The Instigator
PrincessLindsey
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Resolved: That on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive im

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 720 times Debate No: 11126
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

PrincessLindsey

Pro

My first point is that exporting low-paying and low-skill jobs to BRIC nations benefits the U.S. in the long run. When these BRIC nations get more jobs to make American products, Americans are just as happy as with American-made products. When we use people from other countries to work in factories to manufacture goods for America, those low rate people who had never had jobs before now do have jobs. Thus meaning, they will have more money in their pocket and when they want special American-made goods, like cars, foods, and such, they will be more apt to buy from America since they now have money from Americans to make the same products that we already would have had. This makes Americans TONS of money that we can use to pay off many of the debts we owe.
My second point is that the rise of these nations will positively impact the U.S. by creating new and expansive markets for domestic goods. As the middle class grows in the BRIC countries, the demand for quality goods and services will rise. This creates even more opportunities for the US to make money off these nations. The U.S. will be able to produce more and more goods and services. This will enable more jobs to be put into play in the United States for American citizens, instead of using foreign job help. This makes American citizens more money, as well as our government, because we are becoming less job dependant on other countries when we use our own American citizens to make goods, and provide services. The demand for luxury goods have risen by 15% in the last several years. They are just waiting for the products to be made by American workers, which we have plenty of unemployed people to fill the slots.
My third point is that as BRIC countries become economically stronger they will have a vested interest in global stability thus taking pressure off the U.S. as the "bad guy". For example, China wants us to remain afloat and not fall as a country. They want us to succeed mainly because they want their money back that they financed us through our bailouts and major debts we still owe. They want us to be happy with them because they helped us in our time of economic downturn, so they want us to keep buying and helping out their economics as much as we can. The other BRIC Countries have done the same exact thing, and feel the same way about keeping the U.S. in balance and having a mutual peace stability among the nations.
For these reasons I urge a PRO vote on the resolved case: That on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States.
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate.

I will first challenge and refute PRO's arguments then propose some alternatives.

1) There is one major flaw in your first point. If we export "low-paying and low-skill jobs" to other nations so that the other nations are manufacturing products, then the people in the other nations that now have money, will NOT buy from America, because we are not producing as much any more. For example, if we shift all the car manufacturing jobs overseas and those countries begin doing well (which is good and all) and they decide that they now have the money to go buy a car of their own, they won't be buying from America because we outsourced those jobs. Basic rule, if we (as a nation) want to sell stuff to make money, we have to produce it ourselves.

2) The rise of these nations will only benefit the US IFF the US is producing goods to sell, as mentioned earlier. We, as a nation, cannot rely on luxury goods as a primary income source for the entire nation. Luxury goods are much more elastic and so sway in demand much more due to price theory and supply and demand. [1] Just because they are growing now, does not mean that they are good to build our entire economy around.

3) I have to agree with your third point. When other nations grow, they will have an increased global presence and so will take some of the strain off of the US and help our image. But I have to say, given the other negative effects that were mentioned in 1) and 2) greatly out weigh a positive image.

For my arguments, we should not focus on sending our jobs to them. With 9.7% unemployment in the US [2] we need to find ways to keep as many jobs here as possible. There are two things that need to be done that will benefit the US's economy.

1) We need to manufacture items here, and quality items at that. This includes both luxury and necessity goods. Production is far better for people then unemployment checks (I hope we have no arguments there). This will allow the US to have actual products that we can sell to other nations (increasing Exports/revenues) and it will also allow us to produce more things ourselves so we don't need foreign items (decease Imports/expenses). The extra jobs means that the US government will have more tax revenue (both from payroll taxes and from corporation taxes) and so we can pay down the debt (or at least stop its growth).

2) We need to help other nations' economies so that they are able to buy our products (no point in making a bunch of products that other nations can't buy). This is not done by sending their government money or by sending money to their people so they can buy stuff. This is done by encouraging American businessmen to start NEW businesses (rather then move pre-existing businesses) in those countries and having them start businesses that are for that country, such as growing food, constructing houses and buildings, and the various trades. Instead of pushing for a nation that is heavily dependent upon exports, they have their own full economy that can sustain itself. Then they can move into importing our products and exporting their own.

[1] http://www.basiceconomics.info...
[2] http://www.bls.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
PrincessLindsey

Pro

PrincessLindsey forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele

Con

extend arguments
Debate Round No. 2
PrincessLindsey

Pro

First, I'm sorry I hadn't posted an argument I haven't been able to have extra time lately.

1) Your first attack against my case doesn't hold up, because if the United States began to manufacture all of our own goods etc. we would have to build factories, machines, etc. which means that we will be spending more money buying the materials to have the facilities to make the cars etc. that we need, when we could just get them from the BRIC countries for cheaper. Right now, in our economy, when something is cheap and efficient the U.S. only has the choice to take that option.
2) I don't quite understand where you are going with your attack on my case. The BRIC nations are working with the U.S. to help keep the US doing well, and whatnot, in our economy and they do not want to have the US end in destruction because they are making a lot of income and revenue off of the buying/trade the U.S. does with these countries.
3) Thank you for agreeing with me. This only proves that the PRO case can with the Debate.

Now on to Your arguments:
1) Like I said in my rebuttal to your arguments against my point 1...We lose money when we make items here, and we are ineffiecient if we are making items and having thousands of more factories in the US if we aren't going to the BRIC countries to help us out. We get good deals on items/goods from them, so there is no need to have to produce our own goods in the US if we already have a cheap and effective way to get the goods that we need.
2) We already have manufacturing companies and other countries can buy our products, this does not mean that they are a threat to the US, or the US economy.

Thank you....comments, questions?
Ore_Ele

Con

1) Yes we would have to build factories and machines and such, and that would yield more jobs (so long as we use Americans to build them). Spending money on Americans is an okay thing. Because if the government spends money (though it would be better if companies did it, but they are often hesitant to start something, but will join in once the ball is rolling) on americans, then they get some of it back in taxes (income taxes), if those americans then build stuff that is sold to other americans, the government gets some more back (through taxes on the manufacturing plant's profits, and maybe sales taxes, pending the state). That money then keeps changing hands (from people buying goods and services and labour) which keeps things going, but it only keeps things going in America so long as it keeps changing American hands.

This actually won't cost the government too much, since the cost to look at is not the total dollar figure, but what the dollar figure is compared to the alternative, paying unemployment checks. You can either pay 1,000 people A) $20,000,000 to sit on unemployment and do nothing, or B) pay them $24,000,000 to build some factories to create some jobs so they can EARN a paycheck rather then just get one? Option B doesn't cost $24,000,000, it only really costs $4,000,000 which is a darn good deal.

I would also disagree that other nations have high interest in the well being of american any further then our pocket books. China has a history of sending rather bad products because they cut corners to save money, not something that someone who cares does. [2]

Yes things can be made "cheaper" in those other nations, because they have lower safety regulations (saves money), lower worker rights (saves money), less environmental regulations (saves money) and less legal consequences if they cause serious injury (saves money). But then, that is not the topic of this debate. we are talking about what is better for the US, not what is better for individual corporations.

2) It is important that other nations' economies grow, so that they can both sell stuff to the US and buy stuff from the US, however they cannot sell to the US if we have exported our jobs to them and everyone is sitting on unemployment checks. Looking back at the car example, even if China makes new cars, if we can't buy the cars, it doesn't matter. Then China just goes and sells those cars to other nations and we get nothing (only lost jobs, lost business, and lost money).

On to defending my arguments.

1) Again, it doesn't matter if they make it cheaper overseas, if the US citizens here don't have jobs and so can't buy them. It is perfectly acceptable to have goods made overseas so long as we have an abundance of jobs and people able to buy said goods here. This is not what was argued in the OP. The OP said that "exporting low-paying and low-skill jobs to BRIC nations," meaning that we should SEND jobs away. I strongly disagree. Like I said in my first argument, we should help those countries and their economies, however, we should not send our jobs to them, but instead work on helping them create jobs themselves (while we try to create jobs ourselves).

2) Yes, we do have manufacturing in other nations, and has cost the US jobs and also lead to poor quality products that ultimately hurt the US, not help it.

I noticed that my opponent did not challenge my statements that "Luxury goods are much more elastic and so sway in demand much more due to price theory and supply and demand. [1] Just because they are growing now, does not mean that they are good to build our entire economy around." So I will extend that argument again.

[1] http://www.basiceconomics.info...
[2] http://www.who-sucks.com...
Debate Round No. 3
PrincessLindsey

Pro

PrincessLindsey forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele

Con

Extend my argument again. I hope that nothing too substaincial has happened that is preventing my opponent from posting. But if something has, I hope it gets remedied as soon as possible.
Debate Round No. 4
PrincessLindsey

Pro

I'm sorry for the delay, I had a debate tournament this week and I was busy preparing and didn't have enough time to continue this debate. Thank you for your consideration.

1) You agree with me that we will have to build factories and such which will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars-maybe even millions. Your argument that spending money on Americans is a "good thing" doesn't hold merit because we can't afford to spend money that we do not have. When we try to spend money we do not have to build factories and machines that just basically puts the U.S. more in debt, and in more deficit. Also, where would the government acquire this money? Raise taxes even more? Or perhaps go to China...oh wait if China didn't help the U.S. in times of trouble when we needed money, the United States would be failing dramatically and perhaps the fall of this nation would be upon us. This is why the BRIC countries are good, especially China, they bail us out of debt and make our lives easier.

You're claim that this won't cost much doesn't hold merit either. It takes sometimes over 1 million dollars just to Build a factory. If the US built HUNDREDs of factories...this would be MILLIONS of dollars that the US can't afford to pay.

Ohter countries do care about our well being, if we are allies with them, such as China, and we did nothing to provoke them or have them provoke us, then they would know they are safe as well. In the past the US has gone up to bat for other countires in times of trouble that were our allies. The BRIC countries know this as well, thats why they hav high interest in the well being of America.

If things are made cheaper, then it is better for the US. Would you rather pay $15 dollars for a bag of rice made in the US, or $4 for the SAME bag of rice manufactured in China or any country in the BRIC country.

The BRIC nations economy CAN grow, because they are making a profit off of our deficit and the money that we owe them from interest that we owe them.

On to your arguments
1)I will repaeat what I said in my previous case: As the middle class grows in the BRIC countries, the demand for quality goods and services will rise. This creates even more opportunities for the US to make money off these nations. The U.S. will be able to produce more and more goods and services. This will enable more jobs to be put into play in the United States for American citizens, instead of using foreign job help. This makes American citizens more money, as well as our government, because we are becoming less job dependant on other countries when we use our own American citizens to make goods, and provide services. The demand for luxury goods have risen by 15% in the last several years. They are just waiting for the products to be made by American workers, which we have plenty of unemployed people to fill the slots.----This proves that it indeed makes the US MORE jobs than it takes.

3) I'm still unclear of where you are going with the statement: "Luxury goods are much more elastic and so sway in demand much more due to price theory and supply and demand" and that is why I haven't attacked it. But, I'll give a good guess at what you are getting at. When luxury goods are on the market, supply and demand still is in effect. You haven't clearly established what "price theory" is. If your meaning that people will buy luxury goods according to the bet price then THAT my friend is called supply and demand. This is why America is what it is today, we have a wide variety of things that are the best/worst price in accordance to how well the good is manufactured etc. So your who statement about Luxury goods doesn't hold merit also.

Thanks for debating!
Ore_Ele

Con

1) The building of factories holds no weight as an argument, for several reasons.
a) Under your suggestion (that we move current jobs to overseas), you hope that the improvement of these other nations is going to create markets for us to get into. Well, if all goes well (which you still haven't shown a single source), then WE WOULD STILL NEED TO BUILD FACTORIES anyway.
b) Building factories is growth, companies do it to expand which is a good thing, saying that we should not build any factories is requiring our economy to never grow and so doom us to become a shell of our former greatness.
c) As with just about every company, factories are built on credit, not cash. And companies ALWAYS hold onto a certain amount of debt, it is actually considered a good business practice since it boost earnings per share for stockholders (so long as it is under control and not too much). Intel, Microsoft, all companies do it. Intel's liabilities is over twice its annual Net Income. [1] And Microsoft's liabilities is almost 2.5x its Net Income [2].

"The BRIC nations economy CAN grow, because they are making a profit off of our deficit and the money that we owe them from interest that we owe them." These nations are not going to accept our jobs as payment for our debt. Billions of dollars (if not Trillions) have already gone to China for our jobs that have been shipped over there, but that hasn't covered one penny of our debt. Because the business that they are taking is legit businesses choosing to go over there, not the US government offering it as a form of payment.

"I will repaeat what I said in my previous case..."

This is just copied from the beginning and I have already taken care of it.

"I'm still unclear of where you are going with the statement: "Luxury goods are much more elastic and so sway in demand much more due to price theory and supply and demand" and that is why I haven't attacked it. But, I'll give a good guess at what you are getting at. When luxury goods are on the market, supply and demand still is in effect." This is about how prices fluctuate with changes in supply and changes in demand. High elasticity, means that if the demand changes a little, the cost of that product changes a lot. So if the demand goes up just a little, it would be great for an economy that is based off of that product. But if the demand drops just a bit, the price drops a lot, meaning an economy based on that product is going to collapse. Luxury goods almost always have a high elasticity, so they are risky to base an economy on, extremely risky. They are like high risk stock, great to put a bit in your portfolio, but extremely unwise to have an entire portfolio based on them.

I have agreed that those countries doing better is in our best interest. However, PRO has beed arguing that we should be sending our jobs to them, which would cause our economy to fall even further with rising unemployment rates. He then went on to say that as those countries do better, they will turn to us, a nation with sky high unemployment and is not producing much, and buy stuff from us. This is simply not logical, as I have shown. They will turn to other nations that are actually producing things, and we will be left jobless and in massive debt.

I would hope that no one looks at this debate for the semantics, but rather at the actual debate. I say this since neither one of us ever debated the original topic that uses the words "has had" meaning in the past. Both of us argued based on how they could help in the future.

[1] http://finance.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
If you change "BRIC" to Barbados, Rwanda, Iran and Cuba I may just accept :P.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
The space bar is fantastic
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by curious18 6 years ago
curious18
PrincessLindseyOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by PrincessLindsey 6 years ago
PrincessLindsey
PrincessLindseyOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
PrincessLindseyOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06