Instigator / Pro
Points: 14

Left wing policies, in general, are better for the economy.


The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 8
It may seem counter intuitative at first with republicans being the business friendly party. However history shows truth, and being existing business friendly isnt the same as overall market friendly. Being chummy with businesses often stifles competition. A left wing equally regulated economy is far more free and fair then a right wing subsidized economy where hand picked businesses get unfair tax benefits while acting with maximum impunity.
Round 1
Premise 1. This is a bit anecdotal as presidents dont have total control over the economy, but it is a consistent pattern going back many presidents. And a pattern is very clear. Democratic presidents have seen greater stock market growth, and stronger other economic indicators

Premise 2. Blue states, with their high taxes and extra regulations have the biggest economies, generate most of the nations wealth, and house most of the major companies. Why havent the taxes and regulations driven companies out? Because taxes arent bad. They paid for the roads and security those companies appreciate. They also educate the public that will become their workers and consumers. Support for the public in the form of higher wages, sanitation, etc also allows for a steady, and healthy, consumer base. It has its advantages. You may disagree with my reasons, but the success of blue states vs red states is objective fact.

It is my premise that Republicans in red states implement conservative economic policy or right wing , Democratic states implement Liberal economic policy or centrist . no state in the usa implements left wing economic policy which might be exemplified by i think one of the few successfull left wing models would be norway In Norway, the surplus from the oil boom has been used to build a $1 trillion collectively-owned capital fund with the return on that capital going to finance general government spending, including the country’s large welfare state. This capital fund is even colorfully described by the Norwegian government as “the people’s money, owned by everyone, divided equally and for generations to come.” much of the Norwegian Economy is collectively owned, you cant say that about any American state
Round 2
My opponent claims democrats employ liberal but not left wing policies. That is like saying democrats are like the french, but not like europeans. Left is an entire spectrum with more than 1 ideas and models. Liberal is certainly on the left half of the spectrum. 

A counterexample was a european nation with a small homogenous population and petrol wealth. Not a great analogy to the united states. However within the american economy it is clear that left wing policies have worked out better then right wing policies, that point was not contested and i believe is something we actually agree on. 

Left is a relative notion, it relies on what is considered the center, and that can change in time as well as between nations.
If you study European political ideology you see that liberalism is centrist, and sometimes even on the center right talk to any european and he will laugh if you say liberals are left wing
Round 3
I don't understand the relevance of your point. Left and right are relative terms whose values change with time and between nation. Europe's political spectrum is not a defining default, but just one example. The American spectrum is no less valid, nor the spectrum from another part of the world. 

It was my mistake for not limiting this debate to the American spectrum as was my intent, which leaves me open to easy counterpoints, but that doesn't seem to be my opponent's intent. So far my point that left wing policies are economically superior in American history stands since no counterexamples or disagreements to negate my claim have been presented.
put simply there is not left wing in the united states Democrats are centrist and no state or municipality in the united states implements leftist policy, party because of Constitutional limitations and partly because Americans are basically conservative, do you see one city of state as left wing as even say Singapore? case of Singapore is more than just a funny gotcha to use against right-wingers. It actually raises an interesting question about what it is people care about when it comes to “capitalism” and “socialism.” Is capitalism primarily about markets or private ownership? Relatedly, is socialism primarily about ending markets or promoting collective ownership? Often these things are bundled together, but they are logically and practically separable. Singapore (and Norway, among others) shows that it is quite possible to collectively own the means of production while also using price systems to assist in the allocation of productive factors. This is what market socialists have been saying for a hundred years.
Round 4
As i explained, left and right are relative positions that are dependent on the different political climates of their local regions. Singapore may seem left wing in some senses, but its also a brutual autocracy where free speech is condemned, surveillance is massive, and quality of life crimes are punished with physical punishments like caning. In many ways it is extremely backward, and the opposite of liberal or progressive. 

Just to repeat, this has nothing to do with my argument, any of my points, or anything this topic was meant to discuss 😥
cuba and joesef stalin were left wing economic policy wonks, mASSachusetts would be considered only slightly left of CENTER MY POINT IS THIS you may be right about blue state liberal economics being better, it way well be, many blue states out perform most red states by margin, MY other point is the deciding point

these policies may well be more effective, however they are in no way shape of form left wing  Left, In politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government. Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology.
This article was most recently revised and updated by Jeannette L. Nolen, Assistant Editor.

Half way through voting bump
--> @OoDart
>Reported Vote: OoDart// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 2 points to con for sources, 2 points to pro for conduct and grammar
>Reason for Decision:
Personally, I think right-wing policies are more beneficial for the economy, but the instigator was clearly a more affluent speaker and probably won this debate.
Reason for Mod Action>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Saying that, the vote is also insufficient as it doesn’t meet the voting rules mentioned in the code of conduct. The voter should review the CoC rules for what constitutes a valid vote.
Note the word egalitarian in your definition. What part of a people living in fear while a ruling class lives like kings sounds egalitarian. You labeled it ECONOMICALLY left wing knowing full well that isnt the full definition. I don't see how a dictatorship is egalitarian.
some of the most horrifying violations of human rights have been commited by the left
So con basically said "that is a bad argument to support your point, here is a good argument to support your point though."
--> @Nemiroff
I just said that us being a 1st world country with slavery had no significance. Why does it matter that we were a 1st world country? We didn't have a lot of influence on the world at the time.
Stalin and Mao were communists in name, but they were socialists in practice. They had state-control over all industries and it failed.
I'm not sure if stifling regulation or corporatism is worse. I support everyone getting less regulation. It helps small businesses. Why isn't that an option?
I agree, this is getting stale. Later, n3rd :)
--> @bmdrocks21
investing in people based on individual actions is great
investing based on group actions and being judged before birth is not
the starting line has to be equal, at least in public services as per the constitution. not the finish line.
why isn't the starting line (as per public services) equal?
--> @bmdrocks21
im just quoting the rundown of their platform. raising wages had a specific mention. the whole platform seems rather big government. i haven't seen the democratic platform, but i made my case with the republican platform. Large debt, large investment, free market interference by pushing an industry in the name of advancement. this is hands down my win
name some countries that are 1st world and have slaves. your response notably said many countries in general. did you miss by mention of 1st world or was this a conscious choice?
they could not compete, but they both were 3rd world nations within that same generation. that is amazing growth. had they not tried to compete and focused on steady growth... we could have been #3 a long time ago. Their flaws was the fact that from their very inception they were intended to be dictatorships. they were not some socialist failing, they were a socialist lie. whether socialism would work or not, these were not socialist, except in name. Stalin and Mao made themselves kings from day 1. and kings are easy to tease. their families wont starve.
I'm actually going to be abandoning these little chats. they are taking away from life. If you want, start a debate. I plan to start a few on the topic of liberitarianism, including why you should vote left. I think we agree on many social issues. not word choices, but letting weirdos be weirdos, as long as they don't harm anyone. as far as the economy. I know you have a right wing ideal, but the republican party isn't going liberitarian yet, especially not with the trump turn. aren't regulations, applied to all companies in an industry, not better then subsidies for specific companies? one may decrease efficiency, although it will increase consumer confidence, but the other hand picks winners and losers destroying the concept of fair competition and any legitimacy to the market. say no to hand picking winners and losers.
see you in debates!
--> @Nemiroff
A nation is its people. When investing in certain subgroups, you have to consider who you are taking money/opportunities from as well :)
--> @Nemiroff
I don't know what the higher wages are referring to. Government employees? We don't advocate for paying people less, we advocate for market wages.
I don't see why it matters if it is private-public or not. It is a $2 trillion deal, which is huge. Don't say you haven't heard of it, I provided the link ;)
Again, in what way was the south conservative? What are some small government policies they passed? How did they promote the free market?
I liked that you said "last 1st world bastion of slavery" lol. Ignoring the fact that dozens of other countries still practiced slavery(and still do). America is great for stopping that. It is great for promoting freedom(of methods of self-defense, speech, etc), which another party refuses to do. It has saved a lot of countries. It has done much more good than bad. Can't say that about the Dems :P
The USSR collapsed. They were much weaker than we knew, and had very little money. China only started growing after they began adopting free market policies. FDR prolonged the Great Depression, and SS is bankrupting us. Which libertarian policies have we adopted that are hurting us? We are spending billions more than ever before.
--> @bmdrocks21
A nation is its people. You have to invest in your people.
--> @bmdrocks21
Trump is half way done with his term, i haven't heard anything on infrastructure in a year and a half. And when i did it was some public private sponsorship, nothing line the rail roads or the highway, or the Hoover dam.
Your still leaving out 85% including *higher wages*!
Ok. Scratch religious
We still have rural, conservative, small government on the Democrats. And mostly in the south... sound familiar?
America as a whole was the last 1st world bastion of slavery, and the Confederate states fought hard to keep it. By your standards, it is disgusting.
If you want to be specific, you can say it was a party, but wasnt it really all about the states? 😎
I dont support their laws, but a command econony took USSR from 3rd world to super power in a few decades. A HEAVILY controlled market made china the fastest growing economy and currently our only rival. it really depends on how much control the people have, and how much corruption takes control away from them. We became great under FDR. we have faded since embracing liberitarian like policies since the 70s/80s. Still #1, but competitors catching up.
--> @Nemiroff
I think that you are neglecting the fact that the vast majority of Americans were religious at that time, so saying that only the Democrats supported "religious voices" is laughably false. I don't know how paying for infrastructure isn't a Republican thing. Trump is talking about a $2 trillion plan right now.
Higher taxes which paid for higher spending. I don't know if you realize this, but before the 1960s, nearly every president of every political persuasion did everything they could to balance the budget. The only exception was during war time. Yes, he raised taxes because he didn't want to accrue massive debt. Anyone with a triple digit IQ would have raised taxes.
I am not saying that every single issue they believed in is the same as now. I mean, Democrats were the party against illegal immigration not too long ago since they used to care about unions, and union workers didn't want their wages to be undercut. Same with tariffs.
Also, you never proved that Democrats did conservative things, nor did you provide a link with further information.
Give me an exact year for when you are saying the constituencies flipped. Because if you are going to say when segregation ended, I'll ask you: would the entire Republican party flip on everything they believe just so that they could gain a few Deep South States?
America isn't disgusting, the Democrat party is.
--> @bmdrocks21
They also gave out free farms, paid for a massive infrastructure project, free land for public education, higher taxes, promoted a new industry, and the best kicker: *higher wages*.
At best you found something everyone agrees on to focus on, and willfully ignored 90% of it.
Furthermore the previously noted constituency flips. The Democrat party of then represented conservarive, rural, and religious voices, mostly down south. Sound familiar? Meanwhile the Republicans supported, and implemented, big government, higher wages, "socialism" decades before actual socialism.
The fact that this history is yet another point against you, in your logic. Who gives a ****? I support the policies being spoken today. The name they use is irrelevant. You ignored my analogy with America being such a massive slave nation 100 years ago. Are you saying that continues to make america disgusting today? No offense, even newton searched for alchemic secrets in the bible, but this claim is a really really dumb one. Both logically, and morally.
The private sector has screwed up markets a plenty. Meanwhile governments have done alot of good as well. It all depends on the people and how they execute it.
--> @Nemiroff
They gave pensions to soldiers because, exactly like today, we love our veterans. Those soldiers could have been mangled and not been able to hold jobs because they fought for their country. That is a lot different than current times when states like California pay people to be homeless. In times of war, you may need to subsidize railroads and other things because you need to move troops and supplies to win a war. You also need to tax more to pay for that war. Simple financial responsibility right there.
They did not swap constituencies. After segregation was federally outlawed, Deep South states had to choose another large issue they cared about. That would be Federalism, for which they chose the Republican party. No states went to Blue at that time that were historically red.
If you don't blame for the sins of the father, then why are you bothering to discuss swapping constituencies? The fact is, your party has such evil roots, you have to pretend that the parties swapped in order to justify calling us racists today. It is really pathetic. You pretend to be for the common man. So did Andrew Jackson who started your party. You have always been for big government, and that is what defines the parties.
There are limitations to free speech. Don't call for violence or cause a mass panic.
The reason that the invisible hand fails is when government regulations and taxes create inefficiencies in the market.
Democrats want to limit speech. How about we flip it around and see how you feel about it. Republicans gain a majority. They hate socialism, so they ban any speech supporting it. They base this on the fact that socialism has killed over 100 million people historically, so they want to save us from that. Is that okay? No. It should be outright dismissed because the government shouldn't ban what you can say and therefore think.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
The main contention made that Democrat run blue states have a better economic standards, and democratic presidents do better with the economy.
This argument was set up in round 1, with some basic evidence, only to be answered with a definitional Kritik, with the argument that democrats institute economically liberal policies - not left wing policies.
This is a bit of an jumbled kritik, as pro claims that we should be talking about America (by comparing the “left wing” policies of Norway), and then arguing that “left wing” and “liberalism” mean something different in Europe.
Given that no one disagrees that Democrats are broadly on the left, and republicans are broadly on the right - con has to go into substantially more detail about democrats, their generally understood policies, and providing justification as to why they would be considered “centrist.” Without this, I don’t feel con meets his burden of proof, thus arguments must go to pro.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
1. "stronger other economic indicators"
This felt like an assertion. A couple quotes from the article, like "Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents" would have made this a fantastic point.
2. "Blue states ... generate most of the nations wealth"
Big claims need big proof, and the evidence tossed on did not match up with the conclusion (covarience does not imply a specific one caused the other). Still the assertion was not challenged adequately, so it's taken at face value.
3. "no state in the usa implements left wing economic policy"
I don't buy this moving the goalpost semantic Kritik of the terms not being defined. Worse, my rejection of it by naming it just explained it better than it did across four rounds.
Pro gets this for showing there is some connection between left wing policies (AKA democratic or liberal policies) and better wealth in their states. Had there been a sensical counter argument instead of a weird non-sequitur, con might have taken this (as always, assuming pro did not in turn strengthen his case).