America should become a Social Democracy

So, my opponent has claimed little regulation will lead to the exploitation of the weak – but admits it will increase personal autonomy and private property. So, the question is either which rights are more important or if such discrimination occurs at all. However, my opponent is assuming in my idea of economic utopia that there is no regulation, to the contrary there some rules Government regulation distorts the free market destroying a business by making it uncompetitive. This regulation is self-regulation. The market corrects for errors speeding up innovation which would otherwise be stifled by regulations. In a free market, the consumer can also hold the producer accountable. You see, the incentive in anything is money (which social-democracy will lessen making any economic strides harder). If the consumer stops buying products from company A, because A’s products have lead, and use company B which uses safer alternatives, A will go out of business. Or, A will change its methods so it can compete with B, and the competition will then lower prices. Under my opponents system: inefficient regulations that distort free markets slowing growth. Murray Rothbard writes about the free market, “[t]he free competitive market also rewards and stimulates technological innovation that allows the innovator to get a head start in satisfying consumer wants in new and creative ways. ” Regulations, like my opponent proposes, will hinder any innovation by making it harder to reap these incentives. Rothbard also notes, “[b]ut the critics fail to realize that in a free-market system, every person has a property right over his own person and his own labor and can make free contracts for those services. ”[1] My opponent claimed slavery will be caused by a free market, but a true free market means all workers have the right to opt out of contracts preventing slavery. And, again, if company A uses slaves consumers will probably use B, so if in the small chance it does occur self-regulation will force slavery to become abolished. No, Canada is not more socially-democratic, in economics (they are on social issues). But as stated, they have a much freer market than the US. The Heritage Foundation reiterates, “Canada has, in the last two years, surpassed the United States to become the freest country in North America. Through moves such as downsizing government and cutting its corporate tax rate, Canada has restored economic dynamism and reduced unemployment. ”[2] So, saying Canada is well off proves my point. Canada went more towards traditional America, not democracy, and is extremely well off because of it. First, America has a similar system: the ER must treat anyone and everyone who walks in for free if they have no insurance. Medicaid is provided to the poor, and Medicare provided to the rich. America is still considered a “medium” welfare state. And, as stated, New Zealand has the most Conservative regulation policies in it’s region and has low corporate tax rates. This is not a social democracy. It depends on how you define “small” cuts to welfare. If, say hypothetically, you are spending 100 billion on welfare and you cut 1 billion, that could be described as small but by very large economically. On an economic scale, it doesn’t take much to distort/mend the market. Which is why small changes in policy cause changes in the stock market. The actual cut? 24 billion dollars in spending [3]. Was all of that in welfare? No, but spending plays a large role in the market, austerity is not a social democratic idea. Also, Denmark has implemented many tax cuts since 2001 when the conservatives took power (how come it takes 20 years for social-democrats to push massive reforms, and conservatives just a few years? ) Denmark outranks us also in business freedom. Again, not much of a social democracy. First, many social-democratic policies have been keeping social mobility ratings down. Having the highest corporate tax rate, the most complex tax code, and some of the most red tape in the world are examples. So, really, you’re saying add more of the problem and fix it. Also, I would not consider Canada more socialist than the US (at least not anymore). Switzerland is very free market. “[the Swiss’] economy the 5th freest in the 2013 Index. … Switzerland has created a vibrant entrepreneurial environment. .. Foreign investment is welcome, and investors benefit from access to adequate sources of credit in the competitive financial sector. ”[4] Since one of the freest, most libertarian, economies ranks in the top 10, I would say capitalism does not cause unhappiness, as my opponent claims. Also, Canada is more capitalistic than us currently. Therefore, happiness seems uncorrelated with capitalism. Also, my opponent keeps saying “look: people beat the US! ” Yes, they do. But due to the fact very free-market economies rank before the US and other socialist countries, this only disproves my opponents point: this only shows free-markets have the capability to outperform their socialist counterparts and social-democratic systems fail to ensure happiness. It just proves no correlation! Actually, in the time period my opponent cites, the Swedes still held many free market views and were in a time of peace. Their socialist changes were not really engaged until the 60s (seems social-democrats take years before they pass major legislation. ) Spectators note “The payroll-tax increases, along with increasing wage demands from unions, made Swedish businesses highly uncompetitive on the global markets. ” Socialist monetary manipulation caused a bubble. The government did not look at interest rates, though, so all they did was throw on regulations. Then, their interest rate manipulation collapsed, a depression occurred, they bailed out the banks, causing a depression not seen since the great depression. As we can see, social-democrat policies of interest manipulation and regulation has led to their demise, really making me wonder why we want this here [5]. Sweden’s income has not been increasing. As I argued, my opponents point is a fallacy. The rich are getting richer, and so are the poor. Both are getting better in America, just one is going faster. As stated, CATO studies have found Sweden’s income has pretty much flat lined. Therefore, in America both are technically better off, whereas in Sweden no growth is taking place. The American system is doing much better. And my opponents statistics are true! But that does not mean it is getting worse. If the rich get 10% richer, and the rest 5% richer. Both are better off—but the rich have a larger share of income. Unlike in Sweden, where they are having no growth. So I again point out the fallacy in my opponents reasoning. My opponent merely plays an appeal to authority on Krugman. But…German Economist Antony Mueller writes, “The current financial crisis is not of a cyclical nature. .. expansive monetary policy has gone hand in hand with implicit and explicit bailout guarantees, and this has distorted the process of capital allocation. Under such perverted conditions, those investors will win most who cast away the restraints of prudence. It is a game that can go on for a long time — up to the point when the irrationality has become systemic. ”[6] Summary: 1. I have shown social democracy does preserve some freedom, but even my opponent admitted capitalism holds better benefits and liberties in areas of property. I also refuted the capitalist myth that capitalism takes away rights. \ 2. My opponent has not once proven limiting inequality is good; only that Sweden limits equality. My opponent really has not proven one aspect of social democracy was good, only that those policies exist. I, to the contrary, have cited the best data on the subject undermining the effectiveness of my opponents position. 3. I have shown 3 of the 10 countries on the list are more capitalist than the US, and 4 of the happiest are capitalistic proving more of a no-correlation.