Entirely unregulated capitalism doesn't work

I will first make my case by refuting my opponents. given the nature of the resolution, this should be more than sufficient. We dislike oligopolies because we assume that more competition is always better. But a 2008 study on how the number of competitors affects competition found the exact opposite. In the study, researchers looked at the results of standardized tests like the SAT in test centers with a varying number of test takers. They found that students scored higher when there were fewer students taking the test with them. Students in massive testing centers with hundreds of fellow test-takers scored lower. The researchers also replicated the results in a controlled setting. Why do you score higher on tests when there are fewer people around? The researchers noted that the "motivation to compete is mediated by social comparison." Competing against a huge group is less motivating than competing with a few individuals because it"s harder to compare yourself to your competition. The study concludes that increased competition, in terms of the number of competitors, actually reduces competition and its benefits. Although this study was done with individuals, it would make sense for it to apply to companies. It will be much more essential to respond to an innovation made by one of your 4 competitors than one of 10,000 competing companies. And in an oligopoly, it will be much easier for executives to compare themselves to their competition. Clarity over which company is number 1, 2, 3, and 4 can fuel the competitive spirit in a way that competing to be a better convenience store - among the tens of thousands that aren"t easily compared - simply cannot. This study suggests that a market being dominated by a handful of companies could actually be good for competition and innovation. If our cell phone service is bad, maybe something other than the small number of providers is to blame. http://www-personal.umich.edu... Minimum wage:Bernie Sanders and those who support a minimum wage are like Watson " they see an increase in the minimum wage, but do not observe the unintended effects of the law. In fact, an increase in the minimum wage harms most those whom the law is supposed to benefit. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a rally in front of the Capitol April 26, 2017 in Washington, DC. Activists and low-wage workers gathered on Capitol Hill to rally for a $15 minimum and rights to form unions. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) Let"s start with an obvious point: No one can stay in business if a worker can only produce $10 an hour of value but the government forces them to pay their workers $15 an hour. A pay raise may sound compassionate, but it is not a sustainable option. Once a minimum wage is passed, the cost of producing goods made by unskilled labor will increase. This in turn means that fewer units can be made and that the price of the good itself will also increase. Because of the increased price, fewer units will be sold " which ultimately results in fewer workers being hired. As the price of labor goes up, producers will have an incentive to use machines to replace labor. In fact, such replacements are already underway: Google "Robot Hamburger" to see what machines are being developed to replace the labor in fast food restaurants. Producers will also have an incentive to eliminate entry-level jobs. Decades ago, many gas stations included "service stations." You drove your car up to a service station and a teenager came out and put gas in your car, washed your windows and checked your oil. At the time, this was the first job many American teens had. They learned basic skills like showing up on time, following instructions and interacting with customers. But these jobs and others like them no longer exist. To lower costs, gas stations have substituted your labor and machines for the labor of the entry-level worker. Nowadays, you put your credit card in a machine and pump your own gas. Increasingly, restaurants and retailers are following these trends: You order at a kiosk and pick up your own food at the counter, or scan and bag your own items. Admittedly, not everyone loses: The executive at the top will in fact keep his job and earn even more. But the entry-level or unskilled worker will lose his job to a machine or to labor that comes from the customer. And the greater the incentive to replace labor with machinery, the more jobs will be lost. Suppose we increased the minimum wage to $300 per hour. Do you really think that most of us would keep our jobs? Of course not " there would be no incentive for employers to retain us. Despite government inspection of food or regulation of pharmaceuticals, for example, food poisonings and Salmonella contamination still happen and drugs with harmful side effects still make it to market. Government-licensed health care providers, day-care operators, and taxi drivers still make mistakes, which negatively impacts their clients and customers. Even if government regulators and inspectors truly care about people"s health and safety (which one would hope they do), they are human: fallible and prone to make mistakes. And as government employees, their incentives to avoid mistakes are limited: if they commit a really grievous error, their jobs may be at risk, but there is no threat of losing business or profits. For business firms (their owners, managers, and other employees), on the other hand, the consequences of harming their customers, employees, or others, are severe. They may lose their business and their freedom, such as Sohel Rana, the owner of the collapsed factory building in Bangladesh, who is in prison awaiting for trial, charged with murder of the over 1,200 workers who died. Or their profits, reputation and brand value may be severely damaged, like Volkswagen"s after it cheated on emission control of its "clean" diesel cars. Or they lose everything and live in mental anguish, imprisoned, for the rest of their lives, such as Bernie Madoff. as we can see, it is capitalism and the free market that helps with safety over government. more capitalism=more safety. My opponent argues that we need quality control. However, capitalism is at its core, competition. if one business makes a low quality product and one company makes a high quality product company B will make more money. it's when government steps in and imposes certain regulations that lazy companies that cut corners get to survive. Again we see that government regulations are largely ineffective compared to the driving forces of a capitalist market economy, the consumer. As my opponent states, capitalism regulates itself through consumers and market forces without the help of the government's excess bureaucracy.