like for example a government could. Like in the Soviet Union, uh the bureaucrats focused he more heavily on putting resources into heavy industry and arms manufacturing and that left a hole in the in in light industry and things like textiles and consumer goods and that created a black market in which the market could expand and give the people what they want. Your time's up unfortunately. Okay, final question. Again, thank you again. enjoyed your discussion. I have two questions. One for the yes side and that is essentially you make a strong case that capitalism works well but you describe it as requiring a certain amount of intervention and a certain amount of support. My question is how come in virtually all of our capitalist economies today we see a reduction of government involvement. We see very definitive movement toward less government under neoliberal policies that are being instituted in those economies. So that's my question. How does that match your argument? On the other side, on the no side, my question would simply be, how is it that voters throughout capitalist economies are voting for right-wing parties that actively are dismantling much of the welfare state? Okay, if you could provide answers to those two questions. Thank you. [Music] government intervention in uh capitalist economies has I believe over time uh has not only dropped down but I believe we have built up a framework uh through which we can which allows us in a more structured uh intervention and in in a more structured regulatory oversight uh we have we now have targeted subsidies we have we now have access to more monetary tools that helps us uh build it and I would like to call it more of a shift instead of a shrinkage in terms of government intervention. While governments may have privatized some industries, uh they have increased intervention in others. Uh if if you look at historical data, governments have been changing the intervention they have they have done in uh across different industries. The modern intervention is subtle. They have interest rates which is part of the monetary policy. They also have fiscal stimulus and taxation policies and they also have a lot of regulations in place. As we move towards more globalization and technological change, direct intervention became less effective. But that doesn't mean government stepped back. They have simply adapted their role to be more agile and indirect. Social programs have grown over time. Social spending in healthcare, pensions, education as a percentage of GDP has increased in most developed economies. That is a socialist style intervention funded by the capitalist growth that has happened over the past few decades. Thank you. So I do want to point out that capitalism has sort of set us up for failure in a way. I'll give the example of small businesses. Um, it seems like a lot of right-wing politics, especially in the United States, give out the narrative of small businesses being harmed by government intervention and by, for example, to go on regressive taxation. I hear a lot of arguments that um, small business owners hurt from from the idea of making the wealthiest pay higher percentages of taxes. But if you really look between the lines, small business owners themselves, just because their businesses are generating such high revenues, aren't necessarily generating high revenues themselves and therefore aren't necessarily benefiting from equal taxation and regressive taxation. Uh I think a lot of right-wing politicians celebrate the the lack of government intervention and and associate separating from the government with uh freedom and in a way this can it's an argument that can be presented to a lot of people and people just like the idea of freedom and they take like the USSR for example and see where too much government intervention uh took away personal freedom. freedoms. But if we look behind the scenes, I think corporations are still have so much power and are are able to monopolize and create monopolies and igopies that um take away consumer freedom without necessarily the voters realizing. Um I think it's also just important to go back to what we were talking about in opening statements as well that capitalism has this inherent illusion of power and wealth uh that it so successfully has achieved which is why we really have seen the right side um win more companies through their marketing and short-term monetary rewards make consumers feel appreciated and important and convince them to play into this monetary system. The richest people hold the most control and they're only able to further and further take off while people on the bottom are left to suffer. Is that it? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you both sides and thank you judges for the questions. And then we're immediately going to go into our two-minute closing statements from each side. Starting with the affirmatives. Right. Overall, the opposing argument lacks statistical or evidence-based support, relying heavily on emotional and ethical appearance, such as happiness as opposed to human development and overall GDP measures, which is considered one of the most important based measures of economic effectiveness rather than logically or numerically proving their the systems effectiveness. Many of their examples of alternative systems are misleading as their alternative examples still operate within capitalist frameworks which include mixed market capitalism. For for instance, these systems remain rooted in free market principles despite higher taxes or public spending. The opposition also claims that other models lead to higher happiness or ATI. However, this is sort of cherrypicking. Countries with the highest development indexes such as Switzerland, Germany, and Australia all are capitalist and operate with free market systems. Unlike command economies, capitalist nations give people the freedom to pursue their aspirations. Their portrayal of inequality and poverty was also flawed, failing to acknowledge that capitalism raises the best base wealth levels across society, leaving not only the risk to gain wealth, but also the middle and lower class as well at a much higher rate. Most importantly, no viable alter alternative system based on a fully a fully or more state controlled or fully state controlled economy with less free markets was presented leaving the question ofam unanswered. If not capitalism, then what system is actually better? We've shown that capitalism isn't just about markets. It's a system that rewards effort, adapt to challenges, and enables democratic societies to uplifts the vulnerable using wealth created by growth, not ideology. Okay. So, thank you guys for listening to our argument. I just wanted to start by saying that this is a call to action for the capitalistic society that's happening in our country and how our social systems are being corrupted. Going off of the last question that we received as well, even looking at our public education system and how that's a public right that everyone in the world should have access to and how the limiting education like taking away our access to books does reduce our levels of being able to participate in um a government successfully. And that just plays more into the capitalistic ideals of giving the rich more and taking more away from the poor. And I'll give you over to Tom for the rest of it. Thank you, Cassie. Um, in his 1776 book, The Wealth of Nations, renowned economist Adam Smith presented a theory. To give him credit, it was an opportunistic theory, one that captivated the attention of new and flourishing governments of the time and would set the stage for the economic system we know today, capitalism. That said, Adam Smith was a very optimistic man, optimistic to a fault. He put a significant amount of faith in the moral and corporate of corporations and investors. And his theory of the invisible hand, which puts market power in the hands of corporations and their shareholders has allowed for centuries of greed, monopolization, and efforts to generate as much short-term profit as possible with little to no regard for the future or the well-being of individuals outside of said corporations, not to mention the planet we call home and society as a whole. Adam Smith was not an evil man. But the system he created is a disqualification of many ethical and moral standards. Though being described as being new and revolutionary, it is actually the opposite, allowing the wealthiest individuals to adopt tyrannical powers and widening the inequality gap on the global scale. We as a human race have thus proven ourselves incapable of maintaining responsibility for corporate power and thus a more structured system must be implemented in order to check the power of the individual. It is only through freeing ourselves of capitalism that it may free of all of it inflicts upon us increased financial risk, unjust inequality, lack of government intervention, environmental damage, overuse of natural resources, consumerism, and unemployment. An economic system that presses these maladies upon us. Whether our systems are available cannot be considered innocent, effective, or even neutral. It is for these reasons that we have come to the resolution capitalism is not the most ineffective system. Thank you. Okay, thank you everyone for being here and thank you for watching our debate. And then good job to everyone involved. Um, we're going to give the judges some time to deliberate and then there's pizza outside. We we deliberated. Sorry for the the time that we took. We But so I have to just say we we truly sincerely believed it was a very very very close debate and um our deliberation has has given it to the the the no side.