Government intervention in the economy does more harm than good

The Con claims that the Meat inspection Act and the Food and Drug Safety Act improved food safety by simply assuming that because these regulations are in place that they were both necessary and effective at preventing sickness and death. He then cites several articles about new FDA regulations. Yes, there are regulations, and they're adding more all the time. But that doesn't prove that they are necessary, nor does it prove that they help anyone. It also supports my argument about government intervention creating uncertainty in the future. Because new regulations are enacted all the time, businesses can't predict their future costs. The Con then claims that nobody loses when regulations cause prices to rise, since the consumer is safer with them. Again, the Con is presenting assumptions as facts, and confirms that this government intervention has removed the choice of the consumer to purchase cheaper products at their own risk. On licensing: just because the number of new businesses has remained constant doesn't mean licensing isn't keeping even more businesses from entering the market. Maybe the constant number of new businesses would be 20% more without all the hoops they must jump through- we don't know. But it certainly wouldn't be less. The Con then talks about how the Republicans have been trying to repeal Obamacare, further supporting my claim that these laws create future uncertainty, because not only do businesses have to worry about the new health care rules, they don't even know if they will ever have to comply with them! Think of all the wasted time and effort preparing to comply with a bill that may never take effect. The Con goes on to talk about how companies affect the environment in order to make money. Yes, that's what businesses do- they take resources and turn them into something people want. I confess 'exploit' was the wrong word - I meant destroy, which is what the Con is implying companies would do. However, it's their property, and if they want to drain swamps and cut down forests, that's their prerogative, and it's not your or the government's right to force them not to. They would be foolhardy, however, to slash the forest to the ground and not replant; they would be left with a wasteland worth nothing. In addition, if it is revealed that a company is engaged in horrible environmental destruction, consumers have the option of not buying their products, sending a powerful signal to companies who would try to do so without undermining private property. The Con then claims, or rather assumes since he offers no citations, that minimum wage improved quality of living for low and middle class citizens. He fails, however, to realize that there are people whose work is not valued at minimum wage, and are forced to live unemployed. The result of minimum wage is that if someone can't get a job that pays $X an hour, he can't work, at least not legally. Minimum wage is a horrible price control that hurts the poorest people the most by cutting off their access to paid work because government decided that they wouldn't earn enough and are better off with nothing. On interest rates, the Con claims "this monetary policy can be used by the government to lessen the impact that inflation has on wages, spending power, and incomes." Again, the government can either inflate or deflate. Inflation hurts spending power via reduced value of income. If they want to counter this, they must deflate, i.e. increase interest rates. And again, manipulation of interest rates distorts the signals that reveal the amount of assets banks have as collateral for their loans. Through a policy of long-term easy credit fueled by low interest rates, government enables bad investments to compound, leading to an inevitable economic crash like the one we face today. In addition, any government engaged in massive borrowing will always support artificially low interest rates a) to reduce the amount of interest it must pay to lenders and b) so they can pay back lenders with devalued currency. The Con then clarifies his explanation of 'adjusting interest rates to protect lenders' by describing what a loan is. I still don't understand what the point of the original argument was. Regarding subsidies, the Con talks about how switching industries is hard. Sure it's hard. And yes they'd have to look for a new job like everyone else. And they should. That's not a burden to be foisted on the taxpayer. Certain industries should not get special privileges at the taxpayers' expense. He also repeats his claim that these subsidies protected farmers but fails to address the negative effect on the rest of the economy because of the subsidy. The Con then repeats his claim that governments have the 'right' to tax, which, again, is incorrect- governments have the POWER to tax. Governments do not have rights. Only individuals do. And again the Con fails to counter the claim that taxes are a burden on the economy. Regarding banned items, the Con continues to not understand that the ability of government to ban items creates uncertainty. I agreed in round 2 that yes, this banning doesn't happen immediately, but a week or even a month is a very short time, especially if you are a business. Being able to un-ban items creates uncertainty, too. The laws cannot be predicted. Unbanning items is not bad. The fact that they can be banned and unbanned in a short period of time is the problem. The Con then says that it wasn't politicians, but special interests that pushed for alcohol prohibition, ending with "Not all government laws are enacted solely for economic benefit..." Again, he fails to address the negative economic impact of prohibition, instead trying to explain why it happens. It also doesn't matter if it's the people or the politicians who enact government intervention. It's still government intervention. The Con moves on to claim that because interstate highways, schools, and parks can be built through eminent domain, government seizure of property can be a boon to the economy. However, the government could also seize property and build a military base, which doesn't produce anything that makes people's lives better. In addition, unless these highways, schools, and parks are paid for ONLY by those who use them, they represent a burden on the taxpayer who may not benefit from them. And NO, the idea that those who don't use these structures can still benefit because they are served by those who do is a fallacy. The DIRECT costs of using these structures would be reflected in the cost of the goods and services produced because of them. "As for chemical accidents the companies are responsible for the financial damage done, however they are not the ones who immediately come in and provide the funds because any company that has had a spill will argue in court how they were not at fault." Again, it's called insurance. Insurance companies willingly bear the risk of compensating its policy holders in the case of an accident. To put this task on government is to FORCE the taxpayer to bear this risk instead. In conclusion, the Con has failed to rebuff a single one of my arguments that government intervention does more harm than good, instead trying to justify the negative economic effects by claiming "that government acts establish agencies to protect businesses, jobs, and people." However, the basis of Con's arguments are assumptions, all of which I have shown to be inconsistently true if not false altogether. Rather than making an economic justification for government intervention, the Con defers to stating the intended consequences of intervention while ignoring the unintended consequences. While its intentions may be good, government intervention in the economy inevitably leads to reduced competition, less consumer choice, higher prices, greater uncertainty, and wasted resources. The only groups who benefit are the politically well-connected and the government itself.