Government should intervene to right the economic wrongs of capitalism.

I will accept the format my opponent has set forth, despite its strangeness. I will also negate the three points that he has proposed (I'm assuming that the purpose of those points is to negate the resolution, they aren't like anticipations of my points or something like that). Some definitions and stuff: I will accept my opponents definitions of capitalism and government Wealth-All material things produced by labor for the satisfaction of human desires and having exchange value. (. http://www.henrygeorge.org...) Intervene (as a verb, not an intransitive verb)- to involve oneself in a situation, esp. to prevent conflict (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) This may sound obvious, but I assume that my opponent advocates a laissez-faire stance towards government and the economy. My attacks will be directed against laissez-faire capitalism then. Points: Capitalism strike 1: The natural tendency towards monopoly One of the pillars of capitalism is competition. Supporters of the free market assert that having competition between many different business's will keep things fair and keep the market honest. However, every competition has a winner. While supporters of the free market enjoy competition, members of the free market do not. It is natural for a business to make every attempt to defeat and destroy the competition. In a purely free market, a few companies will eventually emerge supreme, destroying competition and the merits that come with it. It is also common for these dominant companies to form alliances with each other, known as 'trusts', and use these alliances to dominate the market further. I will provide some historical examples. Prior to 1890, there were no anti-trust or monopoly law in the United States. As a result, there were plenty of monopolies and trusts. Perhaps the most famous was the Standard Oil Company, notorious for aggressively destroying its competitors, and eventually controlling 88% of all refined oil flows in the United States (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Competition in the oil industry was virtually impossible. What defeated the Standard Oil Company? Government intervention, which broke the company up into 34 different companies. Other monopolies included the Northern Securities Company, American Tobacco company, and national Linseed Oil trust. Even today, companies such as Microsoft have been accused of monopolizing, destroying competition, and simply dominating the markets. Some natural causes of monopoly are (. http://www.pinkmonkey.com...): 1. ) Limited natural resources (not everyone can just drill for oil) 2. ) Massive capital is required to enter many investments (most people didn't have the money to compete with the standard oil company) 3. ) Special technical resources. As long as one group has all the skills, they have all the power The negative effects of monopoly are many. Monopolies can price gouge (they have total freedom to set the price), they tend to treat their employees very poorly, they typically lead to corruption, and they prevent small start-ups. They are a side effect of the free market, and the government should intervene to prevent and destroy them. Capitalism strike 2: the inability to deal with recession This can cover a lot of things, but for the moment, I will focus on one specific aspect: The inability to deal with what is known as a 'general glut'. There are times when consumers will choose to save excessively, possibly to due business failure or lack of demand. This is 'money hoarding'. This results in overproduction, as there is no longer demand to meet the supply. In order to make up for the lack of revenue, there is even more production, creating the 'general glut', when there is an unwanted accumulation of inventories. This leads to recession, as the glut causes unemployment and business losses. The market alone cannot deal with this effectively. Government must intervene in the form of tax cuts and stimulus spending to pump more money into the economy, convincing consumers to spend again. Capitalism strike 3: inherent inequality of opportunity This clashes with my opponents third point, so I'll rebut that here. My opponents point about income inequality is that it is just because the people who make more do more important things and work harder. This point would be valid if everyone had the same skills, same education opportunities, and could invest the same amount of money. However, none of these things are true. Not everyone starts the race from the same starting line. Those who are born poor must work considerably harder for equal or sub par wages to those who are born wealthy. Input may lead to output, but some people get more output for less input. Also, not everyone has the same higher education opportunities. Higher education costs heavy tuition, and people who go to poor elementary and high schools may not reach their full potential in reaching high education. Because there is no true equality of opportunity without any government intervention, income inequality isn't justified with laissez-faire capitalism. Income inequality is only justified when everyone starts on the same starting line, and that requires government intervention. Refutations and stuff: 1. "Government cannot produce wealth" My opponent asserts that "Wealth is produced through voluntary trades in which the two parties involved benefit. " This is false. Wealth is produced through labor. However, even if it was true, my opponent's point would not be. My opponent presumes that government cannot engage is a voluntary transaction. What then, is defense contracting? Last time I checked, the government pays businesses to build their weapons. That's a voluntary transaction. According to my opponent, voluntary transactions produce wealth. Therefore, government can produce wealth. Moreover, since wealth is actually produced by labor, not 'voluntary transactions', it can produce wealth. It just has to do some labor. If the government just started mining for coal one day, it would be producing wealth. And since there are private business's that also mine coal, it would not be a monopoly. Point negated. 2. "Capitalism increases everyone's wealth over time. " This is true if the market is doing well. Capitalism can have the opposite effect if the market is doing poorly. In the event of a recession, capitalism can actually decrease everyone's wealth. The free market doesn't do a very good job of getting itself out of recessions. The results of things like bank failure will hurt everyone especially badly if the banks are not insured by the government (which is government intervention in the economy). 3. "Income Inequality is just" I covered this in my third point Anyway, that's my opening. I'm sure that I will have plenty to add and clarifications to make later. I look forward to my opponent's response.