Jump to content

Daily Card

Recommended Posts

give me a card saying "cap" is good


It should be on open ev


Cap Good---Education Capitalism is good for education—none of your arguments are supported by real evidence

Blanchard 15 - Kate Blanchard, has been teaching religious studies to undergraduates in central Michigan for over a decade. She is the author of 'The Protestant Ethic or the Spirit of Capitalism' (Cascade 2010), co-editor of 'Lady Parts: Biblical Women and the Vagina Monologues' (Wipf & Stock 2012), and co-author of 'An Introduction to Christian Environmentalism' (Baylor 2014). She has also written for Religion Dispatches, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Wabash Center, 15 ("Higher Ed and Capitalism: The Best of Frenemies," Huffington Post, 5-26-2015, Available Online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-blanchard/higher-ed-and-capitalism-_b_7437098.html, Accessed on 7-6-2017 //JJ)

One particular statement from a UNC board member, though, is especially jarring to those of us who are still naïve enough to believe in higher education as a good in and of itself. “We’re capitalists,” said Steven Long, “and we have to look at what the demand is, and we have to respond to the demand.”

As the beneficiary of both public high school and private institutions, I do not wish to dismiss the importance of markets to education. Excellent public education depends upon a healthy tax base, which in turn depends on a strong economy. Markets, when well regulated, on the whole do a better job of creating strong economies than the two alternative systems - theft or gift, both of which quash incentives to productivity. (I hasten to add, however, that taxation and theft are not necessarily the same thing, since citizens expect to get something for their taxes.) Well-funded education tends to be much better than under-funded education, so anything that produces funds for education is welcome. Thus, capitalism can be a friend to education in so far as it helps pay for it.

What the business-minded people who now populate most college and university boards fail to understand, however, is that not-for-profit education - while it may potentially thrive under a capitalist system - is not inherently “capitalist” in that it is not defined by the pursuit of profits. It is, rather, defined by the pursuit of human beings who are better than they would have been without education. Students, to speak capitalist language, could be called the products of a university rather than the customers; if there is any customer in the mix, it is society at large. But even to use the terms “product” and “customer” is already to have lost the argument. Capitalism is the enemy of education when it colonizes its logic, replacing the motivating values of genuine learning and personal growth with the values of radical individualism and material gain.

American higher education has been, indeed still is, globally admired for its excellence. That excellence was enabled both by healthy markets that provided a healthy tax base, and by civic-minded Americans who believed that their neighbors’ well-being (at least those neighbors who looked like them) would ultimately benefit their own. But somewhere along the way, a majority of American voters apparently decided, against all data to the contrary, that taxation was essentially stealing from the deserving rich to help the undeserving poor.

Cap Good---Environment Capitalism is the only way to incentivize the innovation necessary to solve the environment

Franz 4/25 (Caleb, podcast director for Outset magazine. “Markets Work: Capitalism and Innovation Heal the Earth”, 4/25/17. http://outsetmagazine.com/2017/04/25/capitalism-and-innovation-heal-the-earth/, 7/7/17)//JM

When it comes to opposing factions, it seems as though no two factions could be more averse to each other than environmentalists and capitalists. We are taught to believe that those who care about economic growth cannot possibly care about environmental protection and vice versa. While this rhetoric is a good way to polarize those with opposing priorities, the truth is that they can co-exist. In fact, not only can capitalism and environmentalism co-exist, but only with free market capitalism can the environment ever hope to be clean. Even though critics of capitalism accuse the system of placing profits above people or the environment, the reality sets a different tone. The market demand for clean and renewable energy is growing every day. Companies and businesses are finding it profitable to keep the environment that their costumers live in clean. There is also an opportunity for those who care about the cause to take action like never before and to do so within the market. Technology and innovation are evolving at such a rate that dirty fuels and pollution will soon become a thing of the past. Elon Musk is the perfect example of this concept. Musk has created an entire empire based on clean and affordable energy; not because of government decree or regulation, but from private incentives to innovate and compete, which drives product quality up. Because Musk is allowed to profit and gain from the demand of the marketplace, his companies are on the cutting edge of innovation changing the world and the environment. Musk recently announced that he could produce roof solar panels at a cheaper rate than even conventional roofs. He is using Tesla Motors to revolutionize the automobile and clean energy industries. While Tesla cars are currently not as quite as profitable as I’m sure he would like, these innovations are setting the essential groundwork for years to come. On a smaller scale, new industries are finding innovative ways to help fight pollution and restore clean water to the planet. The only reason any company is even able to do this is capitalism. Competition is a powerful force, and people often forget that the market is what we make it. Going to government is not just a lazy way of trying to achieve sustainability, but it is also ineffective and does more harm than good. The market, so long as it is free and without crony assistance from the government, always hold businesses accountable. Sure, in a genuinely free market, a business might pollute, but the decision to pollute in excess will eventually prove counter to business interests. First, a company’s pollution would significantly affect the water that their employees drink or the air that they breathe, which would raise employment costs. Second, and more importantly, the company would also be polluting the water or air of their customers, who will be far less likely to continue doing business with the company after they have damaged the ecosystem of the community. Pollution would leave the company vulnerable to outside competition that recognizes these environmental concerns as well as the economic concerns. The business that pollutes the air and waters of the community it serves will quickly lose customers and suffer significant losses because the community, and not the government, will punish the business. Not only should we explore innovation with the market to protect the environment, but we must also act to curtail the world’s largest polluter: the U.S. Government. While environmentalist protest and rally against large corporations who pollute the air and water, the government remains the world’s largest overall polluter. Calls for government reform are silent. Not only are they the largest overall, but the federal government is also the fourth largest contributor to greenhouse gas pollution alone. Of course, we also cannot forget about the terrible EPA mine spill polluting the Colorado River in 2015. If environmentalists want to be serious about reducing pollution, they must focus on cutting the size of government. We should all strive for sustainability. Therefore, we should not view capitalism at odds with a clean Earth. Only through capitalism can we have a realistic expectation of a cleaner Earth. Government intervention only hinders economic progress and does little to protecting the environment. The path to a clean and sustainable planet cannot and should not go through the government but through competition and innovation. The government cannot mandate economic growth. The only thing it can and should do is get out of the way and remove all restrictions that slow innovation. Fossil fuels are already on their way out, and clean energy is the way of the future. But that fact does not, by itself make clean energy affordable. Only with the creative destruction that the market provides can we have a clean and sustainable future that coincides with our economic growth and prosperity. Capitalism leading the way to heal the planet is just one excellent example of how well markets work.

Cap Good---Environment---A2: Alt Solves Governments cause capitalist countries to be unsustainable, Alt’s approach fails and more capitalism is key to a sustainable society

Adler 96 Jonathan H. Adler (born November 3, 1969) is an American legal commentator and law professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. He contributes to the widely read weblog "The Volokh Conspiracy", is frequently cited in the American media, and has been recognized as one of the most cited professors in the field of environmental law. (“CAPITALISM AND SUSTAINABILITY”, http://home.earthlink.net/~jhadler/pegs.html, accessed 7/11/17, EVH)

About socialism, Alperovitz is absolutely correct that state control of all relevant resources produces "disastrous" ecological results. He explains that "The governing authorities of the socialist states lacked the will (and probably the capacity) to hold economic operations accountable to true social costs." Yet this failing is not unique to socialist systems. Indeed, political actors evidence the same failure of will in the American system of a mixed economy. Many environmental problems that are clearly identified remain unaddressed because the "governing authorities" in "capitalist" countries also "lack the will" to impose restraint upon economic actors and/or the government itself. Witness the failure of both Congress and the current administration to restrain environmentally destructive government spending. Despite protestations that "the era of big government is over" and environmental protection must not be compromised, numerous environmentally destructive federal programs -- from farm subsidies to below-cost use of federal lands to federally-provided flood insurance -- persist because political actors are unwilling to impose the costs on particular interests that ending those programs would entail. Similarly, the legacy of government-led ecological ruin in this country is different only in scale to that of the former-Soviet countries. Both here and abroad, political institutions have shown themselves to be unresponsive to all but the most pressing environmental concerns, just as they are typically unresponsive to economic concerns. A sustainability problem, therefore, can be found in politics itself and the instinct to centralize decisions about resource use in political entities. Alperovitz comes close to recognizing this fact when he notes that corporations have a disproportionate ability to "manipulate regulatory agencies, . . . and impact both electoral politics and legislation," for what he has identified is that corporations wield significant power over non-market institutions. It is the political nature of these institutions, and not the market system, that should be blamed. From this standpoint, how curious is it that most environmental policies seek to centralize decisions in political entities? Economic central-planning, inevitably, was a dismal failure. Ecological central planning is a far more difficult task, and will fare no better. The knowledge and public choice problems faced by political actors only increase as the issues under consideration become ever more complex. Eco-socialism -- that is any effort that seeks to centralize environmental decision making within a state apparatus -- will prove the most unsustainable system of all. What then about the marketplace? For the existence of unsustainable tendencies in the political system does not inoculate the free market from similar complaints. Indeed, there is certainly a legacy of privately-sponsored environmental harm. However to blame the system of private ownership and market exchange (i.e. capitalism), and the attendant drive to maximize personal utility -- as Alperovitz does -- is a mistake. Capitalism -- the free market -- is a socio-economic system that relies upon certain basic institutions, among them private property, contract, rule of law, and voluntary exchange. It is this system that enables individuals and communities to pursue their own perceived self-interest without resorting to coercion. The capitalist system also allows for the creation of corporations and other entities that seek to maximize profit as a means of meeting the needs and wants of individuals and communities. One means of maximizing profit is to provide greater utility to customers at a lower cost. This means finding ways of producing more, using less, or both. Therefore, market institutions do not fundamentally encourage greater resource use, as Alperovitz suggests, so much as they encourage greater output. The two are not the same. Indeed, as a direct result of market institutions, humans have learned to do more with less; to meet human needs while using fewer, and less scarce natural resource inputs, and recovering materials for recycling or reuse where appropriate. This can be seen in the replacement of copper with fiber optics (made from silica -- i.e., sand), the downsizing of computer circuitry, the light weighting of packaging, the explosion of agricultural productivity, and so on. The environmental benefits of such pressure are enormous. Consider that to feed the current world's population using 1950s agricultural technology would require putting an additional 10 million square miles under plow -- acres that are now forest or wildlife habitat; or that a microchip made from a few grains of sand is capable of retaining and reprocessing all of the information contained in a local library; or that proven reserves of oil and gas have increased seven-fold since 1950. Alperovitz also accuses capitalism of generating "pressure to externalize costs," but again he has identified the secondary pressure of a mixed system, and not something inherent in capitalism itself; such pressure is not inevitable. As above, the fundamental institutional pressure is to reduce the differential between benefits and costs, leading to profits in corporations or greater personal utility in individuals. This "generates pressures to externalize costs and pollute" only when such options are available due to the existence of common resources or a failure to extend market institutions to cover the full range of ecological resources. This has been known for quite some time -- it was pointed out in Garrett Hardin's seminal essays on the commons -- but rarely informs the environmental debate. That corporations (or self-interested individuals for that matter) seek out unpriced goods is not surprising, nor is it behavior that is to be condemned. It is the existence of goods that are unpriced that is the source of the problem. A company that opts to dispose of chemical wastes as effluent into a nearby river over seeking to recycle such wastes or send them to a disposal facility clearly does so because it is the least cost option; acting in that manner is a rational action motivated by a desire to maximize profits. The question that needs to be asked is why is pollution the least-cost action? The answer: because so long as the river is an unowned resource, the company will bear no cost by using it. The problem is not the company's profit-driven incentive. The problem is the failure to incorporate the river into market institutions. Were the river owned, the company would have to negotiate with the river's owner(s), or those who own rights to the river's use downstream, before dumping its wastes. If the ecological impact of such dumping is negligible, the company could probably continue as before. If not, the company would have to find a means of reducing the damage, compensating the owner, or developing an alternative means of waste disposal. There would be no "pressure to externalize" if there were no place to which one could. Even were the river owned by the company itself, it would not simply dump its wastes with abandon, as that would destroy the value of its resource. The company would have to weigh the river's value as a disposal site with that as a potential source of drinking water, recreation site, fishery, and so on. The fact that others in a market system place value on alternative uses of the river would force the company to consider these uses, and seek to reconcile them with its own priorities, in order to fulfill the profit-maximizing mandate placed upon it by its shareholders. Those resources that are market orphans, left out of the capitalist system, are those that are the most misused.

Cap Good---Environment---A2: Profit Motive Capitalism isn’t evil – countless corporate-run groups are fighting environmental degradation quietly

Vij 17 (Vikas, staff writer for Sustainable Development news, ”Decisions for Life”, and Justmeans, MBA, 20 years of managerial and entrepreneurial experience, author. “Global Organizations Drive (Quietly) Sustainable Capitalism”, 3/4/17. http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/global-organizations-drive-quietly-sustainable-capitalism, 7/7/17)//JM


(3BL Media/Justmeans) – Over the last few decades, a global movement toward a different business model has emerged. The new model is related to broader efforts to promote sustainable development and the circular economy, and is driven in large part by the challenges of climate change. However, the new commitments made by responsible organizations and governments across the world need strong implementation in order to effectively address the global challenges. To bring these organizations into spotlight, the Security and Sustainability Guide project has released a new report titled “Greening Capitalism, Quietly: Seven Types of Organizations Driving the “Necessary Revolution.” The report focuses on a quiet revolution that is unfolding where certain business organizations and nonprofits are taking on the role of change-makers to create a sustainable world. The report maps about 150 organizations that are driving the greening of capitalism, and groups them into seven key categories, including Business-Led Groups, Ethical Groups, Broadened Accounting Groups, Certifying Organizations, Green Investing Groups, Sustainability Consultants, and Green Business Publishing. Business-Led Groups There are a number of corporate-led groups that are well aware of emerging sustainability challenges and have been taking a leadership role in addressing these risks. Two of the best-known groups are the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Economic Forum. The WBCSD has 200 corporate members from 35 countries, and has issued an Action 2020 platform and a Vision 2050 best-case scenario. The World Economic Forum is widely known for its annual meeting of business and government leaders in Davos, but also issues many reports on different areas of sustainability. Ethics-Driven Groups Many groups explicitly stress ethics, responsibility or corporate social responsibility (CSR), and leadership, and organizational ratings and performance reports reinforce these virtues. The best-known ethical driver is probably the UN Global Compact, which has 12,000 business signatories in 170 countries to 10 Principles regarding human rights, labor standards, environment, and corruption. The UN Global Compact Cities Program encourages urban innovation and local businesses joining the Compact. Broadened Accounting The traditional image of accounting as dull number-crunching is quickly fading. Accounting is increasingly learning to speak in multiple tongues reflecting the “triple bottom line.” Various groups are working to establish this broader picture. In addition to GRI, the Sustainable Accounting Standards Board, chaired by Michael Bloomberg, is developing standards for more than 80 industries. The International Integrated Reporting Council encourages business to “think holistically” about sustainable development and value creation over time. Certifying Organizations The internet, trade, and global travel are frequently cited as forces for globalization. Certifying organizations seeking global, regional, or national standardization of best practices are another driver, albeit a quiet one. The International Organization for Standards, comprising 163 national standards bodies, has issued many ISO standards, including Environmental Management, Energy Management, Risk Management, Food Safety, Information Security, and Social Responsibility. Green Investing Three broad indicator clusters suggest the robust turn toward green or sustainability investing. First, the Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative now has 60 partner exchanges on board to promote sustainable business practices and responsible investment. Second, the Green Transition Scoreboard, published annually by Ethical Markets Media, calculates $7.13 trillion in non-government green investments and commitments. A third indicator is provided by the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing, which notes that “sustainable investments have more than doubled since 2012.” Green Consulting Large groups include the Carbon Disclosure Project with consulting services such as corporate footprints to promote sustainable business, products and cities; Ecology and Environment Inc., consulting on environmental management; Environmental Resources Management, claiming “world’s leading sustainability consultancy”; GlobeScan, providing evidence based strategy consulting; and SustainAbility Survey of challenges and opportunities. Green Business Publishers Similar to the wide variety of green consultants, large and small, green business publishers offer a broad range of books, journals, reports, and newsletters. Publishers, such as the new Business and Sustainable Development Commission, GreenBiz, Greenleaf Publishing, and 3BL Media keep readers abreast of new developments in the area of global sustainability.

Cap Good---Inequality Their inequality impact is wrong—capitalism solves inequality

Worstall 15 - Tim Worstall, Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, a writer on many topics, one of the global experts on the metal scandium, one of the rare earths, has written for The Times, Daily Telegraph, Express, Independent, City AM, Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer and online for the ASI, IEA, Social Affairs Unit, Spectator, The Guardian, The Register and Techcentralstation, also ghosted pieces for several UK politicians in many of the UK papers, including the Daily Sport, 15 ("It's Not Capitalism That Causes Poverty, It's The Lack Of It," Forbes, 12-19-2015, Available Online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/12/19/its-not-capitalism-that-causes-poverty-its-the-lack-of-it/#3c46ee3e5613, Accessed on 7-4-2017 //JJ)

It is indeed true, in one specific sense, that we can say that capitalism causes poverty. It's also equally true that the statement "capitalism causes poverty" is entirely wrong given the way that it is generally meant. That general meaning being that the capitalist plutocrats (and a few lucky running dog lackeys like myself) get to scoop up the profits extorted from the brows of the workers, the bitter tears of their starving waiflings, and this is what makes poor people poor.

In this sense the statement is simply absurd. The poor in today's current world live as the human poor have done since the very invention of agricultures. That $1.90 a day which the World Bank uses as the definition of today's absolute poverty (and, as always, that is at today's U.S. retail prices--we are defining poverty as living in what you can buy in Walmart for less than two bucks per day per person, housing, clothing, healthcare, food, heating, everything, included) is the standard of living of the vast majority of humankind for almost all of the last ten millennia. A very few priests and aristocrats rose above it but not many in any generation.

This does not mean that we should ignore such poverty, nor not work to alleviate it. But it does mean that we've got to switch the question around: What was it that allowed some to leave that poverty behind and what is it allowing even more to do so? The answer being this odd mixture of capitalism and free markets that we have. Starting around and about 1750 in Britain, this is the only economic system ever which has appreciably and sustainably raised the standard of living of the average person. And if we acknowledge this then we can indeed start to say that capitalism causes poverty because the people who don't have it remain poor, while those oppressed by the capitalist plutocrats (and of course, their lackey dog runners such as myself) get rich, as have all of us in the currently rich countries.

All of which is a lead in to this same point being extremely well made by Ricardo Hausman:

Our research has uncovered that in the developing world, there are enormous differences in productivity within countries, across their different regions. For example, in the US, the richest state, which is probably Connecticut, is about twice as rich as the poorest state, which is either Mississippi or West Virginia. The difference is a factor of two. In Mexico, the difference between Chiapas and Nuevo León is a factor of nine. Similar differences exist between the Indian states of Bihar and Goa or between the cities of Patna and Bangalore. These differences in income are mainly differences in productivity. It’s not the result of what share of the pie goes to capital and what size of the pie goes to labor. It is differences in the sizes of the pie.

So there are these enormous differences in productivity that make the productive places rich and the unproductive places poor. The poor people are not being exploited. They’re being excluded from the higher productivity activities. It’s not that the capitalists are taking a very large share of what they produce. It’s just that they produce very little in the first place.

As Dierdrie McCloskey is wont to note, the only thing worse than being oppressed by a capitalist is not being oppressed by a capitalist (although that might originate with Joan Robinson if memory serves):

Many of those that worry about inequality blame capitalism for it. Even Pope Francis has been framing the issue in this way. Now, let’s define capitalism the way Karl Marx did. It is a mode of production where some people own the means of production and others work as wage laborers for them. But if this is the case, capitalism hires 8 out of each 9 workers in the USA, 2 out of 3 in Nuevo Leon, 1 out of 7 in Chiapas and 1 out of 19 in India. Places where more of the labor force works for capitalist firms are richer, because capitalist firms allow for much higher productivity.

Poor places are characterized by the absence of capitalist firms and by self-employment, employment: these are small peasants and farmers or owners of small shop. In these settings, there are no wages, there’s no employment relationship. There are no pensions. There is no unemployment insurance. The trappings of a capitalist labor market do not exist.

The alternative is woefully insufficient to resolve inequality—only capitalism solves inequality

Siebold 15 - Steve Siebold, one of the world’s foremost experts in the field of critical thinking and mental toughness training. He is the author of seven books, two of which are international bestsellers and have been called the gold standard in the field of psychological performance training. A former professional athlete (Top 500 tennis player in the world), Siebold could never understand why on some days he could triumph over the world’s top-ranked players, and other days would lose miserably. He started studying the mental aspects of performance to better understand the thoughts, beliefs, philosophies and actions of world-class performers. After his professional tennis days were over, he continued studying mental toughness and for the past 20 years has worked with Fortune 500 sales and management teams, professional athletes, entrepreneurs and other super achiever to improve performance. Steve’s clients include Fortune 500 companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Toyota, Procter & Gamble and GlaxoSmithKline, as well as thousands of direct salespeople in 10 countries worldwide. As a professional speaker, Steve has been awarded the Certified Professional Speaker designation from the National Speakers Association. Steve ranks among the top 1% of income earners in the professional speaking industry worldwide. Steve has been featured on NBC’s Today Show, Good Morning America, Fox Business, BBC Television, CBS News, and hundreds of other television, radio, newspapers, magazine and online sites around the globe. His books, videos and audio programs have been sold in 30 countries around the world. In December 2001, Steve was appointed to the National Charity Awards Committee, Chaired by President George W. Bush, 15 ("Capitalism Can Defeat Economic Inequality," Huffington Post, 9-11-2015, Available Online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-siebold/capitalism-can-defeat-eco_b_8123186.html, Accessed on 7-1-2017 //JJ)

The answer to fixing the deficit and fixing income inequality is innovation driven through capitalism. Many of the best ideas that work in anything are the non-linear strategies, or the non-obvious ways of getting things done. When the obvious doesn’t work, which it isn’t right now, it’s time to look at the problem in a non-linear fashion.

If you want to help balance the budget and reduce the federal deficit, instead of putting a gun to the head of the wealthy and forcing them to pay more in taxes, play to the vanity of large corporations and sell them the naming writes to streets, parks and other publicly held properties. Instead of I-95 it could be Johnson & Johnson Highway (or whatever company). Imagine that: billions of dollars come trickling into the government and it’s some of the best advertising a large corporation could buy. It’s no different than legalized pot in Colorado and other states bringing in millions of dollars to help support the economy.

We also need to educate the poor and the middle class on how to earn more money. Through capitalism, we can get the ultra-wealthy to sponsor the middle class for education purposes in exchange for a write off. It’s value for value. Capitalism built this country and it’s capitalism that will solve our problems.

The sustained rise in inequality is years in the making, but the truth is making money has never been easier because there are so many problems waiting to be solved. We just need to teach people how to do it.

The reality is that while higher education and even continuing education courses are certainly great accomplishments, they don’t teach the financial basics of how to get ahead and succeed in a free market economy. After studying the wealthy for more than 30 years, most millionaires will tell you the way they look at money compared to how the rest of the world looks at it is not even in the same ballpark. It’s like the two groups are operating on totally different planets.

If you’re one of those people whose financial situation isn’t quite where you want it to be, start focusing your mental energy where it belongs: on the big money! Making money is easy once you know how to do it.

In the meantime, the only way to close the income inequality gap is through non-linear ideas and strategies driven through capitalism.

Inequality is improving and it is thanks to capitalism

Boaz 16 - David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement. He is the author of The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom and the editor of The Libertarian Reader. Boaz is a provocative commentator and a leading authority on domestic issues such as education choice, drug legalization, the growth of government, and the rise of libertarianism. Boaz is the former editor of New Guard magazine and was executive director of the Council for a Competitive Economy prior to joining Cato in 1981. The earlier edition of The Libertarian Mind, titled Libertarianism: A Primer, was described by the Los Angeles Times as “a well-researched manifesto of libertarian ideas.” His other books include The Politics of Freedom and the Cato Handbook for Policymakers. His articles have been published in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, National Review, and Slate, and he wrote the entry on libertarianism for Encyclopedia Britannica. He is a frequent guest on national television and radio shows, and has appeared on ABC’s Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, CNN’s Crossfire, NPR’s Talk of the Nation and All Things Considered, The McLaughlin Group, Stossel, The Independents, Fox News Channel, BBC, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other media, 16 ("Capitalism, Global Trade, and the Reduction in Poverty and Inequality," Cato Institute, 4-14-2016, Available Online at https://www.cato.org/blog/capitalism-global-trade-reduction-poverty-inequality, Accessed on 7-1-2017 //JJ)

Drawing on a new World Bank study, Washington Post columnist Charles Lane today notes “a vast reduction in poverty and income inequality worldwide over the past quarter-century” – despite what you might think if you listen to Pope Francis, Bernie Sanders, and other voices prominent in the media.

Specifically, the world’s Gini coefficient — the most commonly used measure of income distribution — has fallen from 0.69 in 1988 to 0.63 in 2011. (A higher Gini coefficient connotes greater inequality, up to a maximum of 1.0.)

That may seem modest until you consider that the estimate’s author, former World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, thinks we may be witnessing the first period of declining global inequality since the Industrial Revolution.

Note that this hopeful figure applies to the world’s population as though every individual lived in one big country. When Milanovic assessed the distribution of income between nations, adjusted for population, the improvement was even more striking: a decline in the Gini coefficient from 0.60 in 1988 to 0.48 in 2014.

The global middle class expanded, as real income went up between 70 percent and 80 percent for those around the world who were already earning at or near the global median, including some 200 million Chinese, 90 million Indians and 30 million people each in Indonesia, Egypt and Brazil.

Those in the bottom third of the global income distribution registered real income gains between 40 percent and 70 percent, Milanovic reports. The share of the world’s population living on $1.25 or less per day — what the World Bank defines as “absolute poverty” — fell from 44 percent to 23 percent.

So maybe this is a result of all the agitation on behalf of a more moral or planned economy? No, says Lane, citing Milanovic:

Did this historic progress, with its overwhelmingly beneficial consequences for millions of the world’s humblest inhabitants, occur because everyone finally adopted “democratic socialism”? Was it due to a conscious, organized effort to construct a “moral economy” as per Vatican standards?

To the contrary: The big story after 1988 is the collapse of communism and the spread of market institutions, albeit imperfect ones, to India, China and Latin America. This was a process mightily abetted by freer flows of international trade and private capital, which were, in turn, promoted by a bipartisan succession of U.S. presidents and Congresses.

The extension of capitalism fueled economic growth, which Milanovic correctly calls “the most powerful tool for reducing global poverty and inequality.”

This is the good news about the world today. Indeed, it’s the most important news about our world. We hear so much about poverty, inequality, gaps, resource depletion, and the like, it’s a wonder any NPR listeners can bear to get out of bed in the morning. But as the economic historian Deirdre McCloskey says, this is the “Great Fact,” the most important fact about our world today – the enormous and unprecedented growth in living standards that began in the western world around 1700. She calls it “a factor of sixteen”: we moderns consume at least 16 times the food, clothing, housing, and education that our ancestors did in London in the 18th century. And this vast increase in wealth that began in northwestern Europe, mostly Britain and the Netherlands, has now spread to most of Europe, the United States, Japan, and increasingly to the rest of the world.

Cap Good---Space Capitalism leads to successful space operations—4 reasons

Zimmerman 17 - Robert Zimmerman, award-winning independent science journalist and historian who has written four books and innumerable articles on science, engineering, and the history of space exploration and technology for Science, Air & Space, Sky & Telescope, Astronomy, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and a host of other publications. He also reports on space, science, and culture on his website, http://behindtheblack.com. He does not work for any aerospace company and has never received any money from NASA for his reporting. His books include Leaving Earth: Space Stations, Rival Superpowers, and the Quest for Interplanetary Travel (Joseph Henry Press), which won the American Astronautical Society’s Eugene M. Emme Astronautical Literature Award in 2003 as that year’s best space history for the general public. He also has written Genesis: The Story of Apollo 8 (Mountain Lake Press) and The Universe in a Mirror: The Saga of the Hubble Space Telescope and the Visionaries Who Built It (Princeton University Press). In 2000 he was co-winner of the David N. Schramm Award, given by the High Energy Astrophysics Division of the American Astronomical Society for Science Journalism, for his essay in The Sciences, “There She Blows,” on the 35-year-old astronomical mystery of gamma ray bursts, 17 ("Capitalism in Space," CNAS, 3-10-2017, Available Online at https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/capitalism-in-space, Accessed on 7-9-2017 //JJ)


It is essential for any nation that wishes to thrive and compete on the world stage to have a successful and flourishing aerospace industry, centered on the capability of putting humans and payloads into space affordably and frequently. This is a bipartisan position held by elected officials from both American political parties since the Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite in 1957.

The reasons for this are straightforward:

Military strength: For strategic reasons, the military must have the capability of launching satellites into orbit for the purpose of surveillance and reconnaissance. In addition, the country’s missile technology must be state-of-the-art to make this data gathering as effective as possible. A healthy aerospace industry is the only way to achieve both.

Natural resources: The resources in space – raw materials from asteroids and the planets as well as energy from the Sun – are there for the taking. Other nations are striving to obtain those resources and the wealth those assets will provide for their citizens. Without direct access to those resources, American society will have less opportunity for growth and prosperity, and the country will eventually fall behind as a major power.

Economic growth: A thriving aerospace industry helps fuel the U.S. economy. It develops cutting-edge technology in fields such as computer design, materials research, and miniaturization that drives innovation and invention in every other field.

National prestige: Even if the previous three reasons did not exist, the prestige of the United States requires that we remain competitive in the increasingly global race to explore and settle the solar system. If the United States doesn’t compete in this effort, future generations of Americans will be left behind as China, Russia, Europe, India, and an increasing number of other nations establish operations in space and permanent colonies on the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids.

Mars colony is feasible, solves a laundry list of extinction scenarios, and ends war on Earth

Davies 10 – Dirk Schulze-Makuch, Ph.D. and Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Washington State University, and Paul Davies, Ph.D. and Professor in the Beyond Center at Arizona State University, “To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars”, Journal of Cosmology, 12, October / November, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html


There are several reasons that motivate the establishment of a permanent Mars colony. We are a vulnerable species living in a part of the galaxy where cosmic events such as major asteroid and comet impacts and supernova explosions pose a significant threat to life on Earth, especially to human life. There are also more immediate threats to our culture, if not our survival as a species. These include global pandemics, nuclear or biological warfare, runaway global warming, sudden ecological collapse and supervolcanoes (Rees 2004). Thus, the colonization of other worlds is a must if the human species is to survive for the long term. The first potential colonization targets would be asteroids, the Moon and Mars. The Moon is the closest object and does provide some shelter (e.g., lava tube caves), but in all other respects falls short compared to the variety of resources available on Mars. The latter is true for asteroids as well. Mars is by far the most promising for sustained colonization and development, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and, crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals. Mars is our second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a trip to Mars at the most favorable launch option takes about six months with current chemical rocket technology.

In addition to offering humanity a "lifeboat" in the event of a mega-catastrophe, a Mars colony is attractive for other reasons. Astrobiologists agree that there is a fair probability that Mars hosts, or once hosted, microbial life, perhaps deep beneath the surface (Lederberg and Sagan 1962; Levin 2010; Levin and Straat 1977, 1981; McKay and Stoker 1989; McKay et al. 1996; Baker et al. 2005; Schulze-Makuch et al. 2005, 2008, Darling and Schulze-Makuch 2010; Wierzchos et al. 2010; Mahaney and Dohm 2010). A scientific facility on Mars might therefore be a unique opportunity to study an alien life form and a second evolutionary record, and to develop novel biotechnology therefrom. At the very least, an intensive study of ancient and modern Mars will cast important light on the origin of life on Earth. Mars also conceals a wealth of geological and astronomical data that is almost impossible to access from Earth using robotic probes. A permanent human presence on Mars would open the way to comparative planetology on a scale unimagined by any former generation. In the fullness of time, a Mars base would offer a springboard for human/robotic exploration of the outer solar system and the asteroid belt. Finally, establishing a permanent multicultural and multinational human presence on another world would have major beneficial political and social implications for Earth, and serve as a strong unifying and uplifting theme for all humanity.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

And can we also get a card saying the world is getting worse. The more recent the better

Even if some populations have had small gains in relative wealth, they have failed to account for the larger picture of corporate capitalism – and it will only get worse the way things are going now—WHERE ARE THE TAX RETURNS – their frame of reference is totally skewed to favor corporate elite in order to create a false consensus of progress –

Amis, et. al., 17 [John, Chair in Strategic Management & Organisation and Director of the Doctoral Program at the University of Edinburgh Business School, PhD in Economics from the University of Alberta. Kamal Munir, Reader in Strategy & Policy and Professor of Business at the University of Cambridge, PhD in Economics from McGill University, and Johanna Mair, Professor of Organization, Strategy and Leadership at the Hertie School of Governance, Hewlett Foundation Visiting Scholar at the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society and the Academic Editor of the Stanford Social Innovation Review. “Institutions and Economic Inequality,” The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (2nd ed.)]

The global rise of economic inequality has become an increasingly prevalent theme in the economics and sociology literatures. Much of the focus of this work has been on the uncovering of statistical evidence that economic inequality exists, and is increasing. A growing body of research including Jencks et al. (1979), Stiglitz (2013), Dorling (2010, 2014) and Piketty (2014) overwhelmingly suggests that overall improvements in aggregate wealth are in fact associated with increases in inequality. For example, the share of wealth in the United States enjoyed by the top 0.1% grew from 7% in 1979 to 22% in 2012 (Saez & Zucman, 2014). In 1965, CEOs of major American companies earned 10 or 18 times more than the typical worker, depending on the compensation measure; by 2012, it had increased to 202-to-1 or 273-to-1 respectively (Mishel & Sabadish, 2013). These figures become even more extreme in the financial sector. In 2004, for example, the combined income of the top 25 hedge fund managers was greater than the combined income of all CEOs of S&P 500 firms (Kaplan & Rauh, 2010). Further, of the top 0.1 percent of income earners, 18.4% worked in finance or were executives, managers and supervisors of financial firms (Bakija, Cole & Heim, 2012). The extreme levels of inequality are starkly borne out in the anti-poverty charity Oxfam’s (2016) report that the proportion of the world’s wealth owned by the top 1% has continued to dramatically increase. In fact, Oxfam reports that the 62 wealthiest people in the world own the same amount as the least well off 3.5 billion, or 50% of the world’s population. Further, the wealth of these 62 people increased by 44% between 2010 and 2015 while that of the bottom 3.5 billion fell by 41% over the same period. If the recent rise in inequality is now well established, what is also increasingly recognized is that it appears to have hugely detrimental consequences. Wilkinson and Pickett (2010) have demonstrated that higher levels of inequality are correlated with a wide variety of undesirable consequences including lower life expectancies, greater levels of community dysfunction, greater levels of drug use, more mental health problems, poorer physical health, greater obesity rates, increased levels of violence, lower levels of educational performance, higher rates of imprisonment, and lower levels of social mobility. Such patterns of inequality seem to perpetuate themselves not just in society in general but within organizations too. The “working poor,” while “seemingly indispensable to the value creation model for firms in developed economies” (Leana et al., 2012: 901) appear to have little chance of advancing beyond their current circumstances (see also Mair et al., 2012 for a similar argument in developing economies). Further, despite decades of awareness, women remain discriminated against in many organizations, leading to a perpetuation of unequal pay and severe under-representation in senior management positions (Belliveau, 2012; Ryan & Haslam, 2007). Racial disparities (Carton & Rosette, 2011; Cortina, 2008), sexual harassment (Berdahl, 2007; Raver & Gelfand, 2005), discrimination against stigmatized and marginalized individuals and groups (Martí & Fernández, 2013; Soule, 2012) and exploitation that leads to “body breakdowns” (Michel, 2011) have also been reported as outcomes of formal and informal policies of exploitation and inequality.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody have a neg strat to sex ed and cte. I would like to understand key arguments against these cases.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a card to read against K's that say any action under Trump is fundamentally illegitimate (you should also read 'cede the political' and 'pragmatism good,' etc.).


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any DA that counters CTE and or sex ed and then do you have a cp or t.

Both of these should get wrecked by the states CP and spending/federalism/politics/midterms.


If they're like "USFG key because it sends a signal," you can add "The President of the United States should publicly announce that [sex education should be LGBTQ+ inclusive]" or whatever to the states CP.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of these should get wrecked by the states CP and spending/federalism/politics/midterms.


If they're like "USFG key because it sends a signal," you can add "The President of the United States should publicly announce that [sex education should be LGBTQ+ inclusive]" or whatever to the states CP.

why would that not link to politics/midterms?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

why would that not link to politics/midterms?

Because it's action by Trump, not Congress.


It is questionable to fiat that and there's a CP links to DA argument to be made.


For politics, Trump doesn't have to push anything through Congress.


For midterms, more of a link here. Depends on your actual UQ/link story, but you can argue the plan links more via Congressional action.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a card that says that no world peace= any impact

I mean, I think world peace is an impact. If there isn't any violence or warfare, that's probably pretty good. You can read framing evidence about structural violence outweighing other, lower probability impacts.


How you're planning to solve for world peace, however, I have no idea.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

2-12-18 is a "Trump can't use political capital" style card. You probably have one, but hey, read something from 2018 and show your judges that you use freshly updated generic cards, not just generic cards from camp files.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...