frame

Is it better for the economy to be in the hands of a billionaire or a community organizer?

Opening Argument

We are finding out that self made billionaires know more about the economy than community organizers.
aarongMax_Air29joecavalry
  1. Billionaire or Community Organizer

    8 votes
    1. Billionaire
      50.00%
    2. Community Organizer
      50.00%
«1

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • someone234someone234 154 Pts
    edited December 2017
    Self made what? The only self made ventures trump made ended up bankrupt or fraudulent.

    From the idea of the Apprentice which he stole from Lord Alan Sugar to his inherited businesses that he sat on, he's unfairly gifted.

    Sure he works hard but he isn't self made in the slightest.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • MikeMike 63 Pts
    edited December 2017
    It is “better for the economy to be in the hands” of a free market. The tyrannical “hands” of any entity or government interference of market forces, will only distress the market.
  • @Mike Yet the nations with the highest rates of poverty and corruption are all free market nations that ended with the rich running it.

    Nigeria, India, Brazil you name it and the rich run it.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • The government should be run by experience people from different of diverse backgrounds. They should not be corrupt, but can be wealthy if they were elected into office.
  • @Mike Yet the nations with the highest rates of poverty and corruption are all free market nations that ended with the rich running it.

    Nigeria, India, Brazil you name it and the rich run it.
    North Korea, Venezuela...
    DrCereal
  • @someone234 ;I see we are on the same page. Like I said “any entity,” which includes those entities in “Nigeria, India, Brazil you named” only distresses the market. On the other hand, there are many throughout the world who got “rich” using free market principles, who support those principles.
    DrCereal
  • @CYDdharta Actually in those nations the rich don't run it but it is that those running it end up rich. That is just as bad indeed but the reverse issue.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @Mike If it's cute in theory but corrupt in practise every time, it's not an ideology worth pursuing to fruition.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @someone234 ; If you feel that way, thank you for sharing your philosophy. With that, I must move on. 
  • @Mike Your philosophy is let the rich enslave the poor.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @Mike Your philosophy is let the rich enslave the poor.
    Your point seems to be that sometimes the rich are in charge of the government, other times those in charge of the government get rich from their positions.  In either case, the government enslaves the poor.  Why are you complaining about the rich instead of the government, which seems to be the real culprit?
  • someone234someone234 154 Pts
    edited December 2017
    @CYDdharta In free market nations yes and in the other extreme yes. In nations like Canada or Western Europe or... Australia a really good balance between the wings is found and that is healthy government.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @CYDdharta In free market nations yes and in the other extreme yes. In nations like Candace or Western Europe or... Australia a really good balance between the wings is found and that is healthy government.
    No nation has a truly free market.
  • @CYDdharta

    I’m not complaining about the “rich” nor the “government,” I’m complaining about any entity, from the poor all the way to the rich, including social systems and governments; those who do not support free market systems.  

    I love the “rich,” for you can’t get a job from a poor person. In a free market system, if you do not want to work for someone else, form your own business and become your own boss. 

  • @CYDdharta that's because as soon as they try, the rich corrupt it.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • someone234someone234 154 Pts
    edited December 2017
    @Mike and with free market policy not stopping cartels how will you compete? The privately owned cops sure aren't gonna save you, neither will the high priced private law firms when you sue for contract breach or copyright infringement, they'll laugh in your poor face.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @someone234
    You’re missing the point. A free market is a function of morality. Without morality, any market will be in distress by the tyranny or plunder from others.
    someone234
  • @Mike throughout history and even today in any non Communist country that has high rates of poverty you can clearly see the end result of capitalism.

    Socialist policies must be in place to stop competition from going too far.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • Mike said:
    @CYDdharta

    I’m not complaining about the “rich” nor the “government,” I’m complaining about any entity, from the poor all the way to the rich, including social systems and governments; those who do not support free market systems.  

    I love the “rich,” for you can’t get a job from a poor person. In a free market system, if you do not want to work for someone else, form your own business and become your own boss. 

    My comment wasn't actually directed at you, but your answer raises an interesting point.  Can a government actually support a free market?  The only way I can think of for it to actually support a free market is to do nothing.
    someone234
  • @CYDdharta wow we actually agree for once.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @Mike throughout history and even today in any non Communist country that has high rates of poverty you can clearly see the end result of capitalism.

    Socialist policies must be in place to stop competition from going too far.

    Socialism: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

     Capitalism: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

    The way I see it, Capitalism is based on freedom, where Socialism is based on State tyranny.

    As for the moral factor in free market systems, I like Thomas Jefferson’s take on freedom:

    “Of liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

  • @Mike you're not the first ring wing libertarian. I know the outlook of "free market = freer people" but it's WRONG and you will soon understand that if you take the time to study economics and justice.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @CYDdharta
    “To do nothing at all,” quite the contrary, the government is an essential part of a free market system. From the pure free market existence at the garage-sale level to the numerous laws needed for international free trade, a moral government supports free markets by embracing and protecting the “unalienable Rights” of all parties involved.
  • @someone234

    Thanks for the advice and I like your enthusiastic persistence relative to your ideology. And in saying that, in reference to your constructive recommendation, I have spent exploratory time to “study economics and justice,” and its relationship to the symmetry found in a physical law in nature known as the constructal law. In fact, I wrote a book on the subject. If you are interested in said subject, I completed the fourth edition of my book to be out at the end of next month (January 2018).

    In the meantime, perhaps, we could exchange ideas over the Introduction Chapter of my fourth edition. 

  • Mike said:
    @CYDdharta
    “To do nothing at all,” quite the contrary, the government is an essential part of a free market system. From the pure free market existence at the garage-sale level to the numerous laws needed for international free trade, a moral government supports free markets by embracing and protecting the “unalienable Rights” of all parties involved.
    The only thing a government can do is regulate markets.  Regulations are encroachments on freedom.  A government can make a market fairer, but only by reducing it's freedom.  A pure free market would have no government regulations at all.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch