Free Market Capitalism (Pro) vs Mixed Economy(Con)

The problem with allowing the government is that in the economy is that most services can either have quality, affordability, or universality. In the economy, you can only choose two of these three traits. If quality is prioritized than prices will go up which will either result in a reduction of universality or affordability. The Affordable Care Act is a result of a mixed governmental planning and private enterprise. We see that market forces are simply incompatible with governmental planning. We see an increase in universality but a massive decrease in affordability and quality. Since it demands universality, it becomes more affordable for lower classes but becomes unaffordable for the middle and upper classes. This results in less revenue going into our healthcare system. (Majority of people in America are middle class) This in turn decreases pay and discourages people to pursue the long and expensive education and training to become doctors. As this happens, it results in higher prices which will eventually be raised on the lower classes. At the end, these mixed economic policies often hurt the ones they wish to help. These problems however, are not present in free market economies. Since it allows businesses to compete with each other, it will result in an overall price reduction and increase in quality. Competition has led to almost every single improvement in society. Pensions, employer provided health care and the concept of retirement was created by private businesses to attract more workers. Phones, electricity, automobiles and the internet were created by the private sector NOT by the government. My opponent argues that free market capitalism enables unsafe products which can hurt customer"s well being. I have a simple response to this predicament that unicorn here has presented. How can a mixed economy prevent this? Who will be chosen to determine what is considered "unsafe"? What will be the guidelines to decide what is unsafe? Should the government shutdown fast food restaurants? Should the government make all inorganic foods illegal? While Mcdonalds is unhealthy, it is often the most convenient and affordable for the poor. In our crusade to ensure better health for the poor, are we willing to starve them? There is a reason why minimum wage workers are not shopping at Whole Foods. I believe that making the poor more healthy is a good thing but, at what expense? The Free Market response is that eventually, that all successful businesses will grow and prosper. This will result in either an increase in job opportunities or an increase in wages. Eventually more poor people will get richer and will no longer rely on low quality products and services. Albeit it is not immediate but it does work. It is worth noting that the most capitalist countries in the world also have the greatest income mobility. Examples include Chile vs the rest of South America. Also to claim that Free Market Capitalism encourages pollution is borderline absurd. We see many companies that adopt green energy policies regardless of governmental legislation. If the customers cares about green environmental policies then, it is in the company"s best interest to adopt green energy policies in order to attract more customers. The problem with government forcing legislation on businesses is that it results a decrease in profit. The sad truth is that most businesses that the government targets with these policies employ mostly lower class workers. These policies have resulted in a decrease in job employment options for the lower class which hurts the people that you wish to help the most. The Paris Climate Agreement cost the USA billions of dollars and countless amounts of jobs. Free Market Capitalism is the best solution.