The Instigator
iEconomics
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bencbartlett
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

We need Government Intervention in the Economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
bencbartlett
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,840 times Debate No: 25172
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

iEconomics

Con

Welcome to this debate on the economy & economics. The debate is "We need Government Intervention in the economy", in the form of things such as subsidies, bailouts, central banks, deficit spending, wage controls, but overall, just economic planning.

I will be argue against this idea.

1st Round. Acceptance
2nd Round. Opening Arguments
Round 3. Rebuttal to Opening Arguments.
Round 4. 2nd Argument
Round 5. Closing Thoughts.
bencbartlett

Pro

I accept my opponent’s challenge, and wish him good luck. However, I would like to provide some definitions – I am aware this is a non-semantic debate, though “government intervention” has a little bit of range of meaning to it – and address the burden of proof. Also, are you allowing for 1) rebuttals to the second argument in the 5th round and/or 2) responses to rebuttals to the first argument in the 4th round? Either way, good luck, and I look forward to a productive debate.

===Definitions===

Government intervention: “government actions to influence the way financial markets or particular industries operate [1].

===Burden of Proof===

Since varying countries have economic plans ranging from almost laissez-faire policies to socialism, there is really no conformity to either the presence of government intervention or the lack thereof. Thus, I would propose a shared burden of proof where only the merits of each side’s arguments are taken into account, rather than whether pro or con has met the burden of proof.

===References===

[1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...

Debate Round No. 1
iEconomics

Con

I have to respectfully forfit from this debate due to computer troubles. I would not be able to fairly have a discussion with you due to my computer troubles. Please forgive me. Thank you for your understanding.
bencbartlett

Pro

Though arguments have not been made, my opponent has forfeited, albeit very respectfully. Pro wins by default.

Also, on a side note, I'd be very happy to debate this with you again some time.
Debate Round No. 2
iEconomics

Con

iEconomics forfeited this round.
bencbartlett

Pro

(See above.)
Debate Round No. 3
iEconomics

Con

iEconomics forfeited this round.
bencbartlett

Pro

(See above.)
Debate Round No. 4
iEconomics

Con

iEconomics forfeited this round.
bencbartlett

Pro

bencbartlett forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
Goldman Sachs doesn't have enough control. They must be given more, by that most brilliant of economic strategists/prophets of doom, the Ben Bernanke.
Posted by iEconomics 5 years ago
iEconomics
Come on dude, post your acceptance already. It does not take this long.
Posted by iEconomics 5 years ago
iEconomics
Yea, there are a'lot of people on here arguing in favor of intervention. so you would expect the instigator to be on the Pro side of the resolution. But let me destroy this clown real quick & knockdown all his economic fallacy's.

MMSU is probably doing his research now.
Posted by Numidious 5 years ago
Numidious
@YYW

The US already has a command economy. Goldman Sachs is in "command".
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
I could win this debate but people would accuse me of utilizing semantics.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
The combined wording of the resolution and severe changes of the word "intervention" to change from actual intervention to command economy and places in between all make this debate untakable. Also, change "need" to "should have", otherwise it is equally strange and difficult.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
We need a command economy... that's what we need. Freedom. Economic liberty... Bah! What nonsense!
Posted by Numidious 5 years ago
Numidious
Government intervention in the economy is vital both to economic development and general welfare and meritocracy in a capitalist system. This is why the standard of living in the US, a country with relatively high GDP per capita (not as high as social democratic Holland, Norway, and Sweden, but high enough) has such immense levels of poverty and crime. It has minimal government intervention in the economy, less than most developed countries, and this is why it is in such a bad situation now.

To say that government should not intervene in the economy is also the worst form of tyranny by corporate power.

I would debate this but what my potential opponent refers to as government intervention in the economy is not the kind of intervention I would be in favour of. I support a government with high public spending, (around 50%is usually best) at a constant rate, not off and on. I think that full time jobs should have a living wage as minimum wage and part time jobs should not. Wealth should be redistributed, as people will work for lower returns. The US CEO - to - worker income is $411 - $1 on average, in countries with economies that work, such as Germany, the CEO - to - worker income is $12 - to - $1. Why is this?

I will gladly debate this if my opponent is willing to frame is along the lines of social democracy vs. minarchism (libertarianism) rather than Keynesianism/Corporatism vs. Libertarianism.

In short, I agree with you about bailouts, deficit spending, and probably subsidies as well. Only I go a step further and would like to see stronger forces for meritocracy and a greater level of union membership.

So if "intervention" is redefined I'll accept.
Posted by DavidMGold 5 years ago
DavidMGold
I was looking to argue against intervention too.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Dammit, I was expecting the instigator to be on the Pro side of the resolution :(
Oh, well. Have fun busting fallacy after fallacy from your opposition.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
iEconomicsbencbartlettTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit