Government intervention in the economy does more harm than good

1) regulations Government regulations have been shown to increase consumer safety, it isnt a pretense the government acts under it has been proven to increase consumer safety. Regulations such as these do cost businesses more money because now they are forced to spend more on the same product to sell to people, but companies always work around this by simply raising the costs of goods in order to make a profit. Also the regulations dont often add significantly to the cost of the product being regulated in the first place. In car industries for example the cost of putting an airbag in the steering wheel might cost only a couple hundred dollars for a car that could easily cost thousands. Such regulations may spur entirely new businesses completely. When the government back in the 1800's to 1900's regulated coal mining one regulation was the installation of proper ventilation for the workers, of course coal mining companies dont know a thing about air conditioning so they would have to hire a company that does to install the safety standards. So even if one industry is regulated the costs may only be a fraction of the final product and the regulations themselves may encourage other industries to sprout in order to help meet those regulations. 2) business licensing These regulations deter the formation of evil companies that would try to sacrifice consumer safety for their own profit. Legit companies that know how to make a good profit while complying with the standards would have no problem with licensing at all. Such licenses are also used to see if the business is engaged in shady or illegal trading practices or not, whether it is even active or not, how many people they employ to see if they qualify for tax write-offs or not, how many new people they hired, etc. these licenses only discourage shady companies from entering the market. 3) uncertainty The two examples you used are the two examples that havent even been enacted yet. If you look back in history to any other remotely similar regulations then by observing how the market responds afterward can give you a good idea of what will happen in the future. Obamacare meanwhile is in an entirely different field of regulations but there have been many other laws that regulated fields of business that had a positive effect. One example is the law that created National Parks to prevent certain areas from being exploited by people or businesses. It was revolutionary at the time and today we can see these parks as sanctuaries for animals which on their own generate thousands, even millions, from tourism. 4) minimum wage It is debateable whether or not minimum wage serves a purpose today (I think it does) however the debate is whether or not government intervention is beneficial or not, and it can be argued that the minimum wage can be beneficial to the market under certain conditions http://www.amosweb.com... 5) Interest rates are used by the governments monetary policy, which uses interest rates to try to fight against any trends in inflation and unemployment. Lowering such rates may give the economy a short term boost by encouraging economic activity without directly causing inflation, the interest rate can also be adjusted against inflation so that the buying power of a dollar is not diminished. Those giving out the loan can adjust interest rates so that if the loan fails the lender does not suffer a complete loss. interest rates can be used to cause all of these to happen (in rare cases all at the same time) and thus it is a good tool for a healthy economy. 6) subsidization During the Great Depression the government subsidized farming products grown in the Midwest to prevent farmers from losing their jobs (although many still did). But the subsidy today is still used to provide protection to vital industries (like agriculture) to make sure under hard times the entire sector does not go belly up. Sometimes these goods are purchased by the government to then distribute overseas as foreign aid. Subsidies literally exist to prevent the decline of businesses which goes directly against the Pro's theory that they do more harm than good to the market. 7) property seizure The government holds the right to collect taxes, what they spend it on is up to their discretion. 8) banning stuff The Pro seems to have forgotten that such government bans can be reversed, thats what happened in the biggest case of the government banning a product in history, Prohibition. That was eventually repealed though which shows that there is never certainty that something that is banned will eventually be overturned. Also any ban on any item must first go through the House, the Senate, and then the President, and then may be challenged in the Supreme Court, so the Pro may think that anything could be banned at any time, but the truth is it cannot. as for the development of owned property, I find it reasonable to see why the government would stop someone from building a house or a factory in an area home to an endangered species (ever see the movie Hoot?) http://en.wikipedia.org...(film) 9) seizure of property The concept of Eminent Domain provides for monetary compensation to people for the government to build highways, railroads, etc. on lands already owned by people, and these developments can do a great deal of good for the economy through job creation. Sometimes the land seizures are justified, if say a company that operates through shady practices causes a chemical spill in a town that causes it to be uninhabitable because the spill caused something that now posed a great risk to the health of those living there, then those people cant just sell their homes and get out. The government though can quickly offer monetary compensation and allow people to get out before any harm is done to them because of the mistake from the shady business... These government interventions can be shown to do good for the economy because these laws help fight poverty, protects consumers, mandates that businesses compete fairly and dont gain an edge by trying to exploit workers or safety of the product they are selling. The uncertainty the Pro claims exists only exists on a far smaller scale then what he implies, and the government uses these measures to protect both businesses and consumers without putting a huge cap limit on how much money corporations can make...