Government Argumentative Essay

The large economy of a region or a country consists of many small economies and since those small
economies are healthy the whole large economy will be healthy. From this aspect, economists in
different parts of the world had a debate about government intervention in economies. Some
economists believed in the importance and effective role of the government in controlling their
economy’s parts from shrinking besides feeling that their businesses are safe from failure and
assassination. On the other hand, some economists believe that the government does not have the
right to interfere in their economies. This is because they claim that the government would not have an
accurate picture of what is going on and they do not know the real needs of their countries. In other
words, money would be spent in the wrong way causing surplus or shortage which leads to many
problems such as poverty and uneven income distribution.

There are many possible benefits of government intervention in their economies. First, government
intervention causes an even income distribution which leads to equality in the social classes and by
that equal opportunities. Distribution of income measures how GDP (gross domestic product) is
distributed amongst its population by taking the GDP and dividing it by the population. And here
comes the role of the government where it can perform projects that can fulfill the needs of its people
by serving facilities they need without gaining profits at the same time more job opportunities will
appear so even income distribution will be approached. Another way is to help the failed businesses to
wake up again so workers will not lose their jobs and keep their income going on. The second benefit
is that we can have secured public goods and services. Public goods and services are basic facilities
that most people use like street lighting, police, military, education, healthcare, social welfare, and
many other similar services. In most countries, people pay in an indirect way for those services in
other words people pay taxes. The government intervention supporters believe that these services
should be lifted to be managed by the government which means no gained profits in other words these
facilities cannot be lifted to private businesses so they will not be turned into commercial projects
because they are basic needs and everyone benefits from it. Another benefit is property rights and
welfare opportunities. And here we mean that the government has to put rules to conserve property
rights. This concept can be summarized in four aspects: the right to use the good, the right to earn
income from the good, the right to transfer the good to others, alter it, abandon it, or destroy it (the
right to ownership cessation), the right to enforce property rights. Government intervention also plays
role in providing welfare opportunities for people with low income. If government did not interfere on
this side property rights and welfare opportunities will be lost because the private businesses will seek
its benefits and protection ignoring the people’s needs and conditions. If the government controlled its
economy from the beginning it will rarely suffer from recessions so it will not spend more to simulate
demand or to rescue the banking sector from collapse as what happened in Germany in 2009
according to our case. Another point is when the government interferes in its economy it will help to
keep it healthy and running steadily most of the time so more risks can be taken, and projects and
investments can be performed. It is not enough to interfere only when uncompetitive or illegal behavior
occurs.

A group of economists believe in the concept of free markets and see that governments should not
interfere in their economies. The arguments against government intervention can be summarized in
three points. First is that they see that government may produce big quantities or products that are
against the needs of people which causes surplus and as a result wasting of money without any
benefits. It can be a way that the government focuses on producing unneeded things and does not
care about the real needs of its people resulting in poverty and other issues. This case can occur
when the government does not make a proper and accurate study of the country’s economic situation
and define its needs properly. But they claim that every economist would know the needs of his
customers and will build up a bossiness according to those needs. The second arguments are about
personal freedom where economists will make suitable decision for their businesses regarding the
economic situation of the markets. This involves when to increase and decrease prices and supply
and other decisions that are related to investment, saving, marketing, and expanding. In their point of
view, the government cannot make decisions for every and each economic unit in the country. Another
argument is that when the government stays away from controlling economies the inspiration of
innovation due to gaining profits will increase. In other words, interpreters will work hard to come up
with new creative ideas which are really unique and fulfill the needs of the people this will result in
increasing demand and profits at the time. An example of this case is the IKEA company for furniture
with space-saving furniture such as sofa beds and bunk beds which can fit small flats and fulfill the
needs of customers like sleeping and storing. Economists who prefer free markets believe in their right
of gaining profits without the intervention of the government in other words they need their own space.

In conclusion, most countries have government intervention in all aspects, especially economics. It is
preferred by most economists to have a government intervention so they can save their businesses
and economic rights. Most of the time economists seek government intervention for the purpose of
protection of property rights; public goods and services, the national defense system, and price
controls.