Government Intervention in an Economy

I will present my arguments first then refute his (space willing): C1: Modern Regulation Bad regulation not deregulation caused our current mess. [1] The reality is that crises are more often caused by bad regulation than by deregulation [1] House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) states: "The current regulatory system has become a barrier to economic growth and job creation. Federal regulations cost our economy $1.75 trillion each year. Employers are rightly concerned about the costs these regulations will impose on their businesses. So they stop hiring, stop spending and start saving for a bill from Big Brother." [2] also seen exactly like this in my second source. credit him for the paragraph above not me. C2: Austrian theory 1. the people choose The man will act in his benefit, to his agenda. Only each individual chooses their economic choices not goverment or other collective entities. [3] 2. The study of the market is about behavior between institutions. Catallactics focuses analytical attention on the exchange relationships that emerge in the market, the bargaining that characterizes the exchange process, and the institutions within which exchange takes place. [3] 3. People believe in social science Unlike the physical sciences, the human sciences begin with the purposes and plans of individuals. [3] basically like 1. let the people decide not a goverment bureaucracy or a collective group. 4. Utility and costs are subjective etc. basically how the person choosing trumps governments doing so. C3: the stimulus This is actually goverment intervention as the companies are now in debt to our goverment. It certainly doesn't appear that the stimulus worked. The U.S. economy remains in the doldrums, with GDP growth an anemic 1.3% in the second quarter and a jobless rate that's not expected to return to normal levels for a decade. [4] It was supposed to create enough jobs to bring the unemployment rate down below 8%. That didn't happen. [5] It didn't work. C4: Debts This is given. Regulation from the goverment, welfare, goverment control will lead to debt. Many people think the debt is good, like Keyes. but he says debt NEED to be payed back, fast. So long term debts, like we have now, are bad for the economy depending on the time length and the extreme. Paying back the debt reduces interest rate payments. This in turn makes it easier to pay back even more and so on - until the debt amounts to zero. [6] So paying back the debt lowers interest rates, lowering cost on everyone, which = better economy. SO no debt is good. Once there is no debt anymore, taxes can be cut, and the government can spend its money on useful things like healthcare or education. [6] So no debt = less taxes, everyone knows that means better economy. Having no debt is hard to do when you are trying to cover for an economy. So less intervention is better. C5: socialism You say goverment regulation and intervention is good. So do the socialists. Socialism is intervention to the max. When a government intervenes in a market, it upsets the dynamics of a market and forces inefficiencies. In fact, I would strongly argue that government is responsible for the high health care costs today. [7] He basically said goverment intervention is bad. In a free market, I have the option to pick the best plan for me, from a range of suppliers, at the price I wish to pay. As soon as you get government involved, there are mandates of what plans have to include, it increases prices and consolidates supply. [7] These 2 paragraphs as well are directly from my 7 source. Credit him not me. C6: Government intervention is inefficient and raises cost To overcome this market failure, the govt can try and reduce demand by taxing the good. However, this may cause govt failure. Government failure occurs when govt intervention results in a more inefficient allocation of resources. For example, taxes will cause admin costs; the govt may have poor info about how much to tax and demand may be very inelastic. [8] also from my 8th source. Subsidizing companies may encourage them to be more inefficient, because they can rely on state funding. [8] Government interventions infest agriculture markets like weeds and have the same choking effects. Some interventions, such as tariffs, quotas, and land set-asides, are designed to keep food supplies down and prices up. [9] so yes they do it on purpose. Still other interventions, such as food stamps and subsidized school meals, are designed to offset the effects of government policies that make food more expensive. [9] lets go away from food and look at cap and trade: By reducing carbon emissions, cap-and-trade systems raise prices throughout the economy. These costs are ultimately paid by American consumers. [10] also from my source. an average house pays 216$ a month, with my 10 sources calculator it raises that cots to 277$ a month, a large increase. Cap and trade rose prices. The central fact of the cap-and-trade proposal is that it will increase the price of energy. [11] C7: new deal This too is goverment intervention in the economy, and it didn't work. The worst years of the New Deal were 1937 and 1938, right after the Fed increased reserve requirements for banks, thereby curbing lending and moving the economy back to dangerous deflationary pressures. [12] Thing is, the statistics preferred by Sirota and other FDR acolytes still reveal the New Deal didn't drive pre-World War II unemployment below 17 percent in any year except 1937 [13] :o it didn't do what it needed to do. the point, as the chart shows, is that the alternative numbers track the census estimates in showing unemployment during the New Deal remained the worst our nation has seen. [13] c/p from 13. so basically it didn't help. another source: It is Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. At least three economic reforms under discussion now were also central in the New Deal package. Trouble is, these reforms didn't necessarily work well when they were first tried-and some failed outright. [14] ==end arguments== ==low on room rebuttals for next time== ==conclusion== goverment intervention on an economy doesn't worked and little intervention is better. I have proven this, I urge you to vote con. thank you. ==sources== http://blog.heritage.org... [1] http://www.epi.org... [2] http://www.econlib.org... [3] http://www.forbes.com... [4] http://www.americanthinker.com... [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [6] http://www.rochesterconservative.com... [7] http://www.economicshelp.org... [8] http://www.thefreemanonline.org... [9] http://www.taxfoundation.org... [10] http://reason.org... [11] http://www.nytimes.com... [12] http://www.heritage.org... [13] http://www.cfr.org... [14]