Help challenging an ECON professor

[Questionable]

So my normal economics professor is pretty much a liberal Keynesian who thinks capitalism is greedy and needs regulations in place to function properly. It's not the perfect analysis but I had a substitute who was a privatization nut and actually worked with several advertising departments and was ranting and raving about how absolutely all government regulation was useless because most business owners have a "social conscious" nowadays and would treat their employees fairly just because they feel good doing it, and because the free market would sort them out if they failed to deliver good products, their business would go elsewhere and they'd be run out of business.

I'm posting this from college and I don't have much time to describe his arguments in detail but what are some arguments and sources I can use against the "free market will solve everything"-type libertarians? I understand that it's incorrect but I'm not really sure HOW to explain it, if that makes any sense.

[Captain Ahab]

Utilize relevant statistics showing the poor economic performance of governments employing free market fundamentalism have had. Start with Chile as it'll be the easiest to attack.
Some useful statistics:
http://libcom.org/library/chile-anatomy-of-an-economic-miracle

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionC11

Prepare for an attack on the planned economies of Cuba and the USSR by the free market fundamentalist.

[cyu]

General strategy not specific to this situation:

#1. Always remember this from The Wizard of Oz: "Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have. But they have one thing you haven't got: a diploma."

#2. Two people starting from different sets of axioms will come to different conclusions. What are their axioms? What are their assumptions? What are their definitions? Are they weak? If so, attack them.

#3. When in doubt, attack their definitions. Sometimes it's not so obvious what axioms they are basing their arguments off of. Sometimes the assumptions they're using are so ingrained that neither they nor you will realize it - you may even take some of their assumptions for granted without actually examining them. In a haze like that, attacking definitions is the easiest, since the words they use are right in front of you. What do they mean exactly by capitalism, socialism, market, property, freedom, good, immoral, etc? Are those the same definitions you would give to the words?

[cyu]

Anyway, back to the topic...

Social conscience?

http://ntdtv.org/en/news/china/2012-11-23/china-s-toxic-milk-whistleblower-murdered.html

Social conscience?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Social conscience?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal

Social conscience?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Social conscience?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi

While many individuals may have some semblence of conscience (the amount or lack thereof needed to claw your way to CEO not withstanding), the only conscience that corporations have is the stock price. If the stock goes up, it is judged good. If the stock goes down, it is judged bad. No matter how "moral" the CEO is, if the stock goes down, he will be booted. Those who run corporations are actually bound by ownership laws to increase shareholder value, regardless of whether they do moral things or not. Sometimes morality and stock prices go together, but that is only coincidence. If it means murdering whistleblowers, bribing politicians, forming cartels, hiring professional liars, as long as the share prices are up, the executives will remain in power.

Pro-capitalist "libertarians" are also lying to themselves if they think the separation of "economy and state" will solve all problems. "You don't have to fear bribery," they might claim, "once bribed politicians can no longer affect the economy." Fact is, large concentrations of wealth turn rich capitalists into the new government, the new politicians. What power they claim is no longer in the hands of big governments will merely be transferred into the hands of big capitalists.

And finally, as for the functioning of market economics itself, see this discussion of supply and demand: http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/demand-is-not-measured-in-units-of-gcybcajus7dp-4/