Should the economy be left to function by itself with little state reulation?
Yes, it must be left to work
Side Score: 4
|
 |
No, it won't work properly
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, this kind of argument typically hinges on more or less regulation when what we should be concerned about is the effect or quality of any given regulation. Even so, I will engage on the basis of the implied parameters: ‘As little regulation as is necessary’ is the best route. More than is necessary is stifling, oppressive, and often designed by larger corporations who can afford it in order to keep out smaller competitors who cannot. Less than necessary leaves people open to unscrupulous practices of short sighted hucksters. Side: Yes, it must be left to work
|
Pure capitalism without any regulation is anarchy. You'd have robber barons making dangerous slum properties again. Child labor. A return to dangerous deadly risks in the industries of our food and transportation and mining and manufacturing. You'd have return of monopolies, and the squeeze out of small business by the large ones. You'd have guns guns and more guns, in the hands of everyone from children to criminals. Same for alcohol. Same for cars. You'd have identity theft as a valid industry you could do little to fight if it happens to you. You'd have anyone providing daycare, anyone practicing pseudo medicine, anyone claiming to be an electrician. And no, you don't get to simply say we'd keep the safety regulations on all these things because more than half the time when an industry says it has too much regulation it's because they're complaining about the rules the public imposed to try to keep things safe. Side: No, it won't work properly
Pure capitalism without any regulation is anarchy Your characterization of the topic is a bit of a straw-man, as I am coming to expect from you. And no, you don't get to simply say we'd keep the safety regulations on all these things If the question is whether we should now have more regulation or less regulation, I think it’s safe to say less. “-The state of Texas now requires every new computer repair technician to obtain a private investigator’s license. In order to receive a private investigator’s license, an individual must either have a degree in criminal justice or must complete a three-year apprenticeship with a licensed private investigator. -The city of Philadelphia now requires all bloggers to purchase a $300 business privilege license. -If you attempt to give a tour of our nation's capital without a license, you could be put in prison for 90 days. -Federal agents recently raided an Amish farm at 5 A.M. in the morning because they were selling "unauthorized" raw milk. -In Lake Elmo, Minnesota farmers can be fined $1,000 and put in jail for 90 days for selling pumpkins or Christmas trees that are grown outside city limits. -The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin makes it incredibly difficult to go out of business. In order to close down a business, Milwaukee requires you to purchase an expensive license, you must submit a huge pile of paperwork to the city regarding the inventory you wish to sell off, and you must pay a fee based on the length of your "going out of business sale" plus a two dollar charge for every $1,000 worth of inventory that you are attempting to sell off” http://www.businessinsider.com/ “Hardly anyone has actually read Dodd-Frank, besides the Chinese government and our correspondent in New York (see article). Those who have struggle to make sense of it, not least because so much detail has yet to be filled in: of the 400 rules it mandates, only 93 have been finalised. So financial firms in America must prepare to comply with a law that is partly unintelligible and partly unknowable… Dodd-Frank is part of a wider trend. Governments of both parties keep adding stacks of rules, few of which are ever rescinded. Republicans write rules to thwart terrorists, which make flying in America an ordeal and prompt legions of brainy migrants to move to Canada instead. Democrats write rules to expand the welfare state. Barack Obama's health-care reform of 2010 had many virtues, especially its attempt to make health insurance universal. But it does little to reduce the system's staggering and increasing complexity. Every hour spent treating a patient in America creates at least 30 minutes of paperwork, and often a whole hour. Next year the number of federally mandated categories of illness and injury for which hospitals may claim reimbursement will rise from 18,000 to 140,000. There are nine codes relating to injuries caused by parrots, and three relating to burns from flaming water-skis” Side: Yes, it must be left to work
I use many types of argument and straw man is one of them. And I will still claim and rightly so that most of the time I provide more analysis and more documentation than the average debater on this website regardless of the straw man. In terms of more or less regulation, who wouldn't agree to less. I will as well. But let's not mischaracterize your debate. "Should the economy be left to function by itself with little state regulation?" "Little". Little does not mean lifting the punishment for giving a tour without a license, it means a whole lot more than that. Side: No, it won't work properly
1
point
I mean, you didn't specify what "little state regulation" means. We need government to step into the economy to: - Internalize the costs of externalities - Provide public goods - Redistribute wealth And to do these things only in the situations in which the benefits of intervention exceed the costs, which is a condition that is often unmet. These three functions of state regulation, most economists would agree, are not provided by any kind of unregulated free market. Now, another way to address your question is to answer the question wether a free market economy is even stable, not whether it brings about the optimal social outcome. This question is much harder to answer given the current state of economics. I think the problem lies in the failed attempts to separate economics and political science. Is it an unregulated free market when big companies spend money in the political process in order to gain a regulatory advantage over its competition? It's seems like the answer is no, monopolistic regulation is still regulation. But can a free market exist in which companies are unable to rig the system in their favor? It seems like the answer is no, there will never be an electorate diligent enough to prevent that from happening. So where does that leave us? What we call a unregulated market is really just crony capitalism. It results in few, very large companies in each industry. These companies have huge political influence and they use that influence to socialize their risks because they are so huge their collapse is unacceptable. Since the backs of taxpayers is a public good from the perspective of these large companies, they will overuse it and cause a collapse of epic proportions like that of 2008. So it seems like we need to use the government to try to push back the tide of cronyism. If we don't, we are all screwed. Free markets require active government intervention to maintain. Side: No, it won't work properly
|
