Instigator / Pro
12
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4339

[WDT] On balance, The Command Economy is superior to the Market Economy.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

AustinL0926
Judges
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
27 debates / 187 votes
Voted
Athias's avatar
Athias
20 debates / 7 votes
Voted
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
4 debates / 6 votes
Voted
WeaverofFate's avatar
WeaverofFate
4 debates / 10 votes
No vote
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Judges
Contender / Con
21
1636
rating
33
debates
93.94%
won
Description

This debate will be revolving around Vietnam and Cuba. Specifically, which system works better for these two countries.

I’m Pro, AustinL is Con.
Pro argues that the absolute Command Economy is superior, Con argues that the absolute Market Economy is superior.

Definitions:

Command Economy- An economic system in which a central government dictates permissible levels of production and prices.

Mixed Economy- An economic system that combines aspects of capitalism and socialism. (Hybrid economy of command and market.)

Market Economy- Economic system in which economic decisions and the pricing of goods and services are guided by the interactions of a country's individual citizens and businesses.

Clarification:

Superior shall refer to which system operates or functions better, economically speaking.

The focus is on whether an absolute Command Economy or an absolute Market Economy produces the better system.

Rules:
1. BOP is shared.
2. The aim of the convo isn’t which system works better universally, but which is better for Cuba and Vietnam.
3. One forfeit is the loss of a conduct point. Two are a full concession.

[Weaver of Fate’s Tournament.]

Round 1
Pro
#1
While a lot of public discourse is aimed at discussing the superiority of a Command Economy versus a Market economy, most don’t really consider that such dialogue is meaningless.

The superiority isn’t based on the effectiveness of the idea itself, it depends on which country the controversy revolves around. Some countries may be able to make great use of a Command Economy, while with others, it would be complete dogshit.

A lot of countries nowadays aren’t strictly for one or the other, they usually fall somewhere in between. This is what we refer to as a Mixed Economy. Because these factors and circumstances of the discussion are crucial, I suggested that the framing of the topic revolve around Cuba and Vietnam, which Con agreed to. Since both of our cases rely upon the extreme, I will be arguing that an absolute Command Economy is better for Cuba and Vietnam than an absolute Market Economy. Con will be arguing the reverse.

Therefore, if I can prove that the benefits of an Absolute Command Economy are better and demonstrate that the burden of an Absolute Market Economy is higher than Command, I believe I should win.

Contentions

l. Mixed Economics
Cuba and Vietnam both fall into the category of a Mixed Economy, but they’re predominantly Command Economy. As in, while there are private businesses, much of their economy is controlled and regulated by the government. So while hybridized, the economy still favors one side.
  • The Command Economy is an established tradition that both countries are used to.: It’s how they’ve become accustomed to running things.
  • Switching to a Market Economy under these circumstances will threaten their security and stability. 
  • A Market Economy is too unreliable and unpredictable. It makes little sense to switch to a complete Market Economy when the system under the Command Economy for years has been very successful.
m, E

ll. The Success of the Command Economy
  • Cuba’s GDP was ranked #7 in Latin America’s 47 economies during 1953-1959 under the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista.
  • Cuba has also done considerably well, concerning its Healthcare and Education in the 1970’s. 
  • “According to the official version, the Communist Party of Vietnam (Vietnamese: Đảng Cộng sản Việt Nam) is leading the Vietnamese people "in carrying out the country's renovation, modernisation and industrialisation."[6] According to the Party's statute, amended at the 9th National Congress on 22 April 2001, the CPV was "established and trained by President Hồ Chí Minh, has led the Vietnamese people to carry out successfully the August Revolution, establishing the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam, now the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam, to defeat foreign invaders, to abolish the colonial and feudalist regime, to liberate and reunify the country, and then carry out the cause of renovation and socialist construction and firmly defend national independence."

Cuba
  1. As of 2020, Cuba has a life expectancy of 78 years which is considerably high and there is a low infant mortality rate. Cuba’s Universal healthcare policy gives everyone free access, simply making their healthcare regarded highly by the rest of the world.
  2. There is a significantly lower rate of inequality in Cuba compared to neighboring countries because of the government’s control and their management over stocks has actually allowed the country to maintain leverage over its economy.
  3. Basic needs or services such as: Housing, food, and transportation are provided at very cheap and affordable prices for all citizens. 
  4. Free education for the youth is precisely why the literacy rates in Cuba are exceptionally high.
H, C, S, A

Vietnam
  1. Vietnam has generated investors from foreign nations under its strong Command Economy.
  2. Transportation was made easier with the construction of airports, bridges and roads. A direct result of the government’s investment in infrastructure.
  3. The costs and prices of goods and services are the same as Cuba’s.
  4. The poverty rate has significantly decreased in the previous few decades. With it being over 70% during the 80s to dropping to lower than 5% as of now.
  5. A rapid and consistent growth in Vietnam’s economy has surpassed a GDP average rate of over 6%. 
T, W, V, W, V

lll. Design Incompatibility
  • Regardless of the achievements made by the Market Economy, neither Cuba nor Vietnam can sustain this long-term. 
  • Cuba and Vietnam were designed specifically for a Command Economy, so implementing a Market Economy can only work if everyone is willing to destroy every asset, resource, corporation, and politics to restart over from scratch. (This would take many centuries and is less feasible than just transforming the system into an Absolute Command Economy.)
  • Because a Market Economy is already incompatible with Cuba and Vietnam, an absolute Market Economy would have catastrophic results and is so self-destructive to the point of back-firing.

Cuba and Vietnam aren’t ready for a Full Market Economy
  • There are some movements making an effort to transfer the Mixed Economy into a Market one. 
  • But neither country is ready for a Mixed Economy that is even mostly Market Economy, so a complete Market Economy would be disastrous. 

Why an Absolute Command Economy could work for Cuba and Vietnam
  • Cuba and Vietnam observed the errors of North Korea and the Soviet Union, so they adjusted their economy accordingly, so they wouldn’t repeat the same mistakes.
  • For North Korea and the Soviet Union, their government planning was too stiff. Their product was low-quality and they constantly dealt with shortages.
  • Where Cuba and Vietnam outperform these two is they have an ideal location geographically, they have access to foreign aid & investments.
  • The healthcare and benefits of housing provided by Cuba & Vietnam give incentives in a way that would work.
C, F
Con
#2
I. Framework 

1. Abbreviations 

V & C = Vietnam and Cuba 
ME = Market economy 
CE = Command economy 

2. Definitions, Resolution, Scope 

For the sake of formality, I agree to the definitions, resolution, and scope provided in the resolution. 

3. Fiat and Inherency 

This is basically a policy debate, as we are choosing between two possible policies for V & C: an absolute ME, and an absolute CE. 

In a policy debate, there is an assumption of “fiat” (let it be done), which assumes that a proposed policy will be implemented. It is, of course, a necessary assumption for this debate, as I doubt V & C will be changing their economic system anytime soon. 

However, there is also “inherency” - that is, the inherent barriers to a policy. Overcoming inherency implicitly causes harm - a disadvantage for a policy. As part of my strategy, I will be demonstrating why the inherency of PRO’s proposal would be greater than the inherency of mine. 

4. Voting Issues 

PRO frames the voting issues as thus: 

“Therefore, if I can prove that the benefits of an Absolute CE are better [than Market] and demonstrate that the burden of an Absolute ME is higher than Command, I believe I should win.” (The same applies for CON, only conversely). 
This seems like a reasonable way to put it, and I accept this evaluation. 

5. Vietnam vs Cuba 

This debate’s scope focuses around V & C. As Vietnam has a larger economy, as well as a higher population, I would consider it the more important country. [1]  
As such, I urge voters that, given the choice between a system that helps Vietnam and harms Cuba, and the converse, they should choose the former.  

6. Policy Scale 

This debate assumes an absolute ME vs an absolute CE. In an absolute ME, the government has no intervention. In an absolute CE, the government intervenes in everything. 

In reality, an absolute system doesn’t exist – every economy in the world is mixed to at least some degree. Nevertheless, this debate’s “fiat” assumes it does, so I urge voters to hold both my opponent and I to this strict standard. 

II. Background 

1. Vietnam’s Economy 

Vietnam’s economy is usually described as a “socialist-oriented market economy,” an evaluation supported by several sources. [2][3][4] In other words, Vietnam’s economy has its production and price levels dictated by free market forces, but there is some government intervention.  

As such, the sources above show that Vietnam’s system is more of a ME than a CE. 

2. Cuba’s Economy 

Cuba’s economy is usually described as a “mixed CE,” as it incorporates aspects of both market and command economies, but trends towards the latter. [5] 

III. Constructives 

1. Economic Growth 

Historically, market economies have had greater economic growth than command economies. The reason for this is simple. In a ME, there is an incentive (profit) for competition, leading to economic activity and growth. Conversely, in a CE, there is little incentive for competition, leading to economic stagnation. [6] 
In this section, I will compare a mostly ME (Vietnam) with a mostly CE (Cuba). 

a. Vietnam 

Crucially, Vietnam has been as successful as it is precisely because it has embraced free market reforms. 

According to the IMF, “The 1986 Doi Moi reforms (“rejuvenation”) initiated a broad-based economic transformation, which dismantled the largely planned economy (beginning with agricultural reforms), opened a closed economy to international markets and trade, and initiated pro-business reforms.” [7] 

This shows how moving towards a ME led to Vietnam’s success, which continues even today – Vietnam achieved a growth rate of 8% in 2022, when the rest of the world was amid a recession. [8] 

b. Cuba 

Unlike Vietnam, Cuba has been far slower to embrace market reforms. Private businesses were only allowed to establish themselves in most sectors in early 2021, and are still significantly hampered by restrictions. [9] 

As a result of this, Cuba has historically had a significantly struggling economy. It is ranked 104th in the world in the Prosperity Index, and its growth rate in 2022 was a paltry 2%. [10][11] 

2. Efficiency 

According to the UIA’s succinct summary, “Government owned and run enterprises are notoriously known for bureaucratic constraints, lack of investment incentives, pricing controls, centralized decision making, and restriction on hiring and firing workers.” [12] 

In a ME, resources are allocated based on supply and demand forces. This is an efficient system, as businesses use just enough resources to meet demand – no more or no less. A CE cannot achieve this. [13] 

Furthermore, a ME rewards efficiency and innovation, through increased profits. In contrast, a business in a CE has no such motivation. It has been a proven historical trend that state-owned businesses (in a CE) do far worse than private businesses (in a ME). [14] 

As such, V & C would both benefit from having a free market, through increased efficiency, innovation, and overall production. 

3. Lack of Competition 

a. Market Economy 

In a theoretical absolute ME, companies would have a clear motivation to create the best quality products for the lowest possible price. This is because any company that doesn’t do this would eventually be outcompeted and driven out of business. 

As such, the competition of a ME benefits consumers, who get the best possible products with their hard-earned money. 

b. Command Economy 

In a theoretical absolute CE, there would only be a single state-owned business for each sector. This business would have absolutely no motivation to improve, because there are no competing businesses.  

As such, the lack of competition of a CE hurts consumers. 

To apply this to the real world – Cuba's state-owned businesses are famous for lagging behind the times. In 2022, over 400 state-owned enterprises operated at a loss, due to their outdated technologies. 

IV. The Democracy Kritik 

a. What is a Kritik? 

“Kritiks are philosophically-based arguments which question fundamental assumptions underlying the arguments, positions, or presentation of one side in the debate.” [16] 
(To any judges who want more detail about what a Kritik is and what it aims to accomplish, please follow the link!) 

b. The Kritik 

I’m arguing that regardless of whether a CE or a ME would be better economically speaking, we should reject an absolute CE on principle, because it would have to involve a non-democratic system of government.  

c. Evidence for the Kritik 

Only a few countries throughout history have had a mostly CE. This list includes [17]: 

  • Cuba 
  • North Korea 
  • China  
  • Soviet Union 
  • Belarus 
  • Iran 
  • Russia 
I hope the pattern is clear to you. Every single one of these countries, apart from the Soviet Union which no longer exists, has an authoritarian government. [18] 

Fundamentally, an absolute CE requires a very strong government in order to “work.” Obviously, a very strong government tends to be synonymous with a non-democratic one. 

d. Impact of the Kritik 

Authoritarian governments tend to not respect human rights, a horrifying but almost universally true observation. [19] I contend that judges ought to consider this a greater impact over any economic concerns, and treat this as a substantive voting issue. 

V. General Rebuttals 

PRO has two main arguments, which I will simply rebut in general. 

1. “The current system is working fine” 

PRO is presenting this debate as a choice between an absolute ME, and the status quo. This is false. This debate is a choice between an absolute ME, and an absolute CE. 

As such, PRO’s arguments that V & C are currently doing well are irrelevant – an absolute CE would destroy the economic systems of these countries, as shown above. 

As a side note, it’s worth considered that Vietnam (which is mostly market) is doing far better than Cuba (which is mostly command). What could that possibly mean? Hmm... 

2. “Switching would be really hard” 

PRO argues that V & C were “designed” for a CE, and that a “ME can only work if everyone is willing to destroy every asset, resource, corporation, and politics to restart over from scratch.” 

This is false – in fact, switching to an absolute ME would be far easier than switching to an absolute CE. Consider what it would take to accomplish each: 

Switching to a ME: 

  • Remove anti-private-sector laws 
  • Remove trade barriers  
  • Remove government intervention in prices/production 
  • It’s free market time! 
Switching to a CE: 

  • Drive out every single existing private business (how would you even do this?) 
  • Implement new regulations and rules 
  • Create state-owned businesses for all sectors of the economy 
  • Pass protectionism and anti-trade laws 
  • Carefully control prices and production (which would cause heavy amounts of initial economic turmoil) 
  • Realize that you would have been better off staying with a ME! 
This is also supported with real-world data. Switching from a CE to ME is far more common than the reverse. The former is common in post-Soviet countries, while I have yet to see a single modern example of the latter. [20] 

VI. Summary 

In this round, I have: 

  • Set up a framework for the debate 
  • Shown the various benefits of market economies over command economies, e.g: 
  • More economic growth 
  • Greater efficiency and innovation 
  • Increased consumer choice 
  • More competition 
  • Demonstrated how command economies are almost always authoritarian, a serious downside 
  • Refuted my opponent’s arguments 
Please vote CON! 

VII. Sources 








Round 2
Pro
#3
Yes, I will acknowledge that this isn’t a discussion of the status quo vs an absolute ME. The comparison is used to show that a mostly command economy is already successful and yielding positive results, so there really is no need for the Market Economy. Three things you get from a Command Economy are.:
  1. Safety.
  2. Security.
  3. Stability. 
Con makes the argument that a CE economy would lead to authoritarianism, and I will entertain this concept, but I remind everyone that this is actually irrelevant to which system functions more effectively, economically speaking. 

Voters will recall that in the first round, I stated that the achievements of the Market Economy for Cuba and Vietnam are unsustainable. An absolute ME economy has never been attempted, so it has only ever been tried in theory. With that said, we can still objectively make accurate predictions of very realistic outcomes.

Having experimented with an absolute CE economy before, we have established a framework for what went wrong and how to correct mistakes to produce ideal results. I shall now talk about the damages caused by the Market Economy to Vietnam and Cuba and later explore the most likely consequences of a hypothetical absolute Market Economy.

Vietnam
Market Economy Damages

  • Financial Collapse & Equality Disbalance. “Efforts to eradicate poverty have brought about positive outcomes, though Hue said that the results are not sustainable, as the poverty contingency rate is still high.” Thanks to the Market’s influence, there is now a greater rate of low-income civilians compared to the smaller percentage of their wealthier counterparts. The poor are unable to afford basic needs and services, while the wealthy profit by making 10 times the amount they do. “In 2014, the top 20% make 9.7 times more than the bottom 20%, Hue said. This increased to 10 times in 2018.”The ministry also revealed that the GINI index of Vietnam between 2014 and 2018 was 0.4, an average inequality rate compared to other countries.”
  • Environmental Self-Destruct. Clean water is currently in high-demand, but short supply. There is more contaminated water, air pollution, and more waste production that is contributing to this contamination. Because the sewage systems cannot properly drain the water, it is resulting in more floodings. There is also something called an Asian Brown Cloud: “A large atmospheric brown cloud that occurs annually from about November through May over eastern China and southern Asia.” The increase in factories is directly causing this, a symptom of the booming in the ME.
  • Over-reliance on Loans. The temporary success of the ME is caused by something a lot of political scientists and economists see as a weakness.  “Vietnam’s robust economic performance over the past three decades has been heavily dependent on exports and foreign direct investment (FDI), with foreign invested companies accounting for 67.8% of Vietnam’s total export turnover in 2019. • This is seen by experts and policy makers as a vulnerability, especially given the disruptions in international trade and global supply chains caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and intensifying US-China strategic competition.” Vietnam has to be free to make and decide on its own policies because this debt has made the country’s policies too susceptible to the control and influence of the countries it relies upon. 
  • Industrial Abuse. Low-income workers are being exploited by industries by being forced to work too many hours while never receiving adequate pay. “Many work excessive hours, sometimes more than 50 hours of overtime a month without rest days, and still struggle to make ends meet, a new study by U.S.-based campaign group Fair Labor Association (FLA) showed. Out of the 13,000 Vietnamese garment workers surveyed by the FLA, most were earning more than double the country’s minimum wage but still unable to pay for their basic needs.”

Now let’s take a look at Cuba.

Cuba
Market Economy Damages
  • Financial Collapse and Equality Disbalance. “The income gap between the lowest and the highest brackets was enormous by Cuban standards: Those in the highest bracket earned about 30 times more than those at the bottom, with an extreme ratio of difference of about 375-to-1.16”Conversely, the state sector employed only 87% of workers in the highest income bracket, where many are either self-employed or worked for foreign or joint ventures.” 
Due to the process of shifting towards a Market Economy, it is speculated that poverty rates are guaranteed to increase.: “After the 1990s, there have occurred phenomena in Cuban society that suggest that the population at risk of poverty tends to increase.”

  • Loss of Employment Talent. “The CMPP specifically targeted Cuban medical professionals already serving abroad, offering them a fast track to immigrate to the United States if they abandoned their positions and presented themselves to an American embassy. The intent was clear: to harm Cuba’s cooperation with other countries, to curtail the inflow of money in the form of payments for these programs, and to drain medical doctors and other medical professionals form the country. Of course, attracting educated immigrants to fill in the gaps of the American labor force has long been a traditional policy, reflected in the existence of the H-1B visa. Under this umbrella, scientists, engineers, and medical doctors have gone to work in North American institutions and companies, thus helping to sustain the institutions’ privileged position worldwide. It has become a cornerstone for the American economy and for American universities.” Because of the Market Economy, some of the most highly qualified medical professionals are quitting their jobs and leaving, leaving the hospitals with lesser qualified staff taking their place. This could affect how many lives are saved. 
  • Over-reliance on Loans. Much like Vietnam, while foreign investments are a positive thing, a dependency is starting to take place which will inevitably be Cuba’s undoing. 

Every Undesirable Outcome of a Total Market Economy
  • Monopolization. With no restrictions or regulations on companies, there is now nothing stopping competitors from taking and seizing what they like. Or growing to such a point that they buy out their opponents, and raising the prices of their product so that it is too expensive to be accessible to low-income consumers.
  • Environmental Catastrophes. With air pollution and floodings at an all-time high, companies will likely inflict more damage without any awareness or regard. This will likely boost the costs to repair damages caused by floodings or purifying the water, to even cleaning up the poisoned air.
  • Low Demand for Essential Services. Private companies are unlikely to see a need for healthcare, infrastructure, or education, so the abundance of them will likely decrease. Inevitably creating a gap in the market. This will threaten the reputation of Education and Healthcare quality that both Cuba & Vietnam have worked so hard to obtain.
  • Wealth and Equality Gap. Because a lot of markets would be accumulating a vast amount of wealth, the distribution of it would leave a lack of income for the smaller industries which would create more inequality. 
  • Unemployment & Poverty. Employers are now able to pick and choose who they hire. The point of education is to teach you the basic skills necessary to seek employment, but because education is no longer a priority, this means more people are underqualified and this will leave them unable to afford basic needs and services, and thus unable to get a job.
  • Industry Collapse. Because of the high quantity of businesses and competition innovating the best possible product. There would be more jobs available, but with raised expectations and standards with very few people to fill the role, leading to the collapse of industries and working, as a whole. 
  • More Crime & Less Accountability. Because there are no government regulations or spending into necessary organizations like the Police. The crime rates would go up with poverty and the police being underfunded increases the likelihood of corruption & inability to accommodate the number of criminals, and lack of incentive to enforce the law.
We have now just witnessed the collapse of both Cuba & Vietnam firsthand with this simulation of an absolute Market Economy. At least with an absolute Command Economy, we can not only predict what and how things will go wrong, but what we can do to fix it. Either way, the most likely problems are not as severe as an absolute Market Economy.

Rebuttals:
What Con said is actually untrue. He is right that Vietnam is a Mixed Economy, but it is still controlled by the State and there are limited private businesses. This means it is mostly a Command Economy. 

Crucially, Vietnam has been as successful as it is precisely because it has embraced free market reforms. 

According to the UIA’s succinct summary, “Government owned and run enterprises are notoriously known for bureaucratic constraints, lack of investment incentives, pricing controls, centralized decision making, and restriction on hiring and firing workers.” [12] 

In a ME, resources are allocated based on supply and demand forces. This is an efficient system, as businesses use just enough resources to meet demand – no more or no less. A CE cannot achieve this. [13] 

Furthermore, a ME rewards efficiency and innovation, through increased profits. In contrast, a business in a CE has no such motivation. It has been a proven historical trend that state-owned businesses (in a CE) do far worse than private businesses (in a ME). [14] 
I actually pre-refuted this in Round 1 by showing that the successes are unsustainable and how Vietnam and Cuba have learned from the CE's mistakes through incentives and organized planning

Sources: 12, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Con
#4
I. Dropped Arguments 

PRO has dropped the following arguments, thereby implicitly leaving them uncontested:

Economic Growth (III.1a - III.1b) 

  • Dropped, so PRO concedes that a market economy leads to greater economic growth. 
Lack of Competition (III.3a - III.3b) 

  • Dropped, so PRO concedes that a command economy has less competition, and consequently less motivation for companies to innovate and improve. 
Democracy Kritik (IV.a - IV.c) 

  • Dropped, as PRO mentioned it but did not contest its truth. As such, it stands that command economies implicitly lead to authoritarianism. PRO contended it was untopical, but I will address that shortly (in V, “Additions”) 
Switching Costs (V.2) 

  • Dropped, so PRO concedes the significant difficulties of switching to an absolute CE. 
II. General Rebuttals 

Before we get into specifically addressing PRO’s case, I will first list two general flaws with his case, for judges to keep in mind. 

1. The Missing Link 

First, PRO describes many negative impacts, but fails to convincingly link them to a ME. 

Many of my opponent’s arguments are missing this connection – and I will address them shortly. 

2. Pretending that Impacts of a CE don’t Exist 

Second, PRO completely ignores the negative consequences of a CE. 

For example, he talks about the problems of an absolute ME – ignoring the fact that in many cases, things would be far worse with an absolute CE. The first one might not be optimal, but it’s a lot better than the second one. 

III. Specific Rebuttals 

1. Rebuttals 

“What Con said is actually untrue. He is right that Vietnam is a Mixed Economy, but it is still controlled by the State and there are limited private businesses.” 
I provided three sources stating that Vietnam is a majority ME. PRO has provided his own subjective opinion that Vietnam is a CE. I believe that my evidence is more convincing. 


“Three things you get from a Command Economy are: Safety, Security, Stability.” 
“Safety” and “security” are irrelevant to the economic function of a system. “Stability” is often a negative thing, as it leads to economic stagnation. A ME has far higher rates of economic growth than a CE for precisely this reason. 


“I stated that the achievements of the Market Economy for Cuba and Vietnam are unsustainable.” 
PRO has not provided any sources for this. In addition, only Vietnam (a majority ME) has had consistent growth over the past decade, while Cuba (a majority CE) has not. 


“An absolute ME economy has never been attempted, so it has only ever been tried in theory.” 
While an absolute ME has never been attempted, many countries in the world already operate something very close to it. Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, and Taiwan have close-to-perfect Economic Freedom scores. [1] 

Also, I remind voters that when an absolute CE was tried in China in 1958, over 30 million people died. [2] The problems of a CE directly caused this. According to Michael Boyle, “Due to the failures in planning and coordination, and resulting materials shortages, which are common to central economic planning, the massive increase in industrial investment and reallocation of resources resulted in no corresponding increase in manufacturing output.” [3] 


“I actually pre-refuted [the argument that CEs are inefficient] in Round 1 by showing that the successes are unsustainable and how Vietnam and Cuba have learned from the CE's mistakes through incentives and organized planning.” 
As I showed earlier, incentives and organized planning are nowhere as effective as free market forces. This is evidenced by the fact that MEs have far higher rates of growth than CEs, a fact that PRO has not contested. In some cases, they can do more harm than good, such as when incentives are given to industries that eventually end up running at a net loss (e.g. Cuba). 


Financial Collapse & Equality Disbalance...” 
While inequality is a chronic problem in many developing countries, it is disingenuous to blame the ME for this. Using data from the 20 largest economies in the world, higher economic freedom is associated with lower income inequality. [4] This alone entirely turns PRO’s argument. 


Environmental Self-Destruct.” 
CEs have the same problem – pollution is not going to magically disappear because the factory is government-owned. Environmental damage is an inevitable consequence of economic development – either people suffer, or the environment suffers. Changing economic systems doesn’t affect that fact. 


“Over-reliance on Loans” 
While some might see foreign investment as a weakness, it is also one of the greatest strengths of a ME, that drives economic growth. According to the IFC, “FDI does much more than provide developing countries with financing for their growth. It brings them new technologies, management techniques, and market access as well.” [5] 

Furthermore, many struggling CEs (e.g. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela), also rely heavily on loans - but unlike MEs, they do not have a strong economy able to pay them back, leading to debt crises. [6] [7] [8]


“Industrial Abuse.” 
I agree with my opponent that unfair labor practices are a serious problem, but they are not unique to market economies. For example, state-owned companies in Cuba (which is a majority CE), is known for mistreating its workers.. These include wage theft, discrimination, biased arbitration, and forced labor. [9] 


Cuba et al.... 
I’m not going to address my opponent’s arguments regarding Cuba, for one simple reason – Cuba is a majority CE, as we have already addressed. Therefore, any negative things about Cuba are mostly the fault of the CE anyway. 


“Monopolization” 
One of the literal features of absolute CE is that there is only one state-owned company per industry, so it’s rather hypocritical to go after an ME (which has competition as one of its core tenets). 


Environmental Catastrophes.” 
Extend rebuttal to “Environmental Self-Destruct.”

 
“Low Demand for Essential Services” 
Nowhere in the definition of a market economy does it say that the government cannot provide essential services, such as education and healthcare. 


“Wealth and Equality Gap.” 
Extend rebuttal to “Financial Collapse & Equality Disbalance” 


“Unemployment & Poverty.” 
High-quality education is still possible in a free market – in fact, many of the best schooling systems in the world are in MEs. [10] [11] 

Furthermore, free MEs in fact reduce poverty. According to a statistical study examining the relationship between economic freedom and poverty, “[there is] evidence that economic freedom, measured by the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, is associated with lower poverty rates.”  


"Industry Collapse."
PRO concedes that MEs lead to innovation, high-quality products, and job creation. He then claims, without any evidence, that this would lead to industry collapse.

 
More Crime & Less Accountability.” 
As I mentioned earlier, an absolute ME is completely compatible with the providing of essential services. 

2. Summary 

PRO made a total of 18 new constructive arguments in his 2nd round (I count “Cuba et al” as three) - well, that’s a gish gallop if I’ve ever seen one. Let’s summarize what happened to them.  

  • 6 were simply false 
  • 3 were problems that affect both MEs and CEs 
  • 2 were clearly irrelevant 
  • 5 were arguments that hurt PRO’s case 
  • 2 were duplicate arguments 
Ok... not exactly a great record. Let’s move on. 

IV. Additions 

Normally I don’t add more constructive arguments after the 1st round, but seeing that PRO has done so, I will do the same. 

Authoritarianism (extendation)

PRO concedes that CEs are inherently authoritarian. Several studies have shown that authoritarian governments are bad for the economy, as might be expected. Indeed, a statistical analysis found that "growth isn’t the only economic metric on which autocrats failed to deliver. They also fell short on employment, health and education spending, and government debt." CEs are also economically inefficient, which hurts their citizens.

Economic Prosperity

Free markets, and globalization, have a positive effect on economic prosperity. According to a study by the Fraser Institute, "[N]ations in the top quartile of economic freedom had an average adjusted per capita GDP of over $40,000, compared to around $5,000 for bottom quartile nations... And out of the poorest 20 percent of countries, those with greater economic freedom have incomes that are 50 percent greater than those with less economic freedom." [10]

Poverty Reduction

Vietnam's transition to a ME significantly reduced poverty. The measures they took, which included strengthening private property rights, allowing markets to dictate prices, and increasing free trade, led to a drastic reduction in poverty rates, from 60% to 14%. [13]

Entrepreneurship

MEs encourage entrepreneurship and the creation of new businesses. Free market incentives encourage innovation and the creation of higher-quality, lower-price, products, to stay ahead of the competition. In contrast, CEs often stagnate. [14]

Trade

A country with an ME can trade internationally with few restrictions, which has significant positive effects on economic development. According to the IMF, "Countries that are open to international trade tend to grow faster, innovate, improve productivity and provide higher income and more opportunities to their people." [15]

Accountability

In CEs, consumers can't choose to boycott companies with unethical labor or environmental practices (e.g. Cuba). In contrast, a ME allows consumers to personally affect corporate accountability through the companies they choose to buy from - yet another benefit of competition and consumer choice. [15]

V. Sources 


 
 
 
















Round 3
Pro
#5
Dropped Arguments
“I’m not going to address my opponent’s arguments regarding Cuba, for one simple reason – Cuba is a majority CE, as we have already addressed. Therefore, any negative things about Cuba are mostly the fault of the CE anyway.”

  • Okay. Extend arguments about income gap, inequality, and poverty rates.
  • Extend loss of quality employment talent.
  • And extend the statement about Cuba’s vulnerability to foreign influence.
“CEs have the same problem – pollution is not going to magically disappear because the factory is government-owned. Environmental damage is an inevitable consequence of economic development – either people suffer, or the environment suffers. Changing economic systems doesn’t affect that fact.”
Environmental damage is the direct result of a failing economy, which has been proven to be a symptom of the ME. In the ME, there are no regulations to hold businesses accountable by.
  • Extend arguments about contaminated water, air pollution (asian gas cloud), and floodings. (More money to repair the sewage system, damaged construction, purify water, and clear up filthy air.) 
  • “Dong said the World Bank Group's Vietnam Country Climate and Development Report estimates that $370 billion will be needed through to 2040 for Vietnam to prepare for climate change.”
Lack of clean water means more widespread illnesses, deaths from dehydration, higher infant mortality rate, and a lowered life expectancy. A CE economy directly monitors companies and diminishes the harm they do by stopping litter, purifying water, and pushing for regulations that companies abide by to ensure the consumers’ safety is priority. 

“While inequality is a chronic problem in many developing countries, it is disingenuous to blame the ME for this. Using data from the 20 largest economies in the world, higher economic freedom is associated with lower income inequality. [4] This alone entirely turns PRO’s argument.

  • Not when you consider the direct impacts the Market Economy has on crime, poverty, and unemployment.
  • “Such a society promotes crime by increasing economic and social inequality and the concentration of economic deprivation.”
  • “Today the world is facing an unprecedented inequality crisis. Over the last 40 years, there has been a vast increase in the gap between the rich and the rest,1 as the economic rules have been rigged in favor of rich and powerful elites.”
1, 2

““Safety” and “security” are irrelevant to the economic function of a system. “Stability” is often a negative thing, as it leads to economic stagnation. A ME has far higher rates of economic growth than a CE for precisely this reason.” 

  • Since safety is directly responsible for life expectancy and lower crime rate. I’ll consider it dropped. Since Con doesn’t really disprove the stability aspect, I’ll consider that dropped as well.
  • The achievements by the ME are only temporary and unsustainable, and once the economy descends into an absolute ME, all those successes immediately crash. Extend Round 2 quote about unsustainability and Round 1 argument. 
  • Now under a CE, where stability is guaranteed, it is possible to monitor, predict, and smoothly control the flow of the economy. 
Temporary economic growth is irrelevant if the size of a certain attribute makes it more of a liability when it’s about to collapse versus a smaller economy that can function more effectively, systemically.

Vietnam’s Economy Weaknesses
  • “Shortcomings in the business climate, led by concerns surrounding data transparency and corruption perceptions.”
  • “Incomplete reforms of the public sector, with a high level of indebtedness amongst SOEs and diminishing ROAs.”
  • “Inadequate infrastructure levels.”
  • “Increasing inequalities.”
  • “Fragile banking system.”
  • “Dependent on China’s supply chains.”
All of these were caused by Vietnam’s transition to a Market Economy. Now if levels are already this bad, can you imagine the destruction and chaos that would ensue under an absolute Market Economy?

Rebuttals
“Dropped, so PRO concedes that a market economy leads to greater economic growth.”

I actually addressed this in the previous round by mentioning this would lead to economic collapse. First, the growth takes place. But overtime, the issues that ensue would build up like the income inequality and rates of poverty, soon to be succeeded by the overregulating supply of businesses that would eventually be taken over by monopolization which eventually leads to more unemployment. It’s unsustainable.

“Dropped, so PRO concedes that a command economy has less competition, and consequently less motivation for companies to innovate and improve.”

Under government control and funding, companies will research newer trends and consistently seek to advance their product to meet consumer demands and fill market gaps. Conversely, a Market Economy may hinder innovation as a lot of high-quality medical experts have left healthcare to pursue different career opportunities to profit more. Education thrives under a Command Economy, so we have more qualified candidates to fill the roles in these companies.

“First, PRO describes many negative impacts, but fails to convincingly link them to a ME. 

Many of my opponent’s arguments are missing this connection – and I will address them shortly.”

The errors I mention can only be caused by a Market Economy. The quotations and links observed a correlation between the recent problems occurring at the same time of transitioning towards a Market Economy, and provided concrete evidence that there’s a direct causation. This leaves no room for doubt. Extend.

“PRO has not provided any sources for this. In addition, only Vietnam (a majority ME) has had consistent growth over the past decade, while Cuba (a majority CE) has not.”

Actually, I did. But I’ll repost the quote.:
  • “Though Hue said that the results are not sustainable”
“While some might see foreign investment as a weakness, it is also one of the greatest strengths of a ME, that drives economic growth. According to the IFC, “FDI does much more than provide developing countries with financing for their growth. It brings them new technologies, management techniques, and market access as well.” [5] 

Furthermore, many struggling CEs (e.g. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela), also rely heavily on loans - but unlike MEs, they do not have a strong economy able to pay them back, leading to debt crises. [6] [7] [8]”

Foreign investments are not necessarily a weakness. Vietnam’s dependency on it is. All of the successes of Vietnam’s Market Economy (which happened recently.) are all from foreign investment. Presuming that Vietnam switches to an absolute Market Economy, the investments would essentially work as a life-support.

Who then is to stop these investors from pulling the plug at any time?
And what happens when the investors decide to stop funding?
Economic collapse.

If this is the only redeeming quality of a Market Economy when it’s a clear weakness, then it stands to reason that a Market Economy is not the way to go.

“High-quality education is still possible in a free market – in fact, many of the best schooling systems in the world are in MEs. [10] [11] 

Furthermore, free MEs in fact reduce poverty. According to a statistical study examining the relationship between economic freedom and poverty, “[there is] evidence that economic freedom, measured by the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, is associated with lower poverty rates.”

Even in those ME’s, the schooling systems contributing to those successes are Public Institutions. Under an ME economy, there is no incentive to provide a quality education. Everyone would agree that the purpose of education is to teach students the basic skills to make them employable which is only possible under a public institution. Infact, this is why Cuba has one of the best Educations in the world, because of the CE keeping schooling a publicized sector. When schools are privatized, monetary gain tends to be prioritized over educating the student. https://www.capitalismandeducation.com

Authoritarianism
  • Corruption can exist in an absolute Market Economy as well, so it’s not only limited to Command Economies.
  • Since the police would be unable to obtain funding from the government, they would have to seek funding from private institutions. And there’s nothing stopping businesses from bribing the police in order to get away with committing crime or incentivizing them to selectively enforce the law and oppress minorities.
  • And with increased rates of poverty, there wouldn’t be enough police to accommodate the number of criminals in the system. This means more deaths, violence, robberies, and destruction to property. And property theft.

Con
#6
I. Dropped Arguments 

R1/R2 dropped arguments: 
  • Continue to be dropped. Extend.
Economic Prosperity (IV): 
  • Dropped. Extend.
Poverty Reduction (IV): 
  • Dropped. Extend.
Entrepreneurship (IV): 
  • Dropped. Extend.
Trade (IV): 
  • Dropped. Extend.
Accountability (IV): 
  • Dropped. Extend.
II. Rebuttals 

Before I start, it's important to note two main problems with PRO's case: first, he falsely misrepresents an ME as a capitalist dystopia, and second, he ignores that many of the problems of an ME are even worse under a CE.


“Okay. Extend arguments about income gap, inequality, and poverty rates [in Cuba]...loss of quality employment talent...Cuba’s vulnerability to foreign influence.” 
PRO completely misses my point – that this is the fault of Cuba’s CE, and only hurts his own case.  

Cuba has such high inequality and poverty rates because of the inefficiency and corruption of state-owned companies – most workers employed by the state don’t even receive a living wage, and are often abused. [1] It has a loss of quality employment talent because talented workers are leaving its struggling economy. And it’s reliant on foreign influence simply because its economy is so weak that it requires loans to survive – a vulnerability of a CE.  


“Environmental damage is the direct result of a failing economy, which has been proven to be a symptom of the ME. In the ME, there are no regulations to hold businesses accountable by.” 
PRO hurts his own case again – CEs cause failing economies, not MEs. Furthermore, as proven earlier, an absolute ME is not at all exclusive with regulations and accountability. 


 “Not when you consider the direct impacts the Market Economy has on crime, poverty, and unemployment.” 
First, PRO has given no evidence that a market economy promotes crime. I searched through both sources he provided, and crime rates were never mentioned.

The majority of current research supports the claim that increases in economic freedom are directly, and causatively, correlated with decreases in crime rates. This ought to be somewhat self-evident, as economic freedom promotes better economic, and social, conditions. [3] [4] Also extend this argument as a constructive, as it demonstrates yet another benefit of MEs. 

Second, PRO claims, again with little evidence, that a market economy increases poverty. This is false.

According to a study examining the statistical relationship between economic freedom and poverty rates, freer markets directly reduce the proportion of people in poverty. [5] (This study controlled for confounding factors, showing that there is indeed a causal relationship.) Again, extend this as a constructive argument.

Third, PRO claims that a market economy causes unemployment. The correlation between economic freedom and unemployment rates is still an open question. Nevertheless, some evidence is better than no evidence, so I present a study by CATO that eloquently states: “More Economic Freedom, More Jobs.” [6] 

 
“Since safety is directly responsible for life expectancy and lower crime rate. I’ll consider it dropped. Since Con doesn’t really disprove the stability aspect, I’ll consider that dropped as well.” 
I dropped them because PRO failed to substantiate/source them. Just like a debater can’t say “Vote PRO because the sky is blue,” an argument first needs to be valid before it can be acknowledged. 

 
“The achievements by the ME are only temporary and unsustainable, and once the economy descends into an absolute ME, all those successes immediately crash... 
Now under a CE, where stability is guaranteed, it is possible to monitor, predict, and smoothly control the flow of the economy.” 
PRO conflates “not able to keep an above-average rate of economic growth forever” with “unsustainable and doomed to crash.” I can accept the first – but if he’s going to claim the second, he needs some hard evidence. 

Just because growth rates, at some point, will slow down, doesn’t mean that an ME has failed. An economy is measured not only by its growth rate, but by its ability to rebound from a recession.  

Furthermore, PRO claims that governments can easily control a CE. Again, control doesn’t equal effectiveness – far from it. Historically, most countries with a CE have been extraordinarily unsuccessful in managing it. Cuba, North Korea, Venuezuela, Iran, early China, the Soviet Union. Do any of these look like standout economic powerhouses to you? 

 
Vietnam’s Economy Weaknesses” 
PRO conveniently cherry-picks only the weaknesses of Vietnam’s economy. Let’s take a look at what the same source says about the strengths of Vietnam’s economy: “Dynamic economy featuring one of the fastest growth rates in the region.” [7] 

 
“All of these were caused by Vietnam’s transition to a Market Economy. Now if levels are already this bad, can you imagine the destruction and chaos that would ensue under an absolute Market Economy?” 
Another unsubstantiated statement, and an appeal to incredulity. 

 
 “I actually addressed this in the previous round by mentioning this would lead to economic collapse..."
First, PRO has no evidence that this would lead to an economic collapse – Vietnam's economy is actually doing pretty well right now, and this growth is expected to continue. [8] 

Second, I already proved that economic freedom is associated with lower income inequality and poverty rates, in the previous round. 

Third, the whole point of a ME is to avoid monopolies, through the very existence of competitive market forces. 

 
“Under government control and funding, companies will research newer trends and consistently seek to advance their product to meet consumer demands and fill market gaps... 
Extend previous arguments that economic freedom is associated with greater rates of education. Also extend previous arguments that market competition encourages innovation, efficiency, and catering products to customer needs. 

 
“Though Hue said that the results are not sustainable”  [PRO uses this quote in reference to economic growth, but it actually referred to poverty eradication]
PRO is intentionally taking a quote out of context (quote mining). If you actually look at the article, Hue was referring to efforts to eradicate poverty  - which in fact were very successful, but limited by diminishing returns.


 “Foreign investments are not necessarily a weakness. Vietnam’s dependency on it is...” 
This argument is flawed for two reasons.  

First, foreign investments would only be a weakness if Vietnam was accumulating excessive debt, or investors no longer found Vietnam to be an attractive investment. Neither of these cases are true – quite the opposite in fact. Foreign investments have only been increasing, and have been one of the main factors driving Vietnam’s economic growth. 

Second, CEs are equally dependent on foreign investment, which ruins PRO’s link. Due to their generally weak economies, CEs need other sources of economic activity in order to survive.

 
“Even in those ME’s, the schooling systems contributing to those successes are Public Institutions. Under an ME economy, there is no incentive to provide a quality education.” 
Once again, PRO falsely claims that MEs are incapable of providing essential public services. I am unaware as to how this conclusion was reached, considering that the definition of a “market economy” says nothing about this.  

 
Authoritarianism” 
The first point is a strawman, since I never claimed that corruption only existed in CEs. 

The second point is entirely false – again, a government in a pure ME can still provide essential services. 

The third point is also false – I already proved that more economic freedom leads to reduced poverty. This also reverses the impacts of this argument – how does PRO’s theoretical CE, plan to deal with increasing crime rates due to poverty? 

III. Additions 

Innovation 

MEs have the advantage of having excellent rates of innovation. Companies that successfully do this gain profit, an increased consumer base, and an advantage over competitors. In a CE, there is no motivation to do this, as supply and demand are strictly (and often unreasonably) controlled by the government. 

This relationship has been consistently noted by economists, and is probably one of the strongest benefits of a ME. According to one study, there is “strong and robust evidence of a positive relationship between corporate innovation and the cross-country differences in economic freedom.” [9] 

Sustainability 

MEs also have the potential to be more environmentally sustainable. According to the Heritage Foundation, “Economic freedom safeguards the environment by reinforcing environmental stewardship. Countries with greater economic freedom tend to fare better on protecting the environment than countries with more intrusive, government-directed environmental governance.” [10] 

Overregulation in CEs can actually be counterproductive. Due to the decreased economic growth and activity, companies often take unsustainable shortcuts to compensate, leading to more environmental damage. 

Resilience 

Finally, MEs are more resilient to difficult or rapidly changing economic conditions – such as the COVID-19 pandemic we have been facing today. In an ME, prices and production shift naturally, and quickly, based on market conditions – after all, there is a strong incentive for companies to adapt. In contrast, in a CE, prices and production have to be artificially controlled, which can be incredibly inefficient in a crisis situation.  

For a real-life example, take Cuba. When the pandemic started, the government was so unprepared that it asked citizens to make their own face masks. I think that speaks for itself. [11] 

IV. Sources






Round 4
Pro
#7

Overview
  • Extend Cuba’s high life expectancy of 80 years and low infant mortality rate. Extend that Cuba’s Universal Healthcare gives them the best healthcare in the world. 
  • Extend Cuba’s low rate of inequality compared to neighboring countries. 
  • Extend points about affordable housing and basic services. 
  • Extend point about their free education and Cuba’s exceptional literacy rates. 
  • Extend that the CE is responsible for generating foreign investment, the advanced transportation & infrastructure, and the growth in Vietnam’s economy. 
  • Extend the damages currently being caused by the ME which all include: Financial Collapse, Equality Disbalance,  Over-Reliance on Loans, Abuse of Employees, and Loss of Employment Talent. 
In conclusion, the three characteristics of an absolute Command Economy are safety, security, and stability. With an absolute ME Economy, we get monopolization, environmental catastrophes, low demand for essential services, wealth & equality gap, unemployment & poverty, industry collapse, and more crime and a weakened police force. 

I have demonstrated that the effects of a total ME economy are a greater burden than an absolute CE economy. 
Vote Pro.
Con
#8
I. Dropped Arguments 

R1/R2/R3 Arguments: 
  • Continue to be dropped. Extend. 
Innovation (III): 
  • Dropped. Extend. 
Sustainability (III): 
  • Dropped. Extend. 
Resilience (III):  
  • Dropped. Extend. 
II. Rebuttals

“Extend Cuba’s high life expectancy of 80 years and low infant mortality rate. Extend that Cuba’s Universal Healthcare gives them the best healthcare in the world.  

Extend Cuba’s low rate of inequality compared to neighboring countries.  

Extend points about affordable housing and basic services.  

Extend point about their free education and Cuba’s exceptional literacy rates.” 
I’m just going to address these points all at once, since they’re easily proven wrong by a bit of source spam. 

“In particular, economic freedom is positively associated with higher life expectancy, higher literacy rates, and lower infant mortality” (Naanwaab 2018). [1] 

“Freer economies... lead to less poverty... and more equal distribution of income” (Gwartney and Lawson, 2004). [2] 

“In fact, greater economic freedom correlates with better outcomes in schools (both public and private), higher literacy rates, lower infant-mortality rates, longer life expectancy, and a cleaner, safer environment” (Roberts and Olson, 2013). [3] 

“Countries with more economic freedom tend to have a higher adult literacy rate, longer life expectancy, lower mortality rate, and better disease prevention” (Nikolaev, 2014). [4] 

“Institutions and policies [e.g. basic services] are consistent with economic freedom when they allow voluntary exchange and protect individuals and their property” (Lawson, 2005) [5] 


“Extend that the CE is responsible for generating foreign investment [in Vietnam]” 
My opponent is also negating his earlier arguments, since he had claimed in R2 that one of the weaknesses of Vietnam’s economy was foreign investment. As such, he is now implicitly claiming that foreign investment is good.  

I reverse this impact by showing that economic freedom is actually positively correlated with foreign investment, and that the same pattern applied with Vietnam. 

According to Tag and Denirmen (2021), “evidence suggests that foreign direct investment increases in countries with institutions that ensure the rule of law, expand trade freedoms, and reduce regulatory barriers to investing and doing business.” [6] 

Furthermore, Vietnam has attracted foreign investment precisely because of its free market reforms – yet another benefit of a market economy. [7] 


“[the CE is responsible for] the advanced transportation & infrastructure [in Vietnam]” 
This is also false – the advanced transportation and infrastructure in Vietnam are the direct consequence of a booming economy. Compare this to Cuba, which is known for its crumbling and outdated infrastructure. [8] 


“[the CE is responsible for] the growth in Vietnam’s economy.” 
Despite PRO’s spirited attempts at proof by assertion, I’m afraid this remains false. Extend arguments regarding how economic freedom directly causes economic growth, and how Vietnam’s rise as one of the fastest-growing emerging economies were a result of its free market reforms (“Doi Moi”).  


“Extend the damages currently being caused by the ME which all include: Financial Collapse..." 
This continues to be an unsubstantiated statement – PRO has yet to give a modicum of proof that market economies are more likely to collapse than command economies. 


“Equality Disbalance...” 
As I proved earlier, economic freedom actually increases equality. 


“Over-Reliance on Loans...” 
PRO again contradicts himself. Furthermore, extend earlier arguments about why Vietnam is not in any danger from foreign investment, and how it has effected enormous benefits. 


“Abuse of Employees...” 
Extend arguments regarding Cuba’s abuse of employees, as well as how command economies are associated with authoritarian governments – which tend not to treat their workers very well in general. 


“Loss of Employment Talent...” 
I have no idea what PRO is getting at here, since strong economies in fact attract talented workers. 


“In conclusion, the three characteristics of an absolute Command Economy are safety, security, and stability.” 
Extend arguments regarding how market economies have lower crime rates. 

Extend arguments regarding how command economies are far more authoritarian. 

Extend arguments regarding how market economies have higher and more consistent growth rates. 


“With an absolute ME Economy, we get monopolization, environmental catastrophes, low demand for essential services, wealth & equality gap, unemployment & poverty, industry collapse, and more crime and a weakened police force.” 
As I have already demolished these arguments throughout all four rounds so far, I will decline to address them again. 

III. Final Focus 

There are two key voting issues here: 

  • What benefits would switching to a market economy or command economy for Vietnam/Cuba bring? 
  • What downsides would switching to a market economy or command economy for Vietnam/Cuba bring? 
Voters should weigh these two things, then decide, overall, whether a market economy or command economy would be better for these two countries, on average. 

Due to the extraordinary number of arguments given by both sides, I encourage voters to list them out and then associate an impact score for each one from 1-10, with 1 being completely insignificant and 10 being extremely significant. 

I have shown that a market economy is associated with: 

  • More economic growth 
  • Greater efficiency 
  • More competition 
  • Stronger democracies 
  • Less bureaucracy and intervention 
  • Increased foreign investment 
  • Increased employment attraction 
  • Better conditions for citizens 
  • Higher life expectancy 
  • Lower infant mortality rate 
  • Better environmental quality 
  • Higher literacy rates 
  • Lower poverty rates 
  • Lower inequality 
  • Better education quality 
  • More entrepreneurship 
  • Greater corporate accountability 
  • Better economic prosperity 
  • More resilient economies 
  • Better ability to adapt in a crisis 
As an additional bonus, I also showed why switching over to a command economy would be far more difficult, a point that my opponent completely dropped. 

In contrast, my opponent has shown very little benefits of a command economy. Almost all of the so-called causal relations he has brought up have been refuted by ample evidence given by me, and then subsequently dropped. His remaining arguments are rather vague, and fail to link themselves to a specific economic system.  

IV. Summary 

In R1, my opponent claimed that Vietnam and Cuba are both successful command economies, and that switching over would be difficult and unnecessary. 

In R1, I showed that Vietnam was actually mostly a market economy, that a market economy was associated with numerous benefits, that command economies are inherently authoritarian, and that switching over to a command economy would be far harder. 

In R2, my opponent listed a gish gallop of criticisms of a market economy, and counterclaimed that Vietnam and Cuba are successful command economies. 

In R2, I refuted every single of those criticisms, showed why Vietnam is a market economy, and demonstrated why Cuba’s command economy is just not working out. 

In R3, my opponent continued to list already refuted criticims of an market economy, and cherry-picked a few flaws of it. 

In R3, I showed why overall, an market economy is still better than a command economy, and added a few more benefits of a market economy.

In R4, my opponent dropped all of my arguments and extended a few contentions regarding Cuba. 

In R4, I refuted the last of my opponent’s arguments, and showed by overall, I should win this debate. 

V. Conclusion 

This was a great debate, and I learned a lot about economic systems while researching it. 

I thank my opponent for the debate, and all judges for taking the time to read this. 

Thanks and have a good day! 

VI. Sources