Government intervention in the economy does more harm than good

1) "the Con cannot prove that more outbreaks would occur without it."After the passage of the Meat inspection Act and the Food and Drug Safety Act in 1906, the government had created an agency to Prevent meat companies from killing ailing or sickly animals for meat,Inspect carcasses so that diseased animals are not ground into meat, Creates sanitary standards at meat processing plants (no letting mice nibble on the meat then killing them and putting them into the meat)All of these things have prevented countless ailments for people, and a considerable number of deaths as well. http://www.foxnews.com...http://www.questia.com...http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://www.fda.gov...http://www.cancer.gov..."The Con thus confirms my point that regulations lead to higher prices for the consumer."I am saying this, however such regulations still benefit the consumers by improving their safety. Businesses dont lose as much money and consumers have their safety improved regarding the same products they use. Nobody loses. The Broken Glass Fallacy may be applied to economic benefit, however it still does not deny the fact that money is distributed between companies. Also when the Con claims that businesses could use that money to consumers by lowering prices, really now name one company that wouldnt pocket that cash for themselves.... " 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."2) Business licenses serve a purpose because the government uses these licenses to - Track and monitor businesses for tax purposes and are required for businesses to operate lawfully in the state - Tax registrationshttp://smallbusiness.findlaw.com..."Licenses discourage ALL new businesses from forming"Number of new businesses has remained almost constant for years now despite these licensing laws.http://www.kauffman.org...3) "the burden of proof lies on the Con."In order for me to address the Con's examples, there has to be definite proof that the laws he has mentioned will even become laws. The Republicans have been viciously trying to eliminate Obama's health care law and if they succeed by 2013 before the law takes effect, then it would be impossible for me to show why they would not create uncertainty because they are not yet known to even become laws...4) "the idea that companies would 'exploit' these resources given the chance is unfounded"Companies exploit almost every kind of territory imaginable for profit. Tundra in the arctic is mined in Canada for diamonds and in Alaska for oil. The Oceans and the Gulf is also drilled for oil, Swamplands like the everglades are drained for housing projects, Forests are logged for wood, sometimes deserts like the southwest US are used for agriculture. All lands are vulnerable to corporate exploitation.As for the minimum wage, the Con fails to realize that the minimum wage when implemented help improve the quality of living among lower and middle class citizens. Even though today that is debatable, back then it was proven to have helped improve the lives of millions of people who could now be paid a livable wage, which shows how government intervention in the past has proven to have benefits. http://www.localhistories.org...5) " You cannot simultaneously inflate and deflate"That is agreed, however i was showing that the government can raise or lower interest rates to improve the economy or to fight growing inflation. this monetary policy can be used by the government to lessen the impact that inflation has on wages, spending power, and incomes. "The Con then talks about adjusting interest rates to protect lenders. I don't see the logic here"When banks give out loans, they charge interest rates on those loans so that those people who take out the loan repay the loan over time, along with a little extra money too. This is an insurance policy for the banks so that 1) if the loan fails they still get back a larger proportion of the loan they originally would have, or 2) if the loan is successful then the individual has benefited from the loan and the bank now has more money they started with. Banks are guaranteed a greater portion of their loans back while individuals still benefit from the loans. 6) "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."This sounds easy enough but 1) Its not as easy as you make it sound because changing industries means changing one's expertise in the job market which is no easy task. 2) During the Great Depression there were millions of other people already looking for jobs, and without the government subsidies the farmers would be forced into the unemployment lines looking for jobs like millions of other Americans. Subsidies protect jobs during times of crisis, and during the Great Depression farmers were greatly protected from becoming unemployed because of government intervention. 7) The government has the right to tax people, all governments do because governments are the governing body of a nation, state, or community that is designated authoritative powers by the people. One of such powers includes the right to collect taxes, whether it be on income, property, inheritance (even though I am against that), etc. This is really a whole different debate though. 8) When talking about banned items, the Pro stated that "...and creates future uncertainty, since the government can ban anything at any time..." meaning the uncertainty that he was originally referring too was how any item could suddenly be outlawed by the government, I offered evidence against this idea. Instead of responding to these points the Pro now focused on how it is uncertain whether items banned by the government will always be banned, and that the fact that they could be un-banned is bad somehow...."The Con doesn't argue about how prohibition or protecting endangered species benefits the economy."When prohibition was enacted, it was the result of a conservative movement from concerned wives and mothers about the drinking habits of men and the anti-saloon league. Prohibition was not a result of government intervention it was the result of pressure on the government by the people who wanted them to intervene. There were few benefits of Prohibition which was why it was ultimately repealed. As for protecting endangered species, that falls under animal rights not economic benefit. Not all government laws are enacted solely for economic benefit...9) The government does use land for productive reasons, ever drive on an interstate highway Pro? The government builds schools and parks, are they useless to you too? As for chemical accidents the companies are responsible for the financial damage done, however they are not the ones who immediately come in and provide the funds because any company that has had a spill will argue in court how they were not at fault. The government steps in and handles the immediate accident while the courts sort out who is to blame (those hearing take weeks though)I have shown that government acts establish agencies to protect businesses, jobs, and people