Free Market Capitalism (Pro) vs Mixed Economy(Con)

In my opponent"s arguments, he/she states that a Free market capitalism is more chaotic and that it would essentially devolve into anarchy. However, this is quite far from the truth, there is a clear correlation between a nation"s economic freedoms and the nations HDI. A free market capitalist society is not anarchy and is applicable to the real world. "The Swiss Confederation is one of the most economically free nation (#4). It has a peaceful society with a low crime rate and little if any pollution and has an HDI rank of 2. My opponent bring up the fact that there are dishonest businesses in our history and I don't dispute this fact. However, this is not a condemnation of free market capitalism. There were times when the corporations were corrupt and would bribe government officials to pass certain laws in their advantage. If you are however, to examine this time in history, all these unacceptable business practices were not done in the absence of government. The United Fruit Company committed atrocities throughout their history. They were supported by the American government. The United Fruit Company finally experienced the greatest amounts of reform not because of governmental regulations but because of the public outrage. Businesses aren't a force of good or evil. They are motivated by profit and the sad truth is that every single instance of their atrocities was due to the support and encouragement by governments. The East India Company terrorized the Indian subcontinent and ruled it with an iron fist through the backing of the British government. The state can"t be trusted to uphold morality and therefore should not be trusted to legislate their brand of morality on businesses. My opponent has flat out ignored my points on the social, economic, political consequences on the regulation on "unhealthy" products. He has not addressed on what constitutes healthy vs unhealthy products. He has not addressed on the fact that affordability of goods leads to increased spending which eventually leads to an increased amount of jobs which pull people out of poverty. Ironically enough, my own opponent debunks the overall premise of his argument: "There are people trying to help this problem and that"s why we have donations and organizations.". My opponent has just admitted that there are organizations and people that are willing to help the poor. Free Market Capitalism is not against charity by individuals and organizations. There is no need for government to legislate the market to attempt to help (and often fail at) the poor. A grand example of failed governmental policies include the war on poverty. This war on poverty was started on January 8, 1964. The war has cost the USA an estimated cost of $22 trillion dollars. The result of this grand expedition"..an increased crime rate and an increase in children born out of wedlock. I personally believe that charities can replace the welfare state and I quote youraverageunicorn: "There are people trying to help this problem". My opponent then bring up one of the most popular myths about free market capitalism. The truth is that the absence of government regulation was NOT what caused the 2008 recession. Yes, it was the result of poor financial investment which caused the housing bubble to pop. However, if this is the fault of market forces then, why don't we see constant recessions and no recoveries in our economies? The cause of the 2008 recession can be traced back to the Glass Steagall Act which allowed the government to bail out businesses in case they made a poor financial decision. This Act was a product of a mixed economy. The problem is that it allowed businesses to not worry about taking unnecessary risks. They knew that the government could easily bail them out if they fail. The government simply don"t have enough money however, to prop up all these businesses if they fail. The 2008 recession was a result of too many businesses taking advantage of the bailouts. The free market did not cause this recession but governmental legislation in our mixed economy. My opponent once again tries to link the free market with pollution. Yes, free market capitalist countries do release a certain amount of pollution. However, correlation does not mean causation. All nations release pollutants regardless of their economic policies. Name me one developed country without any pollution in their environment. Also, just because the government issues stricter environmental laws doesn"t mean that it will curb pollution. China, Russia, India and the USA has a relatively large governmental presence in their economies. These four countries also contribute the most pollution in our air and water. If there is a direct causation between pollution and governmental control over the economy then, Switzerland would be a barren wasteland and China would be an environmental utopia. It isn"t about Capitalism but energy usage and more capitalist nations have a higher standard of life which includes the access to electricity. As long as there is electricity in a developed nation, they will always create large amounts of pollutants. Correlation doesn't equate causation. My opponent then makes the claim that it is extremely difficult for the average city to influence corporate policies but the same could be said for political process as well. Each individual vote in an election is theoretically meaningless however, if there is enough support then it will always result in a change of some kind. Influencing the government and corporations are hard to do but they are not impossible. There are methods that can solve our broken system. As evidenced in my points involving imperialism, colonization, economic recessions: Government is the problem, not the solution.