Government intervention in the economy does more harm than good

The pro has forfeited that government regulations like new FDA standards can protect people,The pro has forfeited the argument that regulations do not harm businesses and protect consumersThe pro has forfeited that the number of new businesses created before and after licensing laws were established remained unchanged implying that licensing laws do not prevent new businesses from formingThe pro has forfeited the fact that business licenses are used by the government to help businesses with tax breaks The pro has forfeited that companies do not harm the environment and goes on to claim its their right to "drain swamps and cut down forests"The pro has forfeited that companies try to exploit every type of environmentThe pro has forfeited that government intervention in establishing national parks has prevented these parks from otherwise being abused and exploited by corporationsThe pro claims that "Minimum wage is a horrible price control that hurts the poorest people the most" when I have shown that there are numerous cases of how the minimum wage has helped many peopleThe pro has forfeited that the government can use interest rates to both curb inflation and encourage economic growthThe pro has forfeited how interest rates that banks put on loans help insure and benefit the lendersThe pro has forfeited how past subsidies on farming products established by the government helped protect thousands of farmers from losing their jobsThe pro has forfeited that any items that can be banned by the government is something that would take weeks to actually sign ito law and even then such bas could be repealed in the futureThe pro has forfeited the fact that the government intervention in Prohibition of alcohol was a result of public pressure, not the will of the government itselfThe pro has forfeited that the government can use the principle of eminent domain to benefit the economy by building highways, schools, etc. The pro has forfeited the fact that if a chemical spill were to occur it is the government who steps in and helps relocate the people while the courts (a part of the government) determine whether or not the company is liable to financially compensate those affected by the spill. So other than all that, let me finish by stating these things. 1) There are many cases where government intervention does help people, businesses, or jobs (Pro has simply ignored all of my examples)2) There are many cases where the government intervenes in an industry to create an agency to regulate it to protect consumers (Pro has claimed these are not necessary even though without them they surely would cause people to become ill or even die)3) Not all government interventions are done for economic benefit such as the endangered species act (Pro argues that since they do not benefit the economy they should all be removed)Most importantly of all though4) Corporations in the past, when regulations were non-existent, had a long history of making profit by selling unsafe products to consumers, giving obscenely low wages to workers so that the corporations could profit more, did not invest in safe working conditions for the workers because that would cost them money, and corporations exploit the system as much as possible in order to make money. Since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, the government has begun to intervene in the economy and to protect consumers, to increase the living standards of the lower class, to protect jobs during times of crisis, to protect nature's wonders form being exploited and destroyed by corporations wanting to make money, and holding corporations liable for any damage they do to communities. At the same time though the government has also intervened in the economy by enacting laws to help businesses apply for tax breaks, un-banning products that can create entire industries, and by allowing corporations to donate large sums of money to politicians (even though i think thats bullsh**) Government intervention does more good for the economy than harm, and the when such interventions backfire (such as prohibition) the government steps in again to remedy the problem.