Government should intervene to right the economic wrongs of capitalism.

For the sake of clarity, I must point out a misconception that may form the in minds of voters. I am not here to support 'bailouts'. I do not endorse the government bailouts of car companies, and I am not here to defend them. I don't have to defend every single government intervention that has ever taken place. Regarding Monopoly: 1. ) A monopoly "exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. " (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). 2. ) Once it has been determined that a monopoly exists, the company should be broken down into a number of smaller companies capable of actively competing with one another. Each company should be independent. Ideally, the sub-companies should be equal, but this is not absolutly necessary. However, the companies should still be equal enough to compete effectively. 3. ) Assests (and possibly debts) should be divided propotionally between the sub companies. Of course, a certain degree of practicality should be taken into account. The important thing is that the companies be able to compete on a fairly equal level. Regarding Recession: My opponents assertion that "market failures are not as harmful to the economy as 'government failure'. " is highly unclear. This is dependent upon the situation and facts at hand. Moreover, the government is not necessarily destined to fail. My opponents then says "Recession is a natural part of the business cycle. " I never said that it isn't. Additionally, simply because recessions are natural does not mean that they are not highly damaging or detrimental. They cause high unemployment rates (as well as loss of income), death of business's that would not have died otherwise, and if they are severe enough, a general loss of lifestyle conditions. Recessions are not necessary to change or adapt the structure of the market either. Plenty of new business's and markets can open up in times of prosperity as well. He states "Often times, government intervention tips a market so that it recedes, through inflation, deflation, regulation, changed taxation, changed minimum wage or other problems. " This statement is not supported by the sources that he cited here. One source (. http://www.wisegeek.com...) said nothing. The other said that government must carefully watch the balance of inflation, money supply, etc. , and sometimes that balance tips. The article doesn't say that government tips the balance. Even so, many possible government "tips" may occur because of necessary reasons, such as increased taxes (to support a war effort) or a cut in spending (to balance the budget). My opponent finally says that recessions will always right themselves. This is true. However, it may often take an exceedingly long time. Government intervention can help shorten recessions, and in the long run, the hardships sustained are not worth the wait. Also, we have not had a major depression since WWII (depressions occured much more frequently before it). What has changed? The level of government intervention (. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com...). My opponent cites Thomas Sowell. I must point out that Thomas Sowell's opinion on the depression is a minority opinion (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) My opponent claims that tax cuts are not gov't intervention. I define intervention as 'to involve ones self in'. When the gov't cuts taxes, it involves itself in the state of the nation's economic health, thus intervening in the economy. My opponent attacks spending. He says that spending money that has been taxed is pointless (zero sum). However, prior to taxation, that money would've been rotting away in people's savings accounts. When the government spends the money, it puts it to some use. Additionally, stimulus money can be borrowed. The deficeits created during a recession can be fixed in times of prosperity. My opponent says that giving people money does not mean that they will spend it. Even if someone uses stimulus to pay debt, that is beneficial, as it encourages future spending (their debt it gone). Moreover, People's spending depends on their income, or their perceived income. If people seem to be getting more money, there is more chance they will spend it. What else is money for but to be spent? Money itself is not wealth, it is a means of attaining wealth. My opponent is also critical of building unncessary infrastructure. I would like to point out that there is plenty of 'necessary infrastructure' to be built first. There are tons of crumbling roads, sewage systems, and public buildings across the country. Additionally, government can create work without "crowding out" business. Gov't can provide subsidies to business's to hire extra workers for the duration of the recession. This gives people work and allows business's to increase productivity. Also, unnecessary infrastructure doesn't have to hurt private enterprise. We can hire people to install fluorescent lightbulbs in government building (of course, one could argue that that's not 'unncessecary'). Spending gives people jobs, gives people cash to spend, and helps business's get back on their feet, as well as allowing us to make much needed renovations and infrastructure repairs. Regarding Inequality of Opportunity: In order to give people of a weaker socioeconomic status a better chance to succeed from a lower starting position, government should make investments in social programs designed to give poorer people the skills to succeed. Heavy investments in education, and help with college tuition, as well as aid with housing and development allow poorer people to focus more on acquiring a steady job and making business investments, rather than having to live from paycheck to paycheck. My opponents point that those who put in the most get the most benefit is not valid without such programs. If I am born to an alcoholic in an inner-city district with very poor schools, I will have to work significantly harder to reach a wealthy status than someone born to an upper-middle class family attending a quality private school. Other: My opponent seems to be under the misconception that money is wealth. Money is not wealth (. http://www.yesmagazine.org...). If the government takes money out of society, it has technically taken no wealth from society. Additionally, the money taken from society will be used in some way for the benefit of society. The government would not mine coal for fun. It could sell the coal to someone else and make a profit. Moreover, my opponent has not addressed my example of defense contracting, which is one of his 'voluntary transactions'. And government contracts don't just stop at defense. The government can pay people to build its building, sculptures, and roads. All voluntary transactions. My opponents argument is pretty much ground in the idea that taxes can only hurt society. Well, I'd like to point out that the purpose of taxes is to allow government to do something useful for society. My opponent thinks that just because recessions end, it's okay to sit through them sitting on our hands, watching people get laid off. Just because recessions aren't infinite doesn't mean that the market is good at ending them. My opponent seems to think that we'd be better off if banks weren't insured. If banks weren't insured, the current crisis would probaly be a Depression. I would like to point out that banks would take plenty of risks even without gov't insurance, as they did before the Great Depression. For the sake of space, I must stop here. Some of argument in this rebuttal may have been a little disorganized or long-winded. I apologize, as I'm short on time. Thank you.