America should become a Social Democracy

C1: FreedomWhat is interesting is that my opponent assumes social democracies (again, socialists) would be against slavery. But since the free market promotes autonomy, slavery is one of the greatest injustices according to most libertarian theorists [1]. My opponent makes the assumption that we need social-democracy to ensure freedom, but free-market thinkers have very similar views when it comes to the issue of slavery and personal rights. If libertarianism can accomplish the same goals as social democracy, why should we adopt policies that are not beneficial to an economy? If anything, libertarians and conservatives could offer more freedom because they hold the same views of self-ownership and economic freedom -- so, if anything, social democrats have a disadvantage. C2: HappinessDid I concede here? Absolutely not: Canada and Denmark hold fairly conservative economic policies. Now, the argument that social democrats hold control does not mean that the country itself is socially-democratic. The Democrats in America held congress since WWII - the mid 1990s, but America still holds center right political views [2]. So merely stating one side has held control does not mean what the country is. Now, I am not denying Denmark has social-democratic policies enacted, indeed America has a medium welfare state. However, Denmark still has many pro-market policies in place indicating Conservative and libertarians still have some influence on the economic policy. As the Heritage Foundation writes about Denmark, "The government took small steps in 2012 to cut back on welfare state benefits and costs. ... The economy is one of the world’s most open with respect to foreign investment, and the investment code is transparent and efficiently administered."[3] Although a large welfare state remains, the fact it was cut and free trade is very strong in the country, it is hard to say it is a social democracy. Denmark also has open markets (free trade - mentioned), low regulation (opposite of social democracy), etc. If fiscal policy is removed from the equation (taxes), then Denmark is more free market than the US [4]. So no, Denmark is not a good example. My opponent concedes they have made it easier to fire people: that is a libertarian dream, not a social democrat ideal! If this is what my opponent means by social mobility, he admits Denmark is fairly right wing! Again, someone controlling a country does not mean the country is that ideology. Also, after looking at the stats, Norway is actually quite poor. Most of the comparisons are before taxes, when after taxes Americans have more income left in their pocket and have lower housing costs [5]. America has all of the things mentioned by my opponent: and we're not a social democracy. Also, NZ has a mixed healthcare system, not universal. They have been phasing out universal healthcare in return for more pro-market options [6]. With a lot of deregulation, fairly low tax rates, cutting tariffs, the country is very conservative. The Heritage Foundation notes, "largely deregulated the economy, which is powered mainly by agriculture but also benefits from a flourishing manufacturing sector, thriving tourism, and a strong renewable geothermal energy resource base. ... The top income tax rate is 33 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 28 percent."[7] Again, not a social democracy. Wait wait wait... Greece collapsed due to low tax rates? Popycock. They have a 41% tax rate for those who they consider wealthy, and those making 40-60,000 Euros face a 38% tax rate [8]. You and I agree; Sweden is a social democracy. You cite many goods of the system, high wealth right? How about the fact that their productivity has fallen hugely, their income is actually less than the US's, and their former long-term growth has been reduced to a long-term stall in growth as their taxation increases. Sweden is indefensible, it is an abysmal failure [9]. From 1870 - 1970, Sweden became one of the poorest to one of the richest countries in the world. But when the government became much more socially democratic, the economy shot itself in the leg. Productivity falling, unemployment increasing, etc. Since the social democrats implemented their policy, by every measure their economy began to sink [10]. Inequality is such a weak argument. In America, the middle class's wealth has been increasing, and so has the rich. But since there is a gap, liberals claim the middle class is dirt poor, even though their conditions have improved. Watch:Jones makes 10k a year, Smith makes 20k a year, a year later (with no inflation) Jones is making 15k and Smith 30k. Economics professor William Anderson writes, "It is clear that both Jones and Smith are better off than they had been before, although in absolute terms Smith has earned a greater increase in income than has Jones. According to the "inequality" economists, only Smith is better off. In fact, according to their logic, Jones is actually worse off after he has increased his income because the income spread between Smith and him has grown. No matter that both men are better off. Economists have declared, instead, that inequality has become greater."[11]Since my opponent fails to take into account this statistic in America, yes, this type of thing is occurring here, yet still denies we are getting better, his point is a huge fallacy. My opponent is using case studies of small areas, and a few hypothetical to make his point. Security does X, Y, Z... But Welfare does not mean the people are stable, it is a stupid argument. You merely move the wealth around. So yes, drunkard Bob has a nice salary, while manager Joe just lost a large amount of his income through taxation. The fact my opponent thinks high taxes help innovators is idiotic. For example, most innovation in the healthcare business has been created in countries that are fairly free-market oriented [12]. My opponent is assuming the poor create most of the ideas, to the contrary it is the wealthy, most harmed by social democracy, that create the innovations. Income inequality seldom impedes innovation [13]. Deregulation cased the housing crisis? Well, my opponent cites Paul Krugman, who by all practical purposes is wrong almost all the time. The main cause of the crisis was the housing bubble. Even liberal economists have admitted that regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the bubble, therefore regulation caused the recession [14]. George Reisman, Ph.D. economist destroys Krugman's argument. Reisman noted the regulation on Wall Street actually is stronger, not weaker, than it ever has been in the century, and that we get less Laissez Faire each day. Reisman, after proving the Carter and Clinton showing acts lead to the housing bubble, and he Federal Reserve also worsened the bubble, he concludes "What this extensive analysis of the actual causes of our financial crisis has shown is that it is government intervention, not a free market or laissez-faire capitalism, that is responsible in every essential respect."[15]The post-war boom:1. Effective tax rates were quite low. Although marginal tax rates were high there were so many loopholes the rich payed almost nothing. 2. Labor unions did not cause the boom. After a Bust, there is always a boom. See plucking model.3. Funny story: in the 1970 bust, the states with the strongest labor unions (PA, for example) did worse than those with weaker unions (the south). Again, data refutes your point. To the voters, it is very clear who has won. My opponent uses weak data, at best, and fails to account for the countries he cited are actually not social democracies. He also used dubious data for his point on the post war boom and the current recession. He also failed to cite the facts about Sweden. It is clear that I have won the debate. The National Association for Manufacturers has stated regulation is killing them, but still supports regulaiton like social democoracies. We shold definatley not switch.