Government should intervene to right the economic wrongs of capitalism.

MONOPOLY: 1) 'Significantly' is a very broad term. We cannot have a subjective government. Should an objective percentage or number be used, a corporation would merely straddle the line between monopoly and non-monopoly. 2&3) Because companies are private property and the property of these companies are private property, the question remains as: who deserves this property? Who is to recieve these new companies? Ultimately, people will be less likely to effectively compete and more likely to do otherwise when they realize that government will divide up their property the moment they succeed. All in all for this point, my opponent has not been specific as to how the government would intervene for this for me to effectively contend. I apologize. ---------------- RECESSION: On government failure: Government failure is not the collapse of the government but when government intervention causes a market situtation to become worse than it would have been. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent heavily used wikipedia, but did not care to look this up. Examples of government failure include: -When government spending replaces voluntary market spending -Regulatory Arbitrage (already discussed) -Government regulations that ultimately harm business And many other problems. All in all, the attempts of government to influence the market lead to unexpected results, often already discussed. "Government intervention can help shorten recessions" This is false, and my opponent has not sourced this. "What has changed? The level of government intervention" And technology, the stability of trade, globalization. .. "My opponent cites Thomas Sowell. I must point out that Thomas Sowell's opinion on the depression is a minority opinion" However, Thomas Sowell used facts to back up his thesis as these people do not. 49% is not a significantly small minority anyways. For an education department, one would expect the New Deal supporters to make up more than 51% of the population because of liberal bias. However, because the truth is on Sowell's side, many liberal professors are more likely to admit that the New Deal prolonged the Depression and not vice-versa. "I define intervention as 'to involve ones self in'" Indeed, to involve one's self less would be the opposite of the point my opponent is trying to make. Tax cuts are indeed not government intervention, but a reduction of it. "He says that spending money that has been taxed is pointless (zero sum). " I didn't say that it was pointless; I said it was zero-sum. Indeed, it is ultimately taking from one and giving to another for doing something that ultimately didn't contribute to society. "If people seem to be getting more money, there is more chance they will spend it. " This is a purely Keynesian fallacy: When people have money in their hands, they spend it. The actual result during a recession is quite different, as people reduce their spending and save this new money for harder times. "Money itself is not wealth, it is a means of attaining wealth. " Actually, by your definition: "All material things produced by labor for the satisfaction of human desires and having exchange value" Money has value because it has exchange value. This silly argument is the basis of much of my opponent's case. "I would like to point out that there is plenty of 'necessary infrastructure' to be built first. There are tons of crumbling roads, sewage systems, and public buildings across the country. " That's besides the point. What I was criticising was new infrastructure projects: New roads and monorails that are only being built to spend money and will ultimately not be used. "Gov't can provide subsidies to business's to hire extra workers for the duration of the recession. " And these subsidies come from other people who cut their expenditures to these companies, and the market weakens. The Keynesian alternative would be to print money for this purpose, but that leads to inflationary problems, such as high interest rates, decreased value of savings, and less consumer confidence. "Spending gives people jobs" Free market spending does this in the long range of things. Government spending creates temporary jobs for some while weakening the economic strength of the rest. "helps business's get back on their feet" With higher interest rates or customers with less confidence, this can only hurt businesses. Taking money from people and giving it back to them later only creates a period of time in which nobody could exchange that wealth (and these transations contribute to the wealth of the whole). "allowing us to make much needed renovations and infrastructure repairs. " Infrastructure projects most often do not include renovations and repairs, but unnecessary new construction which demolishes needed companies and pays them unjust compensation. --------------- INEQUALITY Summary response: Money allocated to inner-city school districts often does not result in an improved education system but is allocated for different purposes. Further, money dedicated to inner city schools comes from inner city taxpayers, who often have little more money to give into such 'heavy investments' which will ultimately be misused. Further, to increase a college fund in an inner city are would also require a much more substancial tax increase than in more affluent neighborhoods. One cannot abusively tax the poor for their own befenit. I remind my opponent that public schooling is a local function. ----------------- "OTHER" My opponent sources a magazine article criticizing the fact that printing money does not increase the wealth of a nation (that it only inflates the dollar) to claim that money is worthless and that when governmennt tax society, they take no wealth from it. This argument is clearly fallacious, as if government money spent was also worthless and not wealth just because it 'just money'. In reality, the value of currency is determined by dividing the wealth of the monetary system by the units of currency in circulation. . http://www.reciprocalsystem.com... Again, by my opponent's definition, money is wealth, because it has exchange value in the private sector. "It could sell the coal to someone else and make a profit" Government interference in the private sector would ultimately drive private companies out of business and lead to a government monopoly. As an alternative approach to government industry, a government nationalizes an entire industry. This ultimately has the same effect, resulting in a government monopoly with no competition and ultimately no innovation. Government cannot effectively compete with the private sector at a fair level because it has all the resources of the private sector and public sector and can sell its product much cheaper than any other private sector entity. Should government try to do else, it would have the opposite effect and not produce a profit. Anything that doesn't produce a profit in the private sector ultimately drains wealth from the system, so government has ultimately hindered the economy by trying to make a profit. As for defense, the transaction is not voluntary because while one group agrees to it, the other (society) must pay for it through involuntary taxation. It is better to sit on one's hands than to use them to strangle. My opponent contends that we'd be in depression if bank loans and savings accounts were not insured that we'd be in depression. On the contrary, (as I have argued and my opponent has not contended) when government has less influence in the banking system, there is less regulatory arbitrage which leads to risky decisions that ultimately society must pay for. ------------ I thank my opponent for this debate. Government intervention in the capitalist system ultimately does more destruction than good, as I have argued.