The Instigator
Smokeyh1
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Octavian_Peace
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Engagement with Mexico

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 51341
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Smokeyh1

Pro

The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement with Mexico to facilitate improved efficiency and reduced congestion at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. By improving border efficiency the US can increase their economy by reducing congestion which hampers trade. This will increase our relations with Latin America which is key to provide cooperation on important issues.
Octavian_Peace

Con

The Affirmative has brought up two points as to why those judging should vote for his proposition. They are that 1) such an action would aid the US economy and 2) that it would improve relations. Before refuting these points, I would like to bring up three arguments against his case in general. The first is that my opponent has provided no numbers for you to base your vote on. Granted, increased trade might help the economy, but how much so? Granted, it might improve relations, but to what degree? By how much will we have to increase trade to see any meaningful effect? At the point that he cannot provide such numbers, he cannot justifiably claim this would be a good idea. The second is that, while I am sure my opponent is a very intelligent person, he has not provided any qualified, third-party source to back up his information. As such, the claims my opponent makes cannot be taken beyond the veracity of the word of a fifteen-year-old. Finally, the Affirmative provides no mechanics as to how, precisely, any of the things mentioned in this plan of his will occur. He proposes that 1) the USFG should increase its economic engagement with mexico, but never says how, 2) that this should be done to alleviate congestion and improve trade, but again never says how, and 3) that this would help the economy and improve relations, but, yet again, does not explain how this will occur. For all we know, he could be legalizing the slave trade, which would very likely lead to the same effects and falls under the parameters of his proposition. You, as a judge cannot vote for such a vague idea, as it is bound to be flawed not only in its execution, but in its very nature and repercussions, as in the case of legalizing the slave trade. With these points in mind, I would like to move on to address his sub-points. On his first point, I would like to begin by saying that, even if the affirmatives proposition improved trade, there has been no evidence brought up as to how much that would impact our economy. Granted, I have not either, but it is common knowledge, as well as common sense, that the US has other trading partners. On top of this, there is no need to fix the economy as, according to www.usnews.com on January 15. 2014, that economic growth is projected to increase due to the energy boom, more positive federal signals, less governmental drag, and the recovering of Europe from its crisis. In addition to this, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has been increasing and is currently at some of its highest levels. Just today, it went up 0.82%. Given the economy is perfectly fine, there is no reason to fix it. The same can be said, moving on, of my opponents second point. According to www.cfr.org on May 3, 2012, quote: : our relationship with mexico is getting better step by step". Also, according to www.fcp.state,gov on January 16, 2013, "While President Barack Obama and President Pena Nieto both face a full slate of domestic challenges, analysts have urged both leaders to work together on issues that are of critical importance to both countries, particularly those aimed at boosting trade and job creation. At a pre-inaugural meeting in late November 2012, President Obama embraced President Pena Nieto"s desire to bolster economic ties and to focus on a broad array of bilateral issues rather than focusing predominantly on security issues". With this evidence, I would like to utilize the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Beyond, this on the matter of relation and of vagueness, the Affirmative has said that there are "important issues" to fix via relations, but never says what these problems are. If we do not know this, the Affirmative cannot claim that they are necessarily of any importance. Having answered my opponents case, I would now like to present my own.

First off, I would like to bring up the argument that:
1. Any policy that does not exist strictly to protect our rights is interventionist
this is by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins of the Ayn Rand Institute, accessed 2-7-13, published 2013, "Introduction,"
http://capitalism.aynrand.org...
"'Big Government,' by the way, is not our favorite term. The problem with government today is not its size per se but its role in the economy and in our lives. The problem is what government does: Instead of performing the delimited function the Founders assigned it"protecting individual rights"the government intervenes in our lives in countless ways, restricting our freedom, redistributing our wealth, and erecting barriers to our pursuit of happiness. Yes, it is too big, but it"s too big because it is no longer limited by the principles of the Declaration. If it was up to us, we would label the threat 'Statist Government.' But 'Big Government,' as inexact as it is, does suggest the essential idea: The Founders" vision of limited government has been replaced by an unlimited government, and something has to be done to restore those limits.

2. Intervention in the free market forces the government into a cycle of continuous intrusion
By Crowley, 12. Managing Director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a national public policy think tank based in Ottawa. He was also the founding President of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), a public policy think tank based in Atlantic Canada. (Brian Lee, "The Man Who Changed Everyone's Life", The Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 2012, http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca..., Callahan)
"...Suppose, for example, that the government decides that it would be good for children's health if more milk were drunk by families. Most people would agree that this was a worthy objective. The government decides that the best course is to set the price of milk, by bureaucratic order, at a lower price than it is offered on the market. Presto: Cheaper milk appears in the stores. But of course two contradictory effects result from such action. On the one hand, as the government intended, demand is stimulated: More milk is drunk than before. But the unintended consequence is that marginal milk producers, those who were just making it at the original milk price, are driven out of business, taking a part of the supply out of the market. Shortages result. Now the government has a choice: It can either withdraw its original intervention, which unbalanced the equilibrium between the demand for and the supply of milk, or it can allow itself to be drawn further into substituting its own judgment for the market's. For example, it can try to lower farmers' costs, by controlling the prices of things like feed, cattle, and farmland. Or it can pay farmers more and subsidize the price difference with tax dollars. Or it can nationalize the farms, thus eliminating "wasteful" profit. Or it can coerce farmers to produce milk at a loss. But each one of these responses brings further undesirable consequences. Milk lakes emerge that must be stored or dumped on international markets, as government tries to stimulate milk production by subsidies and other industries organize politically to have themselves declared essential to public health so that they, too, can receive subsidies. Or suppliers of farm inputs withdraw from business because, under controlled prices, they can't survive either. Or bureaucrats put on gumboots and milk the cows according to the schedule laid down in their collective agreement. Or milk farms are abandoned by impoverished farmers, and supply collapses over time. The circle of disco-ordination widens with every turn of the interventionist screw. Hayek's critics claimed that he argued that the slightest intervention led automatically and inevitably to totalitarianism, but he said nothing of the sort. What he said was that each intervention forces government to make a choice: Either be drawn into ever more intervention than was intended at the outset, or withdraw the original intervention. There is no equilibrium point: One is either swept along by the logic of intervention, which leads to large losses of freedom by tiny degrees, or one turns back. Strictly limited or surgically targeted intervention, whether it be agricultural subsidies, rent controls, managed trade, or demand management, is a myth..."

3. Thus, we must accept laissez-faire capitalism in order to reverse the squo cycle of increasing intervention that the plan perpetuates.
By The Ayn Rand Lexicon,From the Ayn Rand Institute, accessed 2-7-13, published 2013, "Capitalism," http://aynrandlexicon.com...
"The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man"s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man"s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."

4. Beyond this, if we we want to fix relations and the economy not only in relation to Mexico, but with the entire world, we should engage in Free Trade
By Arthur Foulkes, "The Magic of Free Trade", October 22, 2013, http://www.fee.org...
"What"s more, free trade among nations is a way to promote peaceful international relations...[Ricardo, in] Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817)...summed up the benefits of free international trade nicely: Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labor to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole..."
Debate Round No. 1
Smokeyh1

Pro

Smokeyh1 forfeited this round.
Octavian_Peace

Con

Octavian_Peace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Smokeyh1

Pro

Smokeyh1 forfeited this round.
Octavian_Peace

Con

Why does this always happen? Vote Neg!
Debate Round No. 3
Smokeyh1

Pro

Smokeyh1 forfeited this round.
Octavian_Peace

Con

Octavian_Peace forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Octavian_Peace 3 years ago
Octavian_Peace
No- I just happen to have a Coercion K on hand.
Posted by Smokeyh1 3 years ago
Smokeyh1
Do you do policy debate?
Posted by Smokeyh1 3 years ago
Smokeyh1
It's a country that is just to the south of the US
Posted by p33kab0o 3 years ago
p33kab0o
What is Mexico?
Posted by Smokeyh1 3 years ago
Smokeyh1
Trade
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
So... what does "economic engagement" mean?
No votes have been placed for this debate.