Debunking some basic right-wing talking points

[Stephen Colbert]

Obviously I don't believe that the free market is a real concept (lol) but most right-wing defendants of economics will argue

1) competition improves quality
2) the private sector is where the money is

How do i rebut and own my crazy conservative-cynic uncle(hes coming over tomorrow)

Do I mention exploited 3rd world labor? Falling rate of profits? Artificial scarcity?
:blink:

Oh and also the free-market is not a real idea because economics in developed countries anyway, exists with the cooperation of the state and the government

[Burn A Flag]

Talk about wage slavery and the capitalist exploits the labor, and that how they acheive low prices for consumers while making a profit. Also, you can make points about imperialism, and how the USA has used its military and the CIA numerous times in the past to force other countries to open up for American business. Ex: Nicaragua, Cuba, etc. etc. How can a market be free if troops are invading another country to open them up to US business?

[Broletariat]

Myth: Competition improves quality.

Reality: You get the best milk from cows that have everything they could ever want, you don't see us pitting cows against each other in duels to the death to figure out which one has the best quality beef/milk do you? We use Jersey cows, not half-starved Arabian cows of some sort.

Well uhm.. the private sector IS where the money is that's not really up for debate too much, you should argue how that's a bad thing.

[DaComm]

Obviously I don't believe that the free market is a real concept (lol) but most right-wing defendants of economics will argue

1) competition improves quality
2) the private sector is where the money is

How do i rebut and own my crazy conservative-cynic uncle(hes coming over tomorrow)

Do I mention exploited 3rd world labor? Falling rate of profits? Artificial scarcity?
:blink:

Oh and also the free-market is not a real idea because economics in developed countries anyway, exists with the cooperation of the state and the government

Mention all of such things. As for Numero Uno, explain to him that compeition improves....? It causes unecessary pauperization and creates antagonistic views toward one another which force us to adopt hostile outlooks. Improves shittiness. For number two, the private sector, which is compirable roughly to petit-bourgeois class is gradually becoming more and more extinct. The petit cannot muster the productive abilites to defeat compeition. That is, I will provide an example:
You see a small, cramped shack called "Lou's Fix-It-Up" and across the street you have a Jiffy Lube. Jiffy Lube has a much grander productive apparatus at it's disposal, which can enable them to sell their prices lower costs, appearing more attractive to consumers. The private sector across the street will sooner or later get it's ass kicked. Explain this to em.

[mikelepore]

2) the private sector is where the money is


This one doesn't even contain a point that can be rebutted. The private sector is where the money is. A counterfeit money operation is where the counterfeit money is. A slave auction is where the slaves and captors are. A pirate ship is where the pirates are. An opium den is where the opium is. A snake pit is where the snakes are. So what? There's nothing to answer unless the other person has a point to make.

[mikelepore]

1) competition improves quality

This one is a variation of the claim that there is some invisible and unexplained connection between owners' reasons to act and the workers' reasons to act.

A more common form of this argument is when conservatives claim that the goal of making a profit is the motivation that causes production to occur. That claim can be seen to be false from the fact that the stockholders who receive the dividends don't perform any of the work, and the workers who bring about the production receive wages and not dividends.

In this variation that mentions quality, the claim is that the owners of company 1 want to take in more revenues than the owners of company 2, they feel that quality is one of the ways to achieve that result, and somehow this is supposed to be the thing that motivates the workers (who are going to get paid flat hourly wages no matter what boost in revenues may occur).

That kind of argument has to be exposed as a causality in the absense of a connection, like killing someone by sticking a pin into a voodoo doll. The owners' motives and the workers' motives are unconnected.

The workers prefer high quality production, but it is because of the satisfaction that it brings to workers; it's not because the owners of company 1 are in a competition for sales with the owners of company 2.

Since the wage-earners own no equity in the business but perform all of the labor, while the owners who receive the profits perform no productive activity, that generates two kinds of interests which are not linked.

With that in mind, can you now see what's wrong with the given claim "competition improves quality"? The owners (who are in competition) and the workers (who inject the quality) are separate demographics with separate purposes.

The owners and the workers might as well be separated by thousands of miles. Since the capitalist class is a group of absentee owners who rule by distributing memos, this separation by thousands of miles is often not a metaphor but literally true.

Don't let the other person in a debate get away with assuming a link that doesn't exist and then move along so fast that they never get challenged on it. They will pull that trick if they are permitted to get away with it. As soon as they claim that maximizing the stockholders' dividends is the source of inspiration for the employees to go to work, you have to interrupt them right there, mid-sentence, and expose them for claiming that there is a physical connection where none exists.