The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Free Trade

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...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,665 times Debate No: 24256
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

Issue

Free trade, with a limited amount of regulations, is good for the United States of America.

Rules

There is only one rule that I ask for and that is that round 1 is just for acceptance.

Have fun!

Oh, and no semantics!
dairygirl4u2c

Con

i am an advocate of "fair trade" not free trade.... or at least "managed trade", not laissez faire trade.

the primary flaw with free trade is the idea of the "race to the bottom". countries compete with each other so much that it's a detriment to everyone.... they have to start cutting regulations and wages etc just to compete. perhaps for a country that is just starting to develop, or in the process of developing, they being on the receiving end will reap benefits of something they wouldn't have had otherwise. but for a countries that are already considered developed nations like the US, it leads to problems.

this is especially true if you consider that for most effective purposes, we have an infinite labor pool. you can always find a schmuck to take less when he's in poverty, as the world has tons of, the idea of putting our labor somewhere else.

for example. mitt romney talked about cutting out labor's union stronghold, saying that it costs two thousand dollars more per car here than other places. he's talking about cutting out pay and benefits, then, just to increase profits. we might agree that the unions get and had too much (eg before the bail out when they didn't have to take as many concessions), but that don't mean there's things being cut, the point of race to the bottom.

there might be some benefit to some people, with lower prices in goods.... but not for everyone, and over the long run, it brings everyone down. like that motto.... "out of a job yet? keeping buying foreign". wages jobs etc fall.

also, if you look at the share of the middle classes income compared to the richer etc, over time, it not only stalled but started to decrease. especially if you look at it after inflation. what could have caused this? perhaps the free trade act that bill clinton enacted in 1995. (we saw a boom soon after that, due to the internet boom or trade or what is interesting to speculate). even if it was a boom for the corporations as it was... that don't mean it wasn't for everyone, or at least that it'd last.

we are essentially making the US meet the with everyone else.... causing us to become a third world nation etc.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

Round 1 was for acceptance, my opponent broke the code of conduct, so I ask for the point of conduct.

Rebuttals

"countries compete with each other so much that it's a detriment to everyone.... they have to start cutting regulations and wages etc just to compete. perhaps for a country that is just starting to develop, or in the process of developing, they being on the receiving end will reap benefits of something they wouldn't have had otherwise. but for a countries that are already considered developed nations like the US, it leads to problems."

My opponent believes that free trade is bad because of competition between countries and businesses. However, why would they have to cut wages or fire workers? There is a better way for businesses and countries to make a quick profit; lowering prices. This also benefits consumers because with lower prices they can buy things cheaper. A businessman would likely not cut his workforce when he can simply lower prices to gain a greater profit than his competator. Also, cutting regulations benefits the market more. Cutting them is not a bad thing because it helps businesses more easily to gain profit and help the people. Cutting regulations =/= cutting jobs and wages.

As I said a small amount of regulations should be in place. Minimum wage and laws against child labor would be a perfect example. However, too much regulation destroys wealth for the entire society, not just what you consider to be wealthy.

"there might be some benefit to some people, with lower prices in goods.... but not for everyone, and over the long run, it brings everyone down."

My opponent seems to live in a world where lower prices does not benefit anyone and as a direct cause wages and labor are cut. I have no idea what that means so I am just going to teach my own lesson in economics 101.

Economics 101: The Effect of Low Prices

When a business lowers prices in order to gain more profit than its competitor, people usually react by buying the cheaper items. This allows a business to gain more profit than its competitor and be more successful. If this continues, the owner of the business may increased the amount of jobs and expand his business in order to gain even more profit and possibly raise wages for his current workers. [1]

Anyway, my opponent continues to boast that the Free Trade Act enacted by President Bill Clinton was bad and caused inflation. However, he has no sources to back him up. He may not be telling the truth. How are we so sure that boom was only due to the internet and not the Free Trade Act. Also, my opponent may remember that flat tax debate we did. In that debate I placed a link showing that the richer are getting richer, but the poor are getting poorer and at a faster rate. [2]

Anyway, now to my own points on why the US should have free trade.

Free Trade Allows A Country to Become More Competitive and Innovative

Innovation provides new technology that allows countries to produce more, cure more diseases, pollute less, improve education, and choose from a greater range of investment opportunites. This results in economic growth allowing for better-paying jobs, higher standards of living, and greater appreciation of benefits of living in a peaceful society. New technologies bring about change in the market which, as US history shows, benefits society as a whole. One of the reasons why economic recessions and depressions happen would be because of new technologies challening older methods of production. This makes some sectors suffer until they can adapt to the new changes which end the economic woes and benefit society as all sectors would be advanced in the current technology now. [3]

Higher Standard of Living

Free trade does improve people's lives. In the 19th century, British economist David Ricardo showed that any nation that focuses on producing goods in which it has a comparative advantage will get get cheaper and sometimes better goods from other countries in return. As a result of free trade, nations around the world gain from producing more efficiently and consuming higher quality and services at lower prices. [3]

Economic Growth

Economic freedom is essential to economic growth and true measure of economic freedom is free trade. Of the 142 nations whose economies have been observed during a seven year period for a study, the nations with the most free trade had more economic growth that the nations with the least free trade. A growing economy increases the demand for goods and services. As demans increases, businesses start to expand and create more and better-paying jobs. [3]
Stronger Institutions and Infrastructure

Free trade also supports the strengthening and development of institutions that safeguard economic freedom and development. Facing new opportunities to sell and purchase goods and to open all sorts of trade-related businesses, individuals have a strong incentive to create mechanisms and institutions to seize other opportunities. Free trade also supports the construction of new and stronger infrastructure. With free trade more and better roads as well as ports and airfields would need to be built to support free trade. [3]

Peace

Free trade fosters an enormous chain of economic activity, the benefits of which create a social desire to be at peace with neighbors and faraway nations in which trade is conducted and maybe conducted in the future. When someone sees all the benefits of free trade, they want peace to preserve it. The Middle East, in which civil wars and massive riots takes place, is one of the most restrictive places on free trade in the entire world. North Korea, a country plagued by starvation and poverty, also is very restrictive with free trade. South Korea on the other hand is propsering with more free trade. [3]

1. http://wiki.answers.com...
2. http://www.ajc.com...
3. http://www.heritage.org...

dairygirl4u2c

Con

"My opponent believes that free trade is bad because of competition between countries and businesses. However, why would they have to cut wages or fire workers? There is a better way for businesses and countries to make a quick profit; lowering prices. This also benefits consumers because with lower prices they can buy things cheaper. A businessman would likely not cut his workforce when he can simply lower prices to gain a greater profit than his competator. Also, cutting regulations benefits the market more. Cutting them is not a bad thing because it helps businesses more easily to gain profit and help the people. Cutting regulations =/= cutting jobs and wages.

As I said a small amount of regulations should be in place. Minimum wage and laws against child labor would be a perfect example. However, too much regulation destroys wealth for the entire society, not just what you consider to be wealthy. "

we can all agree unnecessary regulations should be cut. if the regulations are "necessary" then cutting them will be problematic. i tend to think most of our regulations are there for a reason, though. what reason do you have to think otherwise other than your mere assertions?
we cut environmental regulations, people die, things get ruined... we cut safety regulations, people die, get seriously hurt etc, we cut financial regualtions, people abuse the process... we cut labor regulations, people get abused, like children or whatever. on and on. perhaps
we can agree that there might be a side effect that is good with free trade that unnecessary reglations being cut could be a good thing.

also, the employers might not have to cut labor with free trade, but they do. they put plants in mexico instead of the US, or even reestablish them there. the rust belt is an example... instead of hiring the masses of unemployed there, they hire out and off source jobs.

as to the price argument.. i'm not sure how you're tying this to free trade. a person cannot just "lower prices", they have to have the ability to.
infering what you might meant... free trade might cause lower prices... but that only benefits some people, while hurting others. i mean, the guy who lost his job or had his wages cut might benefit when the tires he used to make or makes for a lot less are now cheaper... but that doesn't mean he's better for it. there's only a set pool of money and resources, at elast as an initial supposition.

eg, bob makes ten dollars an hour, 120 per day. his boss cuts his job to five dollars an hour, 60 per day. his boss pockets twenty of that savings, and passes on the rest to everyone else. in this case boss got richer, and everyone else saved some,but bob lost out. but then what happens when 'everyone else' also eventually gets knocked down? all their jobs get cut or reduced or not starting out as high, whatever. eventually everyone will be working for nothing while the boss makes beans.

i didn't say the free trade act caused inflation... i said it caused our wages to decline. look the rust belt, it collapsed. loook at shoes or all the products that were once made here now being made there.
as that site from heritage you quoted said, manufacturing jobs are lost. it didn't say how that's good. sure it might mean some lower prices, but as is with Bob, it's not all around victory.

even if the poor get richer at a faster rate than the rich... that only means there's upward mohility. that means you can go from nothing to something significant realtively quick. but, that doesn't mean much as far as free trade. instead of getting to something more significant, you get to less when you're poor.

i don't know how you can make such a blanket assertion that technology makes everything okay. it may be true that GM starts to use robots instead of workers to comepete with others... but that only means GM made more money. some might be passed on to the general population... but when they ahve to take a cut of the profit, the balance means more goes to teh rich and the supply side, less to the demand side, the side that stimulates the economy and is more important. sometimes technology helps... but i'm not convinced it's signficantly more ebcause of competing with other countries asit is just people innovating and making a buck on it. windows the operating system and compuaters woudl have been madea nd sold regardless of if we had free trade.

as to the point that countries that are more free trade oriented grow more... this is what i see
http://www.heritage.org...

it lists "improvement in economic freedom" as the x axis. that's so blatantly bias as to be meaningless. which countries grew and which didn't? the ones that have the most development going on, per developing nation or not will have the most growth. manufacturing is cut so others can benefit.
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

Rebuttals

Most of our regulations are in fact wasteful. Allow me to give you some examples.

1. Private Investigator's Insurance - Texas now requires every new computer repair technician to obtain a private investigator's license. In order to get that license, an individual must have either a degree in criminal justice or a three year apprenticeship. If you are a computer repair technician that violates this law or if you are an individual citizen that has a computer repaired by someone not in compliance with the law, you could be fined up to $4,000 or put in prison for a year.

2. Business Priviledge License for Bloggers - The city of Philadelphia now requires all bloggers to pay a $300 license. The city even went after one poor woman who made just $11 from her blog over the past two years.

3. Funeral Director License for Monks - Louisiana says that monks must be fully licensed as funeral directors and actually convert their monasteries into actual funeral homes.

You can find these and more on my first link.

There is more to it than what my opponent seems to think as he seemed to narrow it down to environmental, financial, and labor regulations.

Employers only cut labor if they are in an economic slump and are not making a profit, so that with less workers they can. This is actually based on the decision of consumers if they wish to buy the items at that business or not. If they are not doing well there then they will take their business somewhere else. Its just natural.

Prices are adjusted to free trade. Corporations can freely pick their prices. If they could not then that is not free trade. Free trade does help everyone. What happens is that you eventually have two businesses competing against each other. If a business wants to gain the upper hand, then the obvious choice is to bring down prices so more people would buy his/her items. This benefits consumers to as they are getting things at a cheaper price. It benefits workers because they get to keep their jobs and their pay might increase as a reward because the owner would not want his workers to go on strike.

"eg, bob makes ten dollars an hour, 120 per day. his boss cuts his job to five dollars an hour, 60 per day. his boss pockets twenty of that savings, and passes on the rest to everyone else. in this case boss got richer, and everyone else saved some,but bob lost out. but then what happens when 'everyone else' also eventually gets knocked down? all their jobs get cut or reduced or not starting out as high, whatever. eventually everyone will be working for nothing while the boss makes beans."

Two problems here. The first is that the boss would not single out an invidual and cut his salary if he is doing the same thing as everyone else. That would only happen if he was a bad worker and chances are he would be fired instead of getting his salary cut. The second is that the workers might ban together and strike. This would actually make the business lose money as there would be no more workers. Chances are the businessman would agree to their demands and give them higher pay. Also, why would he cut anyone's salary if he was making a good profit already? That makes no sense. He would want to keep workers to keep making money and probably keep their pay so they don't strike.

While I place one source, my opponent still placed none. In fact it seems to have increased exports for us, but I do not have a problem with tariffs because they benefits local businesses. As long as tariffs are 25% or less they can help. Anything over is too high. So I am OK with tariffs as long as they are not high.

"even if the poor get richer at a faster rate than the rich... that only means there's upward mohility. that means you can go from nothing to something significant realtively quick. but, that doesn't mean much as far as free trade. instead of getting to something more significant, you get to less when you're poor."

When you get more money you become more wealthy. People have been becoming rich and that is the bottom line. People are becoming richer so it is benefitting everyone.

What if GM wants to make more cars to make more money? Then they would make more factories with more robotic devices operated by more people. So in the end everyone becomes happy.

My opponent has said that my source is biased, but he has no proof. "Improvent in Economic Freedom" would be a subtitle. The biggest improvement is the nations in the 1st quintile and the ones with lowerst improvement are in the 5th quintile. On the Y axis are the numbers in terms of growth in GDP.

1. http://www.businessinsider.com...#

dairygirl4u2c

Con

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

Arguments Extended.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1Historygenius

Pro

Arguments extended.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
also, for the US to get something that is good for them that they can't get... like natural resources, oil etc... then itd prob be a good idea to trade more freely.. otherwise we can't use said resources.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
and i'll add, just increasing profits don't mean much. we live in a demand economy, we make things happen by increasing demand's supply, not the rich's supply. the rich have plenty of money, and will always invest if only there's a place to make more, demand.
if you look at income disparties over time.. the richest one percent, and the higher brackets, increase wildly while everyone else stays the same ish etc.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
1Historygeniusdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for Con's forfeiture and rule violation. Spelling goes to Pro for Con's lack of proper capitalization throughout the debate. Convincing arguments goes to Pro partially for Con's forfeiture but also for Con's unsubstantial claims, which Pro properly refuted.