Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a structurally unstable economic system.

My opponent begins by naming a list of current "monopolies" such as "Microsoft and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. " And claims that these "watered down" monopolies are not a bad thing. Microsoft isn't even close to monopoly. The PC industry is a highly competitive market that is a constant battle between Apple, Google, and Microsoft. If Microsoft were a monopoly, it would control upwards of 90% of the PC industry and make it near impossible for PC companies to compete in America. Furthermore he claims that the monopolies of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are "not a bad thing" but does not realize that that monopoly was partially to blame for the 2008 housing melt-down (1) Furthermore, Fannie and Freddy are TOTALLY contradictory to his next point: "However, it seems that the present day "evil" monopolies are entirely Government-induced. " Because both companies are currently government sponsored. My opponent also talks about the modern day subsidies that AT&T receives. I was not referring to the current AT&T, but the AT&T that was broken up US anti-monopolization laws in 1984. My opponent actually aids my claim by pointing out that Standard Oil was formed with no government intervention. The standard oil monopoly would likely still be in massive control of American Oil had it not been broken up by the Sherman anti-trust laws. My opponents refutation of my first contention are weak if not helpful to my argument. He claims monopolization is "not a bad thing" but who would want any aspect of an industry totally controlled by one company? So much power held by businessmen could be very harmful to the people. Furthermore, monopolization eliminates competition, and therefore defeats the purpose of capitalism. Also the time when America "flirted with laissez-faire capitalism" was also known for terrible food safety standards as pointed out in The Jungle and child labor. "the system is intended as a complete divorce of Government from market" This entire point is almost laughable. My opponent seems to imply that men looking make profit will always "play by the rules. " This simply is not true. There are indeed men who make great business through honest tactics and hard work, but there are countless men who lie, cheat, steal, and swindle to make profit. Crony capitalism forms because humans are, by nature, greedy and self serving. Good intentions, terrible results. "Businesses are forced to behave, because they are entirely subject to the will of the populace and of the free market, and lack the Government to stand in the way of natural justice. " Again, this is why capitalism only works in ideal circumstances. If the populace was uneducated on what the true harms of a product were, or the irresponsible actions (bribery, pollution, etc. ) that a corporation was taking, then how would these mystical "free-market forces" stop that company from gaining a competitive edge. My opponent seems to be under the naive notion that a powerful company is unable to lie and cover up it's faults. Without government enforcement, companies will lie for profit. My opponents Toyota example is yet another contradictory example to his argument. This is an example of how irresponsible business will hurt the populace until government steps in and stops them. His example is contradictory to his previous statement regarding "total divorce of government and business. " "This argument is very similar to that of the first, and so similarly refuted. The Government should be entirely divorced from the economy, thereby automatically preventing any gains for corporation in politics. The Government in this situation would be relevant, because it exists in an entirely different realm. As for total economic control, the entire idea of a "free market" rules this possibility out. For the two reasons above, and the fact that competition can always ascend, both foreign and domestic, businesses will always compete to make the cheapest, most quality goods and services. My opponent claims these benefits of the almost magical "free-market" but cites only an opinionated source that is only based on speculation not fact. SUMMARY My opponents points are irrelevant, contradictory, naive, or based on speculation. Furthermore, since it is not assumed that Laissez-faire capitalism is structurally stable, my opponent has TOTALLY FAILED to point out that laissez faire capitalism is stable. I await my opponents response eagerly. 1. . http://www.investopedia.com...