Government Intervention in an Economy

Deregulation and regulaiton1. a free market self regulates: Self-regulation can arise as a result of market forces; however, the failure of such a system to arise does not mean there has been a "market failure." Government-driven self-regulation for innovative industries is not desirable, for it mimics many of the costs of command and control regulation without constitutional or other safeguards. [1] (directly from source) So in free markets they regulate themselves. Is deregulation the answer? In earlier research, Mr. Winston, an economist at the Brookings Institution, measured savings from the deregulation of the airline industry. A combination of more efficient 'hub and spoke' route structures and more flexible pricing, he argued, saved the public some $8 billion annually. [2] also exaclty as said in the source. So deregulaiton of this buissness would save 8 billion dollars. This is from a liberal source. " regulation is needed" You say there it smart regulaiton, false this doesn't exist: Government is not productive. It is not creative. It does not bring blessings. Government spending drains resources from society, taking from those in whose hands it has the highest value and putting into the hands of people who serve the state. Regulation forestalls choice. Taxation loots from people the reward of work and productive endeavor. [1] so directly from my 1st source. Trains and trucks, sometime rivals in the freight business, suffered from very different regulatory maladies. [2] They hurt indistry they do not help it. Also I have proven the free market regulates itself. Self regulation creates a level playing feild. self regulaiton creates quality. You also say false advertizing, but the funny thing is who cares people should mistake it isn't mr cleans fault you bought his product, it is you. You are arguing a nanny state which is bad. basically you say regulation is needed, we agree, but you claim goverment regulation not self: In the absence of regulatory institutions, people would demand safer products and better working conditions, without the state. And, businesses do what is demanded in a free market, private review organizations will pop up to rate various businesses on health issues and the like. Regulatory agencies are not necessary for regulation, because markets regulate themselves. "Now, after much of the stimulus has taken place, job growth is about 125,000 roughly. " You say it worked, no it didn't it said it would make unemployment under 8%, it is 8.5% now. and underemployment is really high. Also lets look directly after the bill: Conservatives have correctly declared President Obama’s $787 billion “stimulus” a flop. In a January report, White House economists predicted the bill would create (not merely save) 3.3 million jobs. Since then, 2.8 million jobs have been lost, pushing unemployment toward 10 percent. [3] directly from 3rd source. You say it worked, bt its been 2 years. Right after its pasage it didn't work. Understanding why the stimulus failed is an important step in understanding how the government can—and cannot—goose economic recovery. [4] also word for word. So this relates to this debate as a whole and the stimulus, it says the goverment can't fix it, the stimulus also proved this. "Okay, before you stick catch names to someting and call it that, read up on the facts. This is not Socialism." Yes but socialism = a lot of goverment control, so therefore it is safe to say your policies that you recomend are socialistic. Not socialist but it is a step towards it. So it is a valid argument. "I am supporting government intervention in an economy. This doesn't mean I support all government intervention." In the remainder of the paragraph you say things that come with the mixed economy by definition but don't support it. Most of thsubsidies you mentioned are in place (or are trying to come in place) from people that advocate what you are saying. So eing against it means you are pretty well away from the establishment mixeeconomic politicians. "The years 1937-1939 were not as bad as 1932, because the former was a recession due to the money supply. The source shows you a graph of GDP that PROVES that the recession was not as bad" My source also disproves the new deal. Also can you read graphs? BEFORE the new deal GDP was IMPROVING, so the new deal happened after the improvement got better. SO th ene deal had little to do with the GDP. The source also disroves everything you have said, let me add on to this: The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. [5] Per capita consumption did not recover at all, remaining 25% below its trend level throughout the New Deal, and per-capita nonresidential investment averaged about 60% below trend. The Great Depression clearly continued long after FDR took office. [5] all from the source. "A Public H. Care Option would save billions for consumers, and would create revenue for the gov't, and would introduce more competition in the health care sector." False: The first, and by far the largest excess cost, is due to the current overuse of medical resources by patients. Overuse is the rational response of consumers who do not have to pay the entire cost of the medical services they use. The causes of those excess costs are Medicaid, Medicare [6] basically saying those 2 goverment insurance plans have raised cost. if they raised cost how would a National H. system lower costs? Debt from a National healthcare system: Lets use obama care as an example: The health care law includes an estimated $105 billion in mandatory spending [7] Lets look at another guess: the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion. [8] So how would a national healthcare system save money if a semi-national system like obama care costs money? It wouldn't. Cap and trade raises costs: Mr. Obama's biggest proposed tax increase is the cap-and-trade system of requiring businesses to buy carbon dioxide emission permits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed permit auctions would raise about $80 billion a year and that these extra taxes would be passed along in higher prices to consumers [9] c/p from 9 How does raising cost and taxes help the economy, now let's proce higher taxes worse economy: Raising taxes ALWAYS hurts the economy [10] 1. A tax increase leaves customers with less money to spend. 2. A tax increase forces companies to scale back or cancel planned expansions. 3. A tax increase starves successful companies of cash needed to fund growth. 4. A tax increase causes pessimism to increase. [10] c/p from 10. ==conclusion== I have proved my case, he has ignored much of mine. I have refuted hsi case proven self regulation works , and goverment reglation is bad. Proved self regulaiton actually happens so there is no need for goverment nanny state policy. I urge you to vote con. I have fufilled my BOP. sources: http://www.cato.org... [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2]http://www.nationalreview.com...= [3]http://biggovernment.com... [4]http://online.wsj.com... [5]http://www.cato.org... [6]http://www.foxnews.com... [7]http://www.weeklystandard.com... [8]http://online.wsj.com... [9]http://www.redstate.com... [10]