Support a position on the following statement: "Any government intervention in the U.S. economy is harmful."
While there is an argument to be made for this statement, I do not subscribe to it. I would argue that not all government intervention in the US economy is harmful. Let us look at two examples to see why this is so.
First, let us think about the fact that many laws that are not even vaguely controversial for most people are forms of government intervention in the economy. For example, the ban on cocaine is a form of government intervention. Clearly, there is a market for cocaine (or for things like alcohol for underage drinkers). By banning the product, the government is intervening in the economy. However, most Americans would not say that the government should stop such interventions.
Second, it is likely that people would be worse off if the government did not make laws that are more clearly connected to the economy. For example, the government mandates that companies do things to keep their employees safe. Without such regulations, it is at least likely that there would be more accidents and injuries or deaths in the workplace.
Thus, it is clear that not all government intervention in the economy is harmful.