The deregulated "free" market is unsustainable

Pro seems mainly to want to chat about topics related to free markets. I'll do that, but I'll first address the resolution. 1. I accept Pro's definition of "free market." The definition of "unsustainable" is "not sustainable; not to be supported, maintained, upheld, or corroborated." http://dictionary.reference.com... The resolution asserts that free market economies cannot exist, but rather must collapse to be replaced by government-regulated economies. There are many examples o free market economies being sustained. Markets existed before the existence of governments, so clearly free market economies are sustainable. "Trade in a grander sense, between distant places ... involves entrepreneurs and middlemen, people willing to accept delay and risk in the hope of a large profit. The archive found at Ebla gives a glimpse of an early trading city, from the middle of the third millennium BC." http://www.historyworld.net... None of the early trade involved government regulation or subsidy, and it florished for thousands of years. It's rather remarkable how much trade went on without benefit of government supervision: " ... Native Americans had been involved in long- distance trade for at least 3,000 years, and Mississippian people continued to exchange material and objects with distant communities. For example, Mississippians living along Mill Creek in Union County used high-quality stone found along the creek to make hoes for farming. These hoes were traded throughout Illinois and the Midwest." http://www.museum.state.il.us... "Northwestern Indians who lived near the Ganges River played prominent roles as middlemen in the China-Mediterranean silk trade because as early as the third century AD, they understood that silk was a lucrative product of the Chinese Empire. The trading relationship between the Chinese and the Indians grew stronger with increased Han expansion into Central Asia. The Chinese would trade their silk with the Indians for precious stones and metals such as jade, gold, and silver, and the Indians would trade the silk with the Roman Empire. Silk proved to be an expensive import for the Roman Empire since its trade across Indian and Central Asia was heavily controlled by the Parthian Empire." http://library.thinkquest.org... Free markets are clearly sustainable without government. The resolution fails. 2. Now, on to Pro's stream-of-consciousness remarks. a. Pro sets up a straw man by falsely claiming that free market advocates are demanding that there be no government whatsoever. We can rely on Milton Friedman to voice the role of government in free markets. It is to provide "for the maintenance of law and order to prevent coercion of one individual by another, the enforcement of contracts voluntarily entered into, the definition of the meaning of property rights, the interpretation and enforcement of such rights, and the provision of a monetary framework." http://practicalutopian.wordpress.com... So government "keeps the peace" in the markets. b. The markets hold producers accountable, since in a free market transactions only occur when there is a benefit to both parties in the transaction. Unlike government, companies can fail and go out of business, and it happens all the time. No one who believes in free markets thinks that there should be businesses too big to fail; only government prevents them from failing. c. We do not want a society where compensation is solely "work-based." Risk must be compensated, otherwise no one will take risks and the economy stagnates. The time value of money must also be compensated. Money available now is inherently worth more than money sometime later; that is a law of nature not subject to repeal. It has always operated in all societies, and always will. d. The cure to poverty is prosperity. Hong Kong prospered as China wallowed in poverty; South Korea continues to prosper as North Korea remains impoverished. Prosperity comes from free markets, not from government, and every example shows that. e. Pro complains about the alarming intertwining of the private sector and government. He's right. Getting government out of the private sector is called "free markets." Wall Street contributors top the list of Obama donors. http://www.opensecrets.org... That is because they favor the intertwining of government with private enterprise. They get an advantage by being large and sophisticated enough to master the wildly complex regulations, and they want the "too big to fail" guarantee. The financial regulation law accomplished both those goals. f. Pro is completely wrong in claiming that the Tea Party movement favors such intertwining. "According to pollster Scott Rasmussen, writer of Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System, the primary event which triggered the Tea Party movement was the federal bailouts of private companies. Activists consider them to be unconstitutional, ineffective, and immoral since they involve the redistribution of wealth from citizens to private entities." http://247wallst.com... So why do Obama and his allies favor intertwining of government and private enterprise? They have discovered that it is more acceptable to the public to maintain an illusion of free enterprise while government determines virtually every detail of what so-called "private" companies can do. Then as the government directed policies fail, they can blame free enterprise and take over explicitly. g. Pro cites examples of industries in which there are two principle competitors and contends that is a failure of free enterprise. The signs of a non-competitive market are lack of consumer choices. He cites beer, energy drinks, and Walmart "big box stores." In each of those industries profit margins are completely reasonable and there are plenty of consumer choices. Is it really true that there are only two choices of beer or energy drinks? Nonsense. Just go to any supermarket and look at the myriad choices. Is it true that Walmart is the only big box store? Visit Target or Costco. Walmart Stores has a profit margin of 3.47%, and it has fluctuated around 3.5% for a decade. http://ycharts.com... Neither beer nor energy drinks are necessities, so if producers raise prices too high demand plummets. The beer industry recently consolidated after many years of poor profits, so there is brief surge in profits, but consumption is dropping. The markets forces are at work. Energy drinks are mainly sugar and water with a few dabs of chemicals, with market success determined by advertising. It is like a fashion product, subject to fads. It is not remotely a case for government regulation. It's like arguing that Gucchi charges too much, so government must intervene. The solution is rather or consumers to not buy the product at the price demanded. 3. Pro summarizes, "A system motivated and revolving around profit, and characterized to have ideally the least amount of responsibility as possible can not be sustainable for humanity." To the contrary, a system motivated by profit is the most sustainable for humanity. Profits are only achieved by producers bringing to market something that consumers want to buy at the price offered, so that both the producer and the consumer benefit from the free market transaction. If the producer fails to do that, the market puts him out of business. Government, by contrast, is never put out of business, no matter how poor the product or service. It is the ultimate monopoly in which there is no accountability. Excessive government is not sustainable, free markets are.