State Intervention Hinders Economic Growth

I. Rome"One could hardly describe Ancient Rome as a free market state, or even pre-capitalist. There was rampant slavery in the form of legal ownership, debt slavery and serfdom; a large and complicated taxation and tariff system, and state ownership of land in the form of the Emperor's personal demesne in Egypt, and a shameful record of state violence."Firmly disagree, as most history of Rome in its early stages and during the Pax show it as remarkably economically free. Slavery existed, but slavery was mainly used among the wealthy landowners. Smaller landowners could not afford slaves, urban workers did not have much need for them, and neither did the merchants. Rome was not ruled by slaves. There was more free labor (and tenant farmers) that existed in Rome that wasn't tied down or killed off until Diocletian.The taxation system in Rome before the massive increases caused by late emperors was actually pretty simple. The tax system, called the annona, was paid in kind with grain. There was no income tax, just 5% on inheritance and the tariffs were remarkably light and were only interprovinical. Your statement that Rome was not a free market economy is just simply wrong. Property rights and the rule of law ensured such a free market. These made private investments and foreign trade easy. A peculiar law is the collegium. It gave legal status to private groups like corporations, trade unions, and nonprofit groups as well. [1]On the Congiarium, the Encyclopedia of Ancient History:"A congiarium was a type of gift made by the emperor to the populace in the city of Rome. The term derives from a Roman unit of fluid measure, the congius (Quint. 6.3.52)." [2]However, a gift is not a regular giving of welfare and it is not an entitlement. Gifts and welfare aid are different. I will also not that these gifts increased over time and received severe condemnation. Trajan and Hadrian were criticized because it drained state coffers. Hadrian also deliberately do this with entertainment in order to distract the citizens of Rome from important issues. [1,3]Keep in mind that the primary reason Rome fell was because it expanded so much that its treasury could not keep up. The primary expense of Rome was its military. The period of great expansion in welfare programs was when Trajan created his to combat poverty. It increased Rome's obligation and that increased its debt. A three month spectacle of gladitorial games also increase Rome's obligation to indulge its people. In the end, Rome was in a period of state socialism. [1] Finally, plagues and famines have never proven to be turning points for any nation. Even the Bubonic Plague was not a main turning point for the death of nations because most European nations survived. By the time of Rome's split, Diocletian already wrecked the economy. Constantine was only doing what he could to save the empire, but decline was inevitable at that point.II. SpainThe silver Spain received increased its wealth dramatically. Spanish incomes grew fast at this period from $661 to $853, or 29%. It is wrong to say that very little silver (and gold, but not as important) got to Spain because as the Ferguson put it:"The convoys of ships - up to a hundred a time - which transported 170 tons of silver a year across the Atlantic, docked at Seville." [4]The problem is the centralization of silver by the Spanish crown. They never turned this silver into real wealth for the homeland because little went to the private sector and to new industries. Thus, more silver and government constant ignorance in monetary policy led to inflation. It rise in quantity but decreased in value. [1]The fact that Spain expelled its Jews is what one of the main problem was because it eliminated and neglected capitalist development. This created a fiscal imbalance in Spain. It is wrong to say that its main intention was not too religiously unify. One simply has to see the years of war between the three religious groups. The issue of debt was simply another reason to do it. However, Spain could still not handle its own finances because it defaulted into debt seven times from 1557 to 1647. Spain still owed debts to people no matter if they were a subject or not. Spain was a war-loving nation, but going to war so mch left little economic production as well. [1]Finally, I'd like to say that Spain was no longer a real superpower at the time of Napoleon's reign. It was already economically and militarily weak.III. The Great DepressionFirst, I'd like to mention that I addressed Mussolini and Stalin (and Keynes) to address what economic models and plans the New Deal was following. That is why they were mentioned."Real GDP growth of the US economy over the course of Roosevelt’s first term averaged at 10.87% PA (1), which cumulatively resulted in a growth of 32.61%. Compare that to the entire ‘Roaring Twenties’ (1920-1929), total real GDP growth was cumulatively 35.82% (2)."The funny thing here is that my opponent said he was against using GDP growth in round 1 for acceptance. I haven't really used it and I expected my opponent to not do the same. He did, which along with the forfeit of round 2, are signs of bad conduct. Indeed during FDR's first term real GDP and production skyrocketed up, but this is not in quality, profits, or investment. The reason why is better explained and shows signs of little recovery:"The boom in industrial production of the 1930s signals growth, but not necessarily growth of a higher quality than that, say, of a Soviet factory running three shifts. Another datum that we hear about less than industrial production was actually more important: net private investment, the number that captures how many capital good companies were buying relative to what they already had. At many points during the New Deal, net private investment was not merely low but negative. Companies were using more capital goods than they were buying." [6]The 1920s were indeed a boom period, with the lowest unemployment rates in American history and some of the highest growth rates in the Dow Jones Industrial average. During the New Deal, the Dow Jones never recovered from such a low until the 1950s. People had more permanent jobs under Harding-Coolidge years than they did under the FDR years. The New Deal lasted from 1933 to 1939 and real GDP was actually slowing through the decade, down from 9% of his first term to 7% in his second. Then, in 1940 and 1941, the country roared from WW2, not the New Deal. This was because of the Lend-Lease Act and the entrance into the war. During that two-year period, real GDP grew over 17%. Just looking numbers does not tell the whole story.Beause people did not have permanent jobs and unemployment remained at 20% to 15%, people were not doing so well, especially in the middle and working classes. Businesses gained monopolies over certain products as the NRA put the Blue Eagle in stores and raised prices. So too did larger farmers while tenants were forced to leave. Employment froze and prices discouraged people from buying. That is why the New Deal failed.My opponent needs to read some history. The Glass-Steagall Act was eliminated in the late 90s with the passage of the Gramm-Leachy-Bliley Act. On Glass-Steagall:"The proponents of Glass-Steagall also ignore one of the basic rules of finance: diversification generally reduces risk. Given that both commercial and investment banking entail risk, if we want to reduce risk to the federal safety net, then I would suggest that the best approach would be to scale back that safety net. The best way to end bailouts is simply to just stop doing them." [9]Reagan and ThatcherThe reason the debt grew during the 1980s was not because Reagan cut taxes, but was primarily due to the Cold War which had to be brought to an end. He succeded in doing that and when he left office the deficit was at 3% where he started (it was 6% in the middle). I have already explained that the middle class saw a huge increase of wealth. The number of millionaires went from 5,000 to 35,000 during Reagan and most of these were from the middle class. As for the poor, they saw their incomes increase from $6,494 in 1980 to $6,994 in 1989. With inflation down, it was easy to buy new goods and products. Mobile phones were first introduced in 1983, but nearly 20 million people owned them by the end of the decade. Over half of the American people owned VCR's from a quarter before Reagan. Real GDP grew at 3.61% during his time in office. This shows that wealth increased during the period dramatically. [10]As for Thatcher, she needed to transform the economy from socialist to free market. This is no easy task, but it needed to happen because I pointed out before Britain's industries were becoming ineffcient and unprofitable. No economic transformation is easy, but it is necesarry in order to not devastate the country. The economy Labour created was not sustainable due to economic decline.[11]Sources1. Glenn Hubbard and Tim Kane, Balance: The Economics of Great Powers from Ancient Rome to Modern America2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...3. John Bury, The Student's Roman Empire4. Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money5. http://www.measuringworth.com...6. Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression 7. http://www.measuringworth.com...8. http://www.measuringworth.com...9. Mark A. Calabria, Did Glass Steagall Put a Man on the Moon. Ludwig von Mises Institute10. Dinesh D'Souza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Became an Extraordinary Leader11. Claire Berlinski, "There is no Alternative": Why Margaret Thatcher Matters