The Instigator
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
MitchellDeYoung
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

The invisible hand and competition are greater forces for good than government regulation and...

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,940 times Debate No: 7475
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

wjmelements

Pro

...price control.

I apologize, but the topic can only be so many characters.

I will give a definition and an example of each of the 4 elements in the resolution.

The Invisible Hand - (the self-regulating force in a true free market) - A company does not clean its shop. No one wants to go there. They go out of business.

Government Regulation - (a government control on business) - A company does not clean its shop. the government shuts them down. They go out of business.

Competition - (the struggle for survival between businesses in a free enterprise) - Company A overcharges, so people buy from Company B instead. Company A tries to make its prices lower than Company B so that people will want its goods/services.

Price Control - (a government control on the value of products) - Company A and Company B must sell their products at the same price. Society determines the price of goods. This may make some products cheaper, but every dollar that is used to make it cheaper must make something else more expensive or society's income smaller.

Now that I have clarified this debate, I will post my arguments next round.
MitchellDeYoung

Con

As the con of this argument I will have to disagree with the resolution, "The invisible hand and competition are greater forces for good than government regulation and price control"

I would like to start by comparing the invisible hand with government regulation.

In the example stated during clarification, yes if a store is not kept clean it will in fact lose business. But what about in cases where revenue is not effected. If the shop is kept clean for example people will still buy from the store. It does not matter if the store is selling products that are contaminated with lead, people will buy because they are unaware. The people, could not physically shut down this store even if this defect was found. Whereas the government could shut the store down for practising unethical salesman ship in selling these defected products. It is obvious that there are cases when the will of the people ( ie the invisible hand) just aren't enough, in this case they would be promoting less good than the government regulation.

Onto the topic of Competition v. Price Control

In a wonderful, and perfect world prices would drop so low that we basically would get everything for free. Unfortunately this isn't the case, prices are based on the income. You cannot sell a product for less than what you paid for it and expect to remain a float as a company. There comes a time when you cannot lower your price anymore. When both companies are selling the same product for as cheap as they can, what happens? The exact same thing as price control. Both prices remain the same but due to supply / demand the income generated is so small the companies both suffer. Now under price control both products are still the same cost, but because its government run the prices will be higher than that of the competition theory. As you can see, both have the same outcome from the perspective of the buyer because the cost will be nearly the same at both stores. But in the competition theory both companies are being hurt because their products are not selling for much because the people simply do not want to pay. When both are being hurt, competition obviously cannot be the stronger force for good when the price control leaves everyone better off.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Pro

I thank my opponent for a good response.

The Invisible Hand:
My opponent sources lead poisoning as an example. I am about to show how this example is null, but I expect my opponent to give more examples of his claim: "It is obvious that there are cases when the will of the people just aren't enough, in this case they would be promoting less good than the government regulation."

With lead poisoning, all the damage done is traced to the company responsible and the company is liable. It cleans itself up. The company would not want to sell deadly products or services because it would be liable for all damage.

1. Liability is part of a free market and is adressed in Civil Cases. Government regulation is unneeded and inefficient. (see above)
2. Government overlap leads to wasteful spending. http://www.house.gov...
3. Government spending sucks money out of the private sector. http://www.investorwords.com... http://www.jsonline.com...
4. The economy is best off and people are richer when money moves quickly through the private sector. http://www.jsonline.com...
5. If government regulation is unneeded, then it makes people poorer and hinders the economy. (from above)
6. Government regulation is unneeded. (from above)
7. Therefore, government regulation makes people poorer and hinders the economy. (Law of Detachment)
8. Something that makes people poorer and hinders the economy is not a force for good. (given)
9. Therefore, government regulation is not a force for good. (Law of Syllogism)

Competition:
Companies can not only compete by lowering their prices but also by producing things cheaper. Companies are reasonable when choosing by how much to lower their prices. When prices are lowered to the point that both companies are being hurt (perhaps they are only making a penny per sale), one of them wises up and raises the prices a bit (so now they are making two pennies a sale), doubling their profit. The one cent isn't much of a difference, so this raise is only a benefit.

With price control however, there is no way for Company A to make more money than Company B or for them to compete in a free enterprise. There is little motivation to prosper.

1. Competition is the very force that leads to innovation. http://repositories.cdlib.org... http://www.amd.com...
2. Innovation improves society and standard of living. http://www.innovationtools.com... http://www.jsonline.com...
3. Price Controls limit innovation because there is less competition. (from above)
4. Therefore, competition is a greater force for good than price control. (Law of Syllogism)
MitchellDeYoung

Con

Both of my opponents points 1-9 and 1-4 end saying it makes people poorer and limits innovation because of the government and price control. To show that this is not the case, I will use an example that covers both. Just for easy I'm going to from now on state that because Price Control is enforced by the government, Price Control is a piece of Government Regulation.

6. Government regulation is unneeded. (from above)
7. Therefore, government regulation makes people poorer and hinders the economy. (Law of Detachment)
8. Something that makes people poorer and hinders the economy is not a force for good. (given)
9. Therefore, government regulation is not a force for good. (Law of Syllogism)

3. Price Controls limit innovation because there is less competition. (from above)
4. Therefore, competition is a greater force for good than price control. (Law of Syllogism)

In a small town there are several stores, a bookstore, a locally owned grocery store and a small business supply store. Within the community these stores all fair quite well, due to lack of competition they are all kept in business. They are contributors to the local economy, this helps everyone within the community. Now lets say that this town has noticed some recent expansion, and Walmart is looking to move in. After this happens all of the small companies go out of business. Why? Due to the lack of price control, Walmart was given the ability to move in and grossly undersell their product to the point where there was no competition. The small businesses did not have the fund to make it a fair fight, but with price control in place all of the stores would have still been left standing. Saying competition is fair would be like saying a race between a High School student and an Olympic class sprinter is fair. Sometimes people have a huge advantage, leaving competition unfair and irrational. Sometimes competition will not lead to innovation, in this case it would hurt the local economy especially because walmart can leave whenever it feels like it. When Walmart leaves, because it controls such a huge portion of the local economy, the people suffer. To end this point I would like to finish with a quote from the affirmative, "Something that makes people poorer and hinders the economy is not a force for good."
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Pro

I would like to point out what happens when price control is put into effect in this small town:

A small town has a business "carrying capacity". With all the businesses and Walmart there, each making the same profit, and not competing, all go out of business because none of them can make enough money selling their products to this small town. Rather than the best of the companies surviving, none come out alive (except Walmart, which is a large chain).

Also, there is a great problem with my opponent's small town: There are no producers; there are no primary industries that would bring money into the town. All the money is constantly being sucked out to primary industries elsewhere. The town is doomed to collapse. But that's besides the point. When my opponent has added primary industry to this town, then we shall see the real pains of price control. Until then, the economy of this small town is not genuine. I'll leave that for round 4.

My opponent concedes that all regulations besides price control are not forces for good.

I would like to conclude by stating that my opponent's understanding of economics seems to be very limited, as we saw with his assumption that the small businesses and Walmart could co-exist with price control.

I look forward to a stable town to argue about, and hopefully a logical argument.
MitchellDeYoung

Con

MitchellDeYoung forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
wjmelements

Pro

My opponent forfeited the last round unfortunately. Seeing as this is last round, I will wrap this up.

First, my opponent has conceded most of the debate.
The resolution is "The invisible hand and competition are greater forces for good than government regulation and price control." I proved this with a logical sequence. My opponent conceded this sequence.

My opponent asserted that price control would help small businesses in small towns. I showed this was not the case.

For these reasons, you should vote PRO.
I thank my opponent for this debate and the audience for taking the time to read it.
MitchellDeYoung

Con

MitchellDeYoung forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Whatever rocks your boat.
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
"[Freedom is a] greater [force] for good than government regulation and..."
Posted by Rawlsfulcopter 7 years ago
Rawlsfulcopter
Perhaps if the contender's sentence structure was a little better I would be able to understand this, but did he say prices would be about the same if the entire market was government-controlled as it would if it was competition-controlled, or did he mean the price difference between companies? If it was the first, how can he expect the government to offer the same quality at the same price as a competitive market despite the lower motivation and higher expenses government agencies have? This goes contrary to all historic evidence as well as simple common sense. If it is the second, then he clearly doesn't understand how competition works. Chances are, one company will have better management or innovation and deliver more quality or better price, for two companies to truly offer a comparable product they would be violating many patent and trademark laws. Also, he brings up the point of companies struggling to keep up with competition, but that's exactly what the invisible hand accounts for: companies that can't keep up will either adapt or be replaced. It's like evolution of the market, which advances our technology and product line. To not favor competition is to not favor advancement and not favor raising the standard of living.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
I wish I had time to take this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
wjmelementsMitchellDeYoungTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
wjmelementsMitchellDeYoungTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementsMitchellDeYoungTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70