Government Intervention in an Economy

"Barrier to Further Growth" Partially true. Yes, heavy regulations can be burdensome. However, they are necessary to level to social equality of a nation. Do we need deregulation? Not really. I am not supporting useless regulation that is unenforced. I am supporting Gov't intervention that is smartly implemented. However, deregulation leads to eventually monoplies. When only libertarian economic intervention is approved, the largest businesses will consolidate or eliminate the small businesses of a community, and this will happen: Only a few large companies remain Instead of to prosper, companies cut as many costs as possible to maximize profits Consumer and worker safeguards are eliminated Workers laid off by the thousands Wages are reduced Production and workloads pushed to the limit A monopoly or oligopoly will dominate the market, but hundreds of nickel-and-dime operations may work around the edges In the final stages, a monopoly or oligopoly emerges, after which prices are raised, services dropped, quality reduced, and corruption and abuses of power become commonplace. [2] You can see that deregulation in the short term will seem well. However, later companies will get aggressive in their efforts to downsize and become the most competitive. Since small business cannot effectively compete with large business' because of economies of scale, less profits, less market share, and the threat of predator pricing, it is nearly impossible for small businesses to thrive, because they cannot grow larger. EXAMPLE: The Airlines Industry We have already described how deregulation affected the airline industry. After a brief period in which new airlines formed to compete for customers, there was a shake-out. To cut costs, airlines began paring back their maintenance and safety crews, which outraged the flying public. Since 1978, a dozen airlines have merged or gone out of business. Some 50,000 employees lost their jobs. Now that a few majors exist, air service is being dropped to 130 smaller communities, many others are served by only one airline, and air fares are climbing faster than the planes themselves. [3] Regulation is Needed [1] (this whole Paragraph) Regulation is necessary for the best economic prosperity in society when regulation is implemented in a smart way. Here are the reasons why regulation is needed: Creates a level playing field and ensures competition (no predatory pricing against small businesses) Maintain quality standards for services (ex: specifying qualification requirements for service providers) Protects consumers (from false advertising, fraud, financial abuse, etc.) Ensures sufficient information in sales (no false or lying advertisements, which distorts the marketplace) Prevent enviornmental degradation (make sure companies don't dump waste in lakes, etc.) Guarantee wide access to services Preventing financial instability and protecting consumer savings from risk taking by financial institutions The Stimulus didn't fail. Did it work? For its goal, it was really just to prevent the free falling of the U.S. economy. Before the stimulus, job losses exceeded 700,000 a month. Now, after much of the stimulus has taken place, job growth is about 125,000 roughly. The stimulus injected $800 billion in the economy. The Great Recession, created a gap of about $3 TRILLION. So, the Stimulus was not meant to bridge the gap, but make the economy stabilize. The stimulus needed to be larger and more effective to improve the economy more. [4] [5] Okay, before you stick catch names to someting and call it that, read up on the facts. This is not Socialism. I am not saying "Capture the Executives! Execute the bastards!" No, I am just defending the idea of a Capitalist Mixed Economy, one that is a mixture of private and public enterprises. [6] I am supporting government intervention in an economy. This doesn't mean I support all government intervention. I support the Capitalist Mixed Economy. I do not support some gov't interventions, such as the case of farm subsidies, because the way it is currently sturctured subsidies obesity (corn syrup), I don't support protectionism, and I don't support subsidies (besides case of possibly renewable energy to speed up this national need). So, this refutes many of your points. The years 1937-1939 were not as bad as 1932, because the former was a recession due to the money supply. The source shows you a graph of GDP that PROVES that the recession was not as bad (although both were serious setbacks) as the early 1930s. [7] Public Health Care Option and Cap and Trade These two ideas, if instituted by the government, would save much money. A Public H. Care Option would save billions for consumers, and would create revenue for the gov't, and would introduce more competition in the health care sector. Cap and Trade is a great idea. It is relatively cost effective and flexible. It rewards success by companies reducing their carbon output, and can share the "credits" exceeding the cap to help other businesses get theirs. It creates a whole new market as well of carbon credits. Also, we need to protect our natural resources for later generations to protect the planet. Purchasing renewable energy for companies, which could be encouraged by the government, would help the environment, help the economy, and hurt NOBODY, unless you are an oil executive not wanting to adapt to more efficient methods to compete. [8] - for paragraph CONCLUSION Competition is necessary in our economy to improve qualities of goods, reduce price, and improve other facets of business. However, when a tidal wave of deregulation is released, at first the effects may seem good like in the 1980s. However, after time, monopolies, or other disastrous affects occur. Just look at the Great Recession, which I talked about in Round 2 (read my argument if you missed it). If you want customers to be fooled, cheated, abused, and have a weaker economy overall, take a "free" market system. Plus, with no smart government intervention in an economy, you will miss out on the benefits at the top of my argument (Para. 2). Plus, some things frowned upon would be sold in the economy for the pleasure of the few and dismay of many. For example, child pornography would be legal. Do you really want that? My opponent doesn't say no, because that is government regulation in the economy. Plus, many small businesses WELCOME gov't regulation, while larger businesses don't want small government, but the SMART GOVERNMENT that Bill Clinton and I and many others embrace such as Drew Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemical [9] --- An economy that prospers due to the private and public sectors working together. An economy that doesn't favor others over others. A government that promotes positive policies and that helps the populace. It is not another gov't bashing. Politics such as my opponent's are good politics, but produces poor policies. And Americans need victories in real life. [10] [9] [11] [12] Vote Pro - Unless you want another recession, a worse economy, and don't currently stand into reality. Sources [1] http://www.aliveness.com... [2] http://www.odi.org.uk... [3] Donald Barlett and James Steele, America: What Went Wrong? (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1992), pp. 106-112. [4] http://www.nytimes.com... [5] http://www.facebook.com... [6] http://dictionary.reference.com... [7] http://www.voxeu.org... [8] "What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't" By Jessamyn Conrad - A nonpartisan guide to the issues [9] Restoring the American Dream, CNN, Fareed Zakaria, Sept. 2011 [10] "Back To Work - Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy", By Bill Clinton (Nov. 2011) [11] Capitalism: A Love Story (documentary) [12] Inside Job (documentary)