Entirely unregulated capitalism doesn't work

First, while it's true that China has made a shift towards capitalism in recent years, there are still high levels of government regulation with the state being held in higher regard than enterprise. China's economic philosophy is in no way comparable to the philosophy of the United States. Without the elevation of enterprise above the government in market authority an economy cannot claim to be adhering to capitalism. http://www.scielo.br... There is huge backlash about the outsourcing of jobs to China and elsewhere but unless the people, the market forces are willing to do something about it then it can continue. Since many Chinese businesses are owned or heavily regulated by the Chinese government any attempt to make them treat their workers better would be treated as a human rights issue by the United Nations rather than a regulatory burden on Western businesses. https://www.forbes.com... If anything, cognitive dissonance supports my side of the debate. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling associated with doing something that goes against your beliefs. If the people feel enough cognitive dissonance they can use their power in the market which is perpetuated by minimized government interference to utilize market selection. Using my opponents point on technology taking jobs against him, Government regulations on the minimum wage can contribute to the loss of jobs. Why do businesses give jobs to machines? because it's more profitable. If you're willing to work for a certain wage but the government makes it illegal for you to work for that wage, it becomes profitable to replace people with machines. Another word on this point, it is inevitable that many jobs will be lost to technology. Technology moves forward and with it must society also move forward. Production jobs were lost during the industrial revolution and certain jobs will be lost now. it's inevitable. this is why it's imperative that people gain the specialization necessary to survive in a changing world. While it's true that in the past businesses exploited their workers, human rights laws (not business laws) have changed since then beatings will no longer be allowed neither will child labor because children lack the ability to consent and thus forcing their employment is not capitalism as we understand it in the United States. my opponent concedes that monopolies do not stifle innovation. Innovation is important for the economy because innovation replaces once completely monopolized markets. for further elaboration see my last post My opponent brings up the OPEC. whatever the OPEC did is irrelevant to the debate because it is a group of countries. I would like to remind everyone of the definition of capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. So whatever a state does with it's resources is a matter for international diplomacy rather than a regulation on capitalism. furthermore, my opponent states that shale oil producers challenged the OPEC and caused lower prices. So a group of governments controlled a resource and raised prices then private owners challenged them and through capitalism caused the prices to drop.