Government should intervene to right the economic wrongs of capitalism.

I've find it to be highly interesting. I think I got a little too specific in my last rebuttal. I'm going to try and be more general here (I ran out of characters on my last rebuttal). Monopoly: My opponent's attack on government intervention against monopolies is based on the idea that it is too difficult to decide when a monopoly is officially a monopoly. He says that "We cannot have a subjective government. " We can rest assured that before the government splits up a monopoly, there will be plenty of public trials to decide that there is in fact a monopoly. All involved parties, including those affected negatively and positively by the monopoly, are going to have a say in whether the monopoly in question is hurting the market. Resources will be distributed equally among child companies. My opponent also says that "people will be less likely to effectively compete and more likely to do otherwise when they realize that government will divide up their property the moment they succeed. " This statement merely underscores a fundamental flaw of capitalism. If people don't compete, necessary market niches are not filled. If people do compete, we run into monopolies. The free market has no way of fixing this problem. Recession: My opponent has has shifted his attack away from infrastructure and has redirected it more towards spending in general. He really has not refuted my point that there is plenty of necessary infrastructure that needs fixing. My opponent's attack against spending is grounded in the idea that all government spending is "zero-sum", that if we tax and then spend, we have only put the money back where it was. However, the money used for government spending does not necessarily come taxes. The government has the ability to borrow money. The money that has been borrowed can be steadily payed back in times of prosperity, when taxes do not have as negative of an impact on the economy. Moreover, the important thing about money isn't just where it is, but what its doing. When money is sitting in a savings account, it is little of value. When the money raised from taxes is spent, it is put to better use than when the money is simply being saved. My opponent continues to claim that tax cuts are not a form of gov't involvement. When the gov't cuts taxes, it involves itself with the economic health of the nation. Another of my opponent's major points is that people will not spend money if they have more money. However, how much people spend is highly dependent on people's incomes and their idea of how well the economy will do. When the government increases peoples incomes and makes people think that things will get better (gives them a placebo, if you will), people will go out and spend more, and things actually will get better. The government can improve the Marginal Propensity to Consume, and in the process, increase the effect of its spending multipliers (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). My opponents attacks my statement that "Money itself is not wealth, it is a means of attaining wealth. " Even classical economists, who subscribe to Say's Law (. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Law) will agree that money itself is not wealth. When my definition refers to things of exchange value, it does not refer to money. Money is a medium of exchange, not something of exchange value. My opponent also continues to argue that the free-market will save everyone in the long-term. It will, if you're willing to lose your job, your house, your income, and sacrifice your lifestyle. Sometimes, we cannot afford to wait for the long-run scheme of things. I would like to point out that the great depression was ended by WWII, which was pretty much MASSIVE government spending (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Inequality: My opponent's attacks against my points on inequality are grounded in two ideas: Money spent on inner-city social programs must come from inner-city residents and Money spent by the government will ultimately be misused. My opponent's point that funding for inner-city programs must come from inner-city residents is based on the assumption that we are referring exclusively to the U. S. . He says "I remind my opponent that public schooling is a local function. " This is true--in the United States, which uses a federal system. Therefore, since we are not referring exclusively to the U. S. , the point is irrelevant. Even if we are to remain within the constraints of the U. S. , I must point out that not all residents of one city district will be poor. There will be those within a city with the ability to pay a reasonable share of taxes. The assertion that money will always be misused is unreasonable and unsourced. My opponent seems to be heavily influenced by the preconceived notion that government is always doomed to fail. Why should government fail any more frequently than business? Other: The value of currency today is relative, it not is it fixed. We can change it's relative value by changing the amount of money in the monetary system, but there is no lasting exact or fixed value of money. My opponent continues to make the "crowding out" argument, that gov't will crowd out private business. As I have said before, government is capable of working with private business. My opponent claims that his is still negative because someone else will have the pay the price. As I have said before, the important thing regarding money isn't just where it is, but also what it's doing. The money derived from taxes may very well be coming out of a savings account where it was doing nothing. Additionally, business's crowd each other out as well. When one business creates wealth, it usually does so at the expense of another business. This is also "crowding out". Even when banks aren't insured, they will make plenty of risky decisions. There were several instances of risky bank failure prior to the federal insuring of banks, such as the panic of 1907 and the great depression. Government insurance has saved the U. S. much pain and suffering in today's recession. In conclusion, we cannot trust the free market to help itself. There are many fundamental flaw that the free market cannot solve by itself, and it is the duty of government to fix these flaws.