Script - WUPID 2011 GF : THBT unfettered capitalism is the greatest obstacle to world peace MO

WUPID 2011 GF : THBT unfettered capitalism is the greatest obstacle to world peace.

MO: Richad D’Ath (Victoria University Wellington A)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc_WaOonIkY

The government narrative down the entire bench is that they live in a time where evil capitalism yielded the levers of government to create perpetual poverty for many people and create war. But if you actually look at the status quo, we live in the most peaceful time in the entirety of human history. We live in a time where greatest gains in prosperity for the poorest in the world are occurring. Millions of people have been lifted out of poverty due to the operation of global capitalism and globalization.

What we say, and this is the hard of our extension, is that capitalism is an important and fundamental counterbalance to people's innate desire to exercise state power against each other. It creates the incentives in place to create peace and create the condition that destroy inequality and the differences between men that causes them to go to war. So, that's what we're gonna talk about in this debate.

But before that I wanna deal with closing government’s rather random extension about the environment. I’m not quite sure what environment has to do with peace but we will role with that for now. So, what they essentially argued was that capitalism is inherently bad for the environment because it’s short-termist. I have four responses I wanna make quickly to this.

The first one is that that's a lie. Businesses are not short-termist because their share price recognizes the fundamental underlying factors determining the long-term longevity of that company. If your company is going to expire in ten years, your share price will reflect that, so your overall incentives is to make sure your company will not expire in ten years and maximize your share price.

Secondly, the resources and the environment of the world is recognized by market price proxy which is future's market. For example, peak oils represented by the price of oil futures. If you're(Thereの間違い) genuinely　was a  disjoin between the price of futures and actual likelihood of environmental damage in the long term, there would be a lot of opportunity for money to be made. Now I recommend closing government goes and invests. But the fact that they are not millionaires using a secret knowledge actually shows us the market based mechanisms correctly price for the likelihood for these resources running out and so correctly account for the likelihood of environmental damage.

Thirdly, the government can intervene without fettering capitalism and simply put a price on environmental damage. You can have an Emission Trading Scheme which internalizes externalities without damaging capitalism in any fundamental way. That is the solutions to all of their problems and one that doesn't require dismantling the global capitalist system.

Finally, they never explained why governments in the absence of capitalism will be any better for protecting the environment. They are only accountable to voters, and voters are particularly short termed and they’re focused because they often don't bear the immediate cost of environmental decision they make, unlike companies that do so. (相手が比較の上でハームを出してないことを指摘。かつ、相手が出してきた環境のクラッシュにもコンパリで勝とうとする分析。どうのスタイルでもこれは大事だけど、特にBPでは違う話同士は時間の制約もあってcompariが難しいから、相手が提示してきたclushで勝つ、勝てなくてもタイにまで持っていくって戦略はとても大事。)

For those four reasons, their extensions falls out of this debate, and we will return to what is actually about.

So, let's talk about poor people then and capitalism because the narrative that we got from that side of the house is that "capitalism wants people to be poor". We are not quite sure how the mechanism of change to have desires and wants. In fact, we think that the desire to have poor people, to exploit people, to hold resources, rest with people. And the problem is people don't exercise those harms through capitalism, they exercise them through government. That's why everything they pointed to, from an invasion of Iraq, to people being discriminated against were actually failures of government, yielded against the people. So we say the heart of the problem is minimizing the likelihood that the government will be used for ill, and we say for whole bunch of reasons, capitalism is one of the ways that we minimizes that.

The first thing we would say is that the capitalism's actual desire isn't to exploit people or to keep people poor. It's merely to make the profit. And if the way that you make the profit is by exploiting the government, the obvious solution given capitalism’s benefits is to simply minimize the power of the government. That is the gema-philosophical(不明) stance that we would take. We'd also say the capitalism create circumstances where your less likely to want to use the role of the government to do things like go to war. Firstly, war is disruptive and harms your business interests. It destroys wealth. And what’s important to remember is that for every arms company that makes money through selling missiles, there are companies buildings firms and capital investment in these countries who are lobbying the government in another way. Those counter incentives only exist in the capital system which creates the interdependence that we talked about. More about that later.

So, what causes conflicts, ladies and gentlemen?

First thing we identify that causes conflicts is identity. The idea of insiders and outsiders, in-groups and out-groups, differences between people. Capitalism undermines those differences between people that lead to conflict. Because it creates globalized societies where people contact and trade and enter, and move across borders and basically facilitate relationships between people. That breaks down the sense of in-groups and out-groups and create the sense of shared global identity which is antithetical to conflicts. Closing.

POI: Has the "occupy wall street movement" been a sign of unity across society, or possibly division?

Well, we say the "occupy of wall street movement" as often protesting against government's failure, which is corporate colonialism, right? And we say way you solve the corporate colonialism is, like, minimizing the power of state by having the unfettered capitalism. You can't have corporate colonialism when the government doesn't control the roles of game, which is by definition, unfettered capitalism.

How else do we minimize conflicts? We wreduce class and sectarian boundaries, because the class and sectarianism and those things are only able to yielded the situation we can rely on the state's power. It is highly unprofitable as a free market enterprise to refuse to sell the customers because of the class or because of their ethnicity. You will be outcompeted by people who are willing to sell to anyone for the right price and so you go out of business. It’s only when you can rely on government's monopoly to preserve the bigotry to be enable to do that. So, capitalism actually undermines discrimination by making bigots unsuccessful. And that reduces the likelihood of those bigots using things like nationalism and racism to trigger warfare. What else does capitalism undermines? It undermines the sense that governments have, that world economy is winner takes all. That's why I made a point of information about mercantilism, because under the mercantilism you had the senses that you had to hold resources, but under global capitalism you realize that it’s not winner takes all. If you share and trade beneficially between each other, you can actually end up with better outcomes on the grounds. That's why it creates trades roots and interdependence, and large multinationals who have stakes in preserving peace and prosperity in the countries where they built factories and have capital investment.

The final things to talk about then is nationalism in inequality, which is really the plunk of opening government's case, which, we think, still doesn't stand in this debate. Because what we say is that nationalism stems from sense that state is the single most important factor of identity and that comes directly from states having substantial power in your life, by being involved in the provision of resources, by being involved in provision of things like jobs. By undermining the power of the state, by creating non-state delocalized power basis like corporations, you actually undermine that sense of identity because you destroy the direct resource link between people and state. That's what undermines the sense of nationalism that creates the militarization and leads ultimately to war.

The last things then to talk about is inequality, because, we think, the capitalism actually destroys the inequality in the real sense of the word. Because what we say is that while some people are richer and poorer, in absolute sense, they all are richer and that's something we like under the status quo. We also say that the incentives of capitalism isn't keep people poor, is to make them rich to become market for your goods. So, for all of those reasons, we, closing opposition believes the capitalism actually undermines the causes that lead government to go to war, and for those reasons, we're proud to oppose.

(このスピーチで度々interdependenceという単語が出てきますが、これについては国際紛争に関してのゴールデンアーチ理論というものがベースになってます。その理論とは、「ひとたび、マクドナルドが国内にオープンした国同士は、決して互いに戦争をしない」というものです。第二次世界大戦の前に重商主義(mercantilism)によってお互いが貿易に消極的になった結果、ナチスが「他の国から資源を奪うしかない」という思考によって戦争を仕掛けた。きちんと貿易をしておけば侵攻しなくても相手の国が持つ資源等が貿易で手に入るし、相手国の重要性が上がるから、戦争を仕掛ける気はなくなる。っていうのがこのスピーチのベースの一部になってます。まぁあくまで理論ではありますがね。)