Government intervention in the economy does more harm than good

I thank the Con for engaging in this debate. The Con's first point is that "government regulations have been shown to increase consumer safety, it isnt [sic] a pretense the government acts under it has been proven to increase consumer safety." However, the Con offers no sources for 'proof,' and I can think of a good example of how this is absolutely not true. Despite USDA regulations regarding food safety, several widespread food-borne illness outbreaks have occurred in the recent past, leading to several deaths: Listeria in cantaloupes: http://1.usa.gov... Salmonella in alfalfa sprouts: http://1.usa.gov... E. coli in spinach: http://1.usa.gov... While I cannot prove that these outbreaks wouldn't have happened without the USDA, the Con cannot prove that more outbreaks would occur without it. The Con then states that "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." The Con thus confirms my point that regulations lead to higher prices for the consumer. The Con continues, stating that "such regulations may spur entirely new businesses completely." This is a variation of the broken window fallacy, which states that when someone breaks a shop's window, they spur the glass-making industry, which helps the economy. In reality, the money used to pay the glass-maker COULD have been used to buy something else that the shopkeeper wanted, or to make his business better, or the savings from NOT having to fix the window could be transferred to the consumer as lower prices. http://en.wikipedia.org... The Con continues to the topic of licensing: "These regulations deter the formation of evil companies that would try to sacrifice consumer safety for their own profit." It is not licensing or even industry regulations that deter companies from sacrificing consumer safety, but already existing product liability and fraud laws. If a company is liable for damages to someone, they can be sued. The Con then describes licenses as some kind of auditing mechanism for governments to 'check in' on businesses. The Con will have to elaborate on what is meant by this, as the description doesn't describe licenses the way I understand them. The Con finishes with "these licenses only discourage shady companies from entering the market." Licenses discourage ALL new businesses from forming, especially those with very little money to start out with. Requiring a license to operate a business serves two purposes: to transfer money to the government through fees and required services, and to protect existing businesses from new competitors. The Con goes on to discuss uncertainty: "The two examples you used are the two examples that havent [sic] even been enacted yet." This is precisely why they create uncertainty: businesses don't know what the new rules will be and cannot predict the cost of complying with them. The Con suggests I look to history to find how similar regulations have positively affected the market, but the burden of proof lies on the Con. The Con mentions National Parks as a successful set of regulations that protect natural resources from exploitation and generate revenue for the government. While I would classify this as a property control instead of regulation, the idea that companies would 'exploit' these resources given the chance is unfounded. Property owners have a vested interest in keeping the value of their land, and wouldn't 'destroy' the resources on it. In addition, if the parks are so profitable as nature reserves, a private company could do the same thing with the land if the government sold it to them. However, if they are not profitable, the government can make consumers involuntarily cover the losses, while a private company could not. Turning to minimum wage, the Con cites (but doesn't summarize) an article that makes the case that where there is a sole employer, there is no competition for jobs in an certain industry, and so the company can pay workers less then 'fair' wages. Disregarding the idea of a 'fair' wage and who has the knowledge to make that decision, without a minimum wage in place, the low cost of labor would encourage other businesses to start up competitors to the 'monopsony.' In addition, no one is forcing workers to work for that industry. Low labor wages send a signal to workers; there is a surplus of labor in this industry, and they would be more profitable in a different industry. With less workers available to the 'monopsony,' wages would rise because of decreased supply. On the topic of interest rates, the Con states that reducing rates "may give the economy a short term boost by encouraging economic activity without directly causing inflation," but "can also be adjusted against inflation so that the buying power of a dollar is not diminished." You cannot simultaneously inflate and deflate. Either rates go down, the money supply is inflated and prices go up, or vice versa. In addition, this theory doesn't always work in practice. Loan rates are basically as low as they could be, and the economy is still struggling. However, the low interest rates of late are causing quite a bit of inflation (not according to the government, of course, since they don't take food and energy prices into account when calculating inflation), and when you get <1% interest on your savings account, you basically lose money when you keep it in a bank, since when you use it later it will buy you less. By setting rates artificially low, the government protects borrowers (specifically the government) at the expense of savers. The Con then talks about adjusting interest rates to protect lenders. I don't see the logic here. When a borrower defaults, the lender can go after the borrower's assets to make up losses. Only if the borrower's assets can't cover the loan does the bank lose out. Higher default risks are given higher interest rates to reflect the risk of losses to the bank. Interest rates have little to do with asset values. Turning to subsidies, the Con asserts that farm subsidies during the depression prevented farmers from going out of business. Yes, these subsidies may have protected farmers, but at the expense of everyone else. If people aren't buying the farmer's products, they should change the produce they grow, or go out of business and enter a different industry. Protecting certain industries from job loss negatively affects all other industries, and cannot be considered a net plus for the economy. The Con then asserts that governments have a right to collect taxes and spend them how they wish. First, a government doesn't have 'rights,' since it is not an individual. Second, saying "it's the law, so you're wrong" is not an argument. Taxes transfer wealth from the people to the government, who inherently waste it on unproductive endeavors. Speaking of prohibition, the Con cites alcohol prohibition as an example of how prohibition isn't always permanent, revealing how these constantly changing laws create FURTHER uncertainty in the future. The Con doesn't argue about how prohibition or protecting endangered species benefits the economy. The Con then talks about how forcing people to sell their property so that the government can build things benefits the economy. This assumes that whatever the government uses the land for will be productive. The Con also states that the government can protect people from a dangerous spill by forcing them to relocate. If something like a dangerous spill occurs, the company responsible should be liable for damages to property, plus the costs of relocating. Insurance would provide the funds immediately while settlements are negotiated. The Con asserts that "government interventions can be shown to do good for the economy" but fails to do so.