The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Solution to jobs and manufacturing being lost to cheap labor over seas.

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 5 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,317 times Debate No: 6645
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

sadolite

Pro

I propose the following: Any and all companies foreign or domestic that want to sell anything in this country should have to follow the same rules and regulations that go with doing business and manufacturing domestically in this country.
I have no problem with an American business packing up and going overseas to get cheap labor. They can sell to the rest of the world, but if they want to sell their products in this country, they should have to take all of the regulatory baggage that US based businesses have to follow here.
That means OSHA, health and safety inspectors, workers comp, lawyers and the law suites that go with them and anything else that a US based business has to put up with to do business domestically. This will bring back manufacturing jobs and even the ridiculous uneven playing field for American based businesses.
You can call it a tariff if you want, but it is not. It is regulation of employee safety and regulation of unsafe manufacturing processes. Just look at all of the stuff coming from China and all the other third world cheap/slave labor countries. None of what they sell would pass inspection in this country nor would their employee safety procedures. No one can make a logical argument other than to say it gives access to cheap products. But at what cost?
Americans should be willing to pay more for a safe and superior product. You risk your life anytime you buy something made in China or any other country that has no safety standards. Our govt knowingly and willingly let unsafe products from China and other countries that have no standards come into this country.
If we as Americans would band together and adopted this approach we would be able to keep the high standard of living that is being lost. Manufacturing jobs would come back by the millions because their would be no point in leaving as it would cost just as much to manufacture something overseas plus the added cost of shipping it back to the US. This would save energy. This would increase quality, This would increase customer support, It would also at the same time raise the standard of living around the world and eliminate the sweat shop slave labor of foreign companies that want to do business in the US. So that makes it a humanitarian plus also. People would say the down side would be that the rest of the world would not buy American made products because they are to expensive. I remember not so long ago when anything that said "Made in USA" meant that it was of the highest quality and there was no shortage of customers to buy the "Made in USA" product. Quality never goes out of style and there is always a market for quality products and people are willing to pay more for them. This in tern as it used to be, would ensure our high standard of living that is now being lowered by cheap slave labor overseas.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro did not provide a resolution. I think it is:

Resolved: Countries wishing to sell to the U.S. should be required to have all of the regulatory baggage that US-based businesses have to follow here.

Pro's proposal would effectively end all imports into the United States, including goods critical to the well-being of the nation. At the same time, it would severely damage the economies of emerging nations, severely damaging the health and well-being of impoverished people around the world.

1. Pro specifically includes "lawyers and law [suits] that go with them" The US system of lawsuits is unique in the world. In all other countries, the loser of a lawsuit has to pay all the legal costs of the winning party. That feature of other legal systems provides a disincentive to sue unless the aggrieved party is fairly sure of winning. Consequently, no country would currently be qualified to trade with the U.S. and all imports would be halted immediately. Few countries have nearly enough lawyers to support the US system even if they wanted to, which, of course, they would not. The U.S. has one lawyer per 265 citizens. Brazil is second in the world with one for every 326. http://wiki.answers.com... The numbers drop quickly after the top few most-lawyered countries, "Depending on who you count as being the equivalent of a lawyer, Japan has either one-third or one-twentieth the number of lawyers that we have in the USA." http://blogs.law.harvard.edu..., if any, countries would choose to devote the resources necessary to support a large number of lawyers whose effect is to lower productivity. Even if they chose, training all the new lawyers and expanding the court systems would take many years, during which time the U.S. would have no imports.

2. As a matter of national independence, few countries would allow the US to define their legal system, so few would be able to pass the enabling legislation through their legislatures. Dictatorial regimes would never allow the U.S. to dictate workers rights. Therefore, virtually all imports to the U.S. would cease.

3. The U.S. has many laws preventing discrimination in em[ployment based on race or gender. There is no possibility that the Muslim world would pass laws requiring women to be hired and empowered to sue for sexual harassment. It is only slightly more likely that Russia, Mexico, Nigeria, or other key oil-producing nations from which the U.S. buys would comply. Therefore, nearly all oil imports would end immediately, causing economic disaster in the U.S.

4. The United States is the largest exporting country in the world. De facto refusal to accept foreign goods as imports would certainly induce retaliatory trade barriers. Consequently, large numbers of jobs would be lost in the U.S. as foreign trade collapses.

5. "Quality" means suitability to purpose; a quality product is one that serves the needs of the purchaser. Suppose you need a bucket to wash your car. Would you be better off being able to buy a $3 bucket imported from China or only being able to buy a "high quality" stainless steel bucket costing $100? The expensive bucket is no better for the task of washing a car, so paying extra is a complete waste. Pro's concept is that the U.S. would be better off if low cost goods were eliminated from society. Society would in fact be much worse off, because people with limited means could not afford to buy the things they need.

6. Labor costs are low in poorer countries, but other aspects of doing business overseas are high. Poor countries lack infrastructure, so much larger sums must be invested to provide electric power, communications, and transportation. For example, roads may wash out so warehouse facilities must be built to buffer supplies, and extra inventory costs are accrued. The costs of negotiating foreign contracts and supervising the work is high, because US managers must spend a lot of time traveling. The book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" by liberal author Thomas Friedman gives both examples and data for the high costs. If Pro's proposal were adopted, high labor costs would be added to the high infrastructure and management costs, making poor countries completely unable to compete. The result would be economic disaster for poor countries. Low wages are far superior to total loss of income. The alternative is subsistence farming in overpopulated countries, which spells death to many. The governments of poor countries recognize this situation and uniformly oppose the requirements that Pro advocates.

7. Pro's objective is to save manufacturing jobs in the U.S. That is a mistaken objective. In 1900, agriculture employed over 90% of the US population. Now only 4% of the population is employed in agriculture, but much more food is produced. since WWII, the workforce in manufacturing has declined from about 40% to about 20%, but four times as many goods are produced [Friedman, op cit]. The US is moving towards a service and information based economy. The purpose of expanding education is not to prepare people for manufacturing jobs, but rather to enable moving beyond a manufacturing economy. The US would not have benefited from strong measures to preserve all the 1900 agricultural jobs, and it would not now benefit from artificially propping up non-competitive manufacturing industries. There will always be manufacturing, and manufacturing output will rise, but it will do so through automation, not labor. Making products more expensive, as Pro suggests, will serve to hasten automation and thereby increase job losses.

For all these reasons, the resolution should be defeated.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

sadolite forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro forfeited. I cite this as bad conduct.

Arguments are continued.
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

Just a few questions and facts before I begin

Why has free trade been so beneficial for most countries but such a disastrous albatross for the U.S.?

A totally out-of-control trade deficit that is simply not sustainable.

Why is it that among the developed and industrialized
economies of the world, almost all have trade surpluses?

And among those "very few" that have trade deficits, why is the U.S alone the only country
with a massive trade deficit that grows each year by double-digit percentages?

In 2005 the U.S. trade deficit $716.7 billion. Germany, the largest exporter in the world with an economy and population � that of the U.S, exports over 4 times per capita more than the U.S.
with a trade surplus of $192 billion.

The EU is a free trade zone. Germany's per-capita imports are 70% higher than the U.S and its wages, manufacturing costs and taxes are higher than ours and it is even more dependent on imported petroleum than we are.

How is it and why is it possible for Germany to do this? A question that absolutely no one in our govt will ask or even has a clue to nor has the economic intelligence to even figure out.
Let me enlighten our readers of this debate! It all starts in Hollywood believe it or not.
Until the 1970s the U.S. never had a trade deficit. The last U.S. trade surplus was largest in the nation's history, it was $12.4 billion in 1975. The very next year our trade balance was a $6.1 billion deficit. And has been straight down hill ever since. There was a significant event, the Tax Reform Act of 1976 that erected an immediate and significant barrier to the export of both U.S. goods and services.

The Revenue Act of 1962, signed by President Kennedy: (Economic genius)

The 1962 Act made the United States the only country in the world to levy a double income tax on its citizens who live, work and are bona fide residents abroad. The 1962 legislation was directed specifically at Hollywood movie stars living and filming in Mexico where income taxes
were lower. The objective of double taxation was not to increase tax revenues but to
penalize them tax-wise so they would come home. Few Americans abroad were really affected by this legislation. It produced little tax revenue from overseas U.S. citizens but it did meet its
objective of discouraging Americans from living and working abroad. At that time, taxation was on the first $25,000 of income earned abroad. That was a lot of money 47 years ago,

Overseas citizens, (except diplomats) are generally fully taxed on their worldwide income by the
foreign governments where they live just like resident foreigners in the U.S. are taxed by
the IRS. No other country (with the possible exceptions of North Korea and Zimbabwe taxes its own non-resident citizens.

1976 legislation:
This made radical changes in the 1962 law. It reduced the foreign income
exclusion to $15,000, taxed all income above the exclusion at the marginal rates
applicable as if the $15,000 had not been excluded and established tighter limitations on
applying foreign income tax credits against the U.S. tax obligation. Taxes on income
received in foreign currencies had to be paid in U.S. dollars irrespective of local currency
laws which might prevent the exchange of such foreign currency income for dollars for
this purpose. And the Act, signed by President Ford in October 1976 was retroactive to
January 1. It also ruled that previously tax free reimbursements necessary and
provided by employers to overseas personnel would be taxed. These reimbursements
typically include tuition for children in English-language schools abroad, housing cost
allowances for rental costs, security guards, employer-provided local
transportation, food and housing at work camps and air transportation for
periodic home leave. Reimbursements for taxes were made taxable. The immediate
result was disastrous on overseas Americans and their employers. It made U.S. citizens
totally non-competitive for most overseas employment. The effect was immediate with a $6.1 billion trade deficit in 1976.

In 1979 President Carter appointed The President's Export Council made up of several prominent businessmen including the eminent senators Adlai Stevenson (D, IL) and Jacob Javits (R, NY) and Congressman Bill Alexander (D, AR) which recommended unequivocally the abolition of double taxation by the U.S. of Americans resident abroad. Congress commissioned the GAO to perform a study, which resulted in GAO Report "American Employment Abroad
Discouraged by U.S. Income Tax Laws," ID-81-29 of February 1981. Both reports
predicted massive trade deficits if the recommended action was not taken to eliminate
this double taxation. But the recommendations in both reports were ignored and the trade
deficit today is 120 times greater than in 1976. The YTD results point to a $920 billion
trade deficit for 2006 up 28% from last year.

Our previous economic moron Treasury Secretary not to be confused with Obama's new and just as much as a moron Treasury secretary blames our trade deficit with China on the "Pegging of the Yuan to the dollar and looks for a sure solution in a floating Yuan." We have a floating exchange rate with Europe, but between 2001 and 2005 the Euro increased 52% in value with respect to the dollar. Did this solve our trade deficit problem with the EU? No, during
this same 4 year period our annual trade deficit with the EU increased by 42%.

Two bills were introduced a couple of years ago to repeal this self imposed destruction by two of the only people in our govt who understood economics and trade, but they were rejected almost imeadiately by the rest of the economic morons in our govt. Obama is our new president and has no clue about this as his solution is to print worthless counterfeit money and create a huge new govt payroll via proxy. He will not remove the chains that stimy our exports because he doesn't even know what the chains are and never will.

What is reality? Socialism is our future under Obama. I accept this. Now one must think ahead if one is going to survive in a socialist, communist society. Our export trade deficit will not change. This is a fact if the double taxation laws are not repealed. I site 47 years of undeniable history that can't be refuted. This can not continue indefinitely, this is also a economic fact. The world does not need our exports, they can get them elsewhere. They pretty much do already as the numbers show. We do not need to import goods or services if only to get them cheap. We can manufacture everything we need in this country ourselves if we bring manufacturing back. To say that the world would suffer if the US stopped exporting is quite funny. We would export the same amount regardless of how much we import. We export virtually nothing compared to the rest of the world, what 6% of all export trade. Hardly worth worrying about as far as the rest of the world is concerned. most of the countries we do business with pretty much have all of the things I listed as requirements for imports with the exception of most communist third world countries which we are not even suppose to be trading with because of human rights violations so who cares about them. My opponent says we are headed for a service/information economy. That's because we have no other choice and we will fail even worse at that as our children are being taught worthless politically correct crap that wont prepare them for a high paying computer information job let alone how to compete in a world economy.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro has chosen to ignore the topic he posted for the debate, and instead has decide to provide arguments for a different topic, that trade deficits are a bad thing and that high trade deficits are not sustainable in the long run. I quite agree that trade deficits are a bad thing and that high trade deficits are not sustainable in the long run. However, Pro has proposed a specific way which he seems to suppose will cure trade deficits. That method is to provide insurmountable trade barriers that will essentially cut off all foreign trade immediately. What Pro advocates would immediately cut off all oil imports, destroying the US economy, and would precipitate retaliatory trade barriers that would destroy the US status as the world's largest exporting nation. I gave the reasons why that would happen, and Pro gave no counter arguments. Therefore, the resolution fails as accomplishing no more than precipitating immediate economic disaster in a foolish and ill-thought-out attempt to forestall some future economic ills due to chronic trade deficits.

It isn't the topic of the this debate, but I will present a list of realistic cures for the trade deficit:

1. Develop domestic oil production in ANWR and offshore. That would reduce oil imports by at least $2.5 trillion.

2. Remove the carbon sequestration requirements from the development of oil shale. The US has more oil in oil shale than the world has collectively produced in conventional oil. The would permit the profitable development of a trillion barrels of oil, and allow the US to be an oil exporting nation rather than an oil importing nation.

3. Alter the US system of lawsuits to match the system present in every other industrialized country. That would make US goods substantially cheaper and would increase exports.

4. Change the US policy of maintaining a weak dollar. This would lower the cost of imports and increase the value of exports. It would make some US goods more expensive, but the net effect would be positive.

5. Substantially reduce government expenditures, so that capital can remain in the private sector where it is productive, rather than in the public sector where it is non-productive.

6. Remove the laws against the reprocessing of nuclear fuels so that the US can be a major producer and exporter of nuclear fuels.

The list goes on, but you get the idea. The idea is to remove the government obstacles that have made the US a debtor nation. Pro's idea of raising trade barriers has been tried before and has failed. Trade barriers were a major contributor to the worsening of the Great Depression.

Pro's rambling diatribe against trade deficits does nothing whatsoever to his case that the specific solution he proposes, that of raising insurmountable trade barriers, will have a net positive effect. He incorrectly cites the trade surpluses of Europe and Japan. Europe and Japan had surpluses until Q4 of 2008, when high energy costs gave them deficits. Energy costs have since dropped, but that is only a temporary consequence of recession. Pro's resolution would produce permanent recession or depression by imposing trade barriers. That is unacceptable. Contrary to Pro's notion that trade barriers are the only cure for deficits, there are alternative policies, as I have outlined, that do not demand permanent economic disaster. Pro has made no argument that alternatives his policy is the best or that alternatives do not exist.

Pro forfeited the first round of debate, and then in the second round failed to respond to any of the arguments presented that showed his proposals would have the effect of producing immediate economic disaster. Reasonable policies, as I have outlined, can provide a cure to trade deficits without the disastrous effects of Pro's resolution. Pro has fully granted the distrous effects by failing to rebut them. The proposed resolution should therefore not be adopted.
Debate Round No. 3
sadolite

Pro

The trade deficit and the loss of manufacturing jobs are one in the same. One must understand one in order to understand the other and the negative results of both. I had to devote a whole round in order to educate people as to why we have a trade deficit in order to provide the logic for the topic of the debate. If one looks at at the topic in a tunnel vision point of view it would make perfect sense to agree with my opponent on every count that he makes. But one must take into account what our leaderships intentions are and what type of environment it is going to create for business in this country. This is the "REALITY" that I speak of. The current leadership is making it's intentions perfectly clear. It is going to convert the US into a socialist/communist country. It has taken over the banking system and the automobile industry. The automobile industry will fail as the govt can now tell it what kinds of cars to build and of course no one one will want them overseas, as they will be the biggest piles of crap to ever come of an American car makers production line. Now that the govt has taken over the banking industry it has begun to print worthless counterfeit money that will all but destroy the value of the dollar to overseas investors. No one is going to want anything to do with this country as it will begin to nationalize industries right and left to keep them afloat. Foreign investors are going to call loans due and payable in droves as the govt prints more and more worthless money. The US will of course not be able to pay these loans and all of the foreign investors and trade partners will all suffer huge losses and a world depression will ensue. No one will be importing or exporting anything. It is said that when the US sneezes the world gets a cold.
Now to the logic of the title of this debate: In order to protect our nation and to limit the devastating effects of the coming world depression: Since the new govt is going to turn the US into a socialist/communist country it will have to tax private business at double triple or more than it currently does in order to provide cradle to grave welfare for everyone in this country. This of course will cause businesses to go under right and left and unemployment will sky rocket. The govt of course will just print more money and hand checks out to the unemployed and create work projects that again will be paid for with more worthless money. This will lead to a world depression guaranteed 100%. My opponent agrees that a trade deficit can not continue forever. Under the current new govt nothing will be done to alleviate this problem as they don't even know why it is happening. This to will ultimately lead to a world depression if the US goes bankrupt and is unable to pay for it's imports. To correct my opponent The US is the worlds largest "IMPORTER" not "EXPORTER" The US is the 5th largest exporter and that standing is going to get lower and lower as business after business is taxed into oblivion. This in turn will cripple the rest of the world because Americans will have no money to buy the products that foreign countries import. This situation gives my plan all the leverage it needs.

To refute my opponents arguments:

The legal issue:
If a foreign company sells a product in this country it must agree that the ownership of the company that manufactured the product or products appear in a US court and defend itself against any liability lawsuits field by anyone in this country as any domestic company would have to. A refusal to do so would result in a tariff or banishment of said product or service being sold in this country just as any domestically made product would. My opponent thinks this is an insurmountable obstacle. I will say how come a US business can do it but a foreign business can't. What are they retarded, are they some how unable to understand, are they crippled and can't make it to the court room, Can't speak English? we will get an interpreter. How does this hinder or stop trade, unless of course the person or company wants to import tainted or unsafe products like China and Taiwan does just to name two. You don't have to export the US legal system as my opponent suggests. Product liability starts the minute it enters the country. If a country wants to poison it's own people like China does fine. But if they intend to ship that same poison to this country they should be the ones to be sued not the store that sold it like it is now. The store bought it in good faith and paid for it. I can see no reason why this is an insurmountable obstacle.

OSHA or employee safety and benefits:
Germany which has much higher manufacturing costs and employee benefits than the US which by the way "IS" the worlds largest exporter in the world has no problem with this requirement as all of the EU does to. Again, it is the third world communists nations that we are not suppose to be doing business with that are the biggest abusers of this aspect. Ironically they are are largest importers. So much for human rights huh. I want to puke every time I here a politician cry about human rights in this country and then make deals with countries that could care less about it. So this requirement only affects the people we are not even suppose to be doing trade with essentially under human rights laws. These very same countries import virtually nothing from this country.

The oil issue: We get most of our oil from the middle east, These countries are very rich and the employees that produce the oil are paid very handsomely to do so. It is an absolute must that safety guide lines be followed as the danger that goes with it needs no explanation. My opponent suggests that the country as a whole must observe and operate like the US or nothing can be imported. This is just not the case. If my opponent wants to make the case that civil rights issues that don't measure up to the US would stop the importation from those countries that abuse their people he is right. We should not import anything from these countries until they change their ways. Why should the US bear the burden of providing a total loop sided trade agreement with these countries? Why is it the US's responsibility to see to it that the American worker take it on the chin to prop up a country that kills and murdered it's own people while it sucks up the profits from all of the slave labor and gives nothing back to it's people. But instead builds up massive militaries that will one day be used against us, as we flounder into oblivion because we as a nation won't be able to manufacture anything anymore. What are we going to do? Throw information and computers at them. We are so dependent on other nations for almost everything we use on a daily bases, it would be so easy for any country to just stop importing to us and we would topple like a stack of bricks in a very short time as we are totally unprepared for just such and inevitable event. We as a nation have decimated our ability to tool up and produce on a moments notice if need be. And believe me that day will come, it is an absolute, history will repeat itself as no one in govt knows what a history book is let alone reads them.

None of these is insurmountable and most of the countries of this world meet or exceed the requirements with regard to importing goods into this country. Would the third world socialist/communist nations get mad and retaliate? Probably so. So what, they are not the main export companies that buy our products. They are to poor to buy them. They pretty much steal and pirate all of our patents anyways and make the things we would export them selves much cheaper using slave labor. Would it hurt them? yes, if they refuse to take legal responsibility for selling inferior products in this country. Just look at the latest pile of crap that China has sent us. Continued in comment section........
RoyLatham

Con

We have agreed that trade deficits are a serious problem that must be resolved. Pro claims in his resolution that there is only one solution to the trade deficit problem: to erect trade barriers that keep out foreign goods, including oil. con points to many countries that have positive trade balances, including Germany and China, that have had positive trade balances. But Pro has provided no evidence that those countries have used trade barriers to produce positive trade balances. In fact, Pro notes that Germany has entered into agreements in the EU that lowers trade barriers, and that China has succeeded due to lower costs rather than protectionism. Pro is correct that Germany is now the largest exporting nation, but clearly it did not achieve that status by means of anti-trade policies. Historically, we know that trade barriers have lowered trade deficits only at the expense of substantial loss of prosperity. http://archives.starbulletin.com... India and Brazil had protectionist policies and bad economies until such time as they removed trade barriers, and then their economies improved. Research on the Great Depression shows that the Smoot-Halley trade barriers worsened the Depression.

Pro makes numerous unsupported allegations, such as that the Obama administration has made it "perfectly clear" they are "going to convert the US into a socialist/communist country." That is far from clear, but it is also not relevant to the debate. China IS a communist country, and that hasn't hurt their trade balance. Clearly, free trade has benefited China as well as Germany and many other countries. Substantial investment capital is flowing into China, despite it's being a Communist country. Thus even if Pro's unsupported allegations about the US are true, they do not support his call for protectionism.

Pro's resolution requires that countries selling to the US "take all of the regulatory baggage that US based businesses have to follow here." That means not only OSHA requirements, but all of the anti-discrimination, gender equality, sexual harassment, minimum wage, class action lawsuit, environmental impact requirements, and so forth. The only one of these requirements that Pro addressed specifically was OSHA requirements in Germany. He asserted that many of the Muslim countries could afford to implement OSHA requirements. Fine, but would they choose to implement the laws against sexual harassment or laws prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion? I brought those issues up specifically, and Pro failed to address them. Clearly, few of the oil exporting nations would change their societies are a fundamental level just to export to the US.

Pro implied that the only impact of imposing the US lawsuit system would be the ability to sue exporters to the US. Of course, the exporting organizations can already be sued for violating their contracts, and the companies selling the products in the US can also be sued. The Chinese are quite concerned that bad products will damage their trade balance, so they have taken to applying the death penalty to manufacturers of adulterated products. "A Chinese court sentenced two men to death and a dairy boss to life in prison for their roles in producing and selling infant formula tainted with melamine,..." http://www.huffingtonpost.com... That is considerably more harsh than the US system, but it is less expensive. To match the burden on US manufacturers, the Chinese would have to implement the system whereby anyone in China can sue any Chinese company for any reason, and the suing party suffers no penalty if the suit is not sustained or even frivolous. The Chinese would never contemplate such an outrageous system, nor would the Japanese, the Germans, nor anyone else. The Third World countries could not possibly sustain such a wasteful legal system even if they wanted too. As a consequence, all foreign trade with the US would cease.

Pro goes back and forth on what his resolution means. I quoted his opening statement when he said "if they want to sell their products in this country, they should have to take all of the regulatory baggage that US based businesses have to follow here." Then in the Fourth Round he retreated, and said, "My opponent suggests that the country as a whole must observe and operate like the US or nothing can be imported. This is just not the case." That's too late to retract an opening statement. But he then reverses one more time and argues "We should not import anything from these countries until they change their ways. Why should the US bear the burden of providing a total loop sided [lopsided] trade agreement with these countries?" The reason is that many of the US rules and regulations, like the US system of lawsuits, are unnecessary burdens that are our job to remedy here, and not an inefficiency to be taken up by others.

With respect to issues of civil and human rights, it is a decision of the Executive Branch and Congress as to whether in each country's case to pursue a policy of engagement or one of confrontation. It may be best to pursue confrontation with respect to Iran, and impose sanctions, while having a policy with engagement with China. The notion that confrontation is always the correct policy is unsupported by virtually anyone. The analysis that leads to confrontation or engagement in each case depends upon the economic interests of not only the US, but the allies of the US, as well as the interest of advancing civil rights.

Pro asserts, "None of these [requirements] is [are] insurmountable and most of the countries of this world meet or exceed the requirements with regard to importing goods into this country." That is false, as no country in the world parallels the expensive lawyer-intensive lawsuit system of the US that Pro demands. Most of the world would not accept the US system of anti-discrimination and anti-sexual-harassment. Pro accepts the probability of a retaliatory trade war, "Would the third world socialist/communist nations get mad and retaliate? Probably so. So what, they are not the main export companies that buy our products." The US exports agricultural products, aircraft, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, computers, and communications equipment. These are sold to China and India and other emerging nations, as well as to the developed world. A trade war would be devastating to US exports.

We have agreement that trade deficits are a problem the US must solve. Pro asserts, indirectly, that favorable trade balances can be achieved without the trade barriers that Pro wants imposed, because Pro asserts correctly that many countries, including German and China, have achieved favorable trade balances without the protectionism he wants. Moreover, we know from history --ranging from the Great Depression to the more recent experience of India and Brazil-- that protectionism leads to economic disaster for the countries that raise the barriers. I have suggested some of the correct remedies, but the many remedies are a topic for another debate. What this debate has established is that protectionism is the wrong approach. Successful countries have renounced it. The resolution should therefore be rejected.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Your comment is an affirmation of my debate. Govt regulation causing US companies to lose business.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Actually, auto manufacturing jobs lost in Detroit will probably move to places like Alabama and Tennessee. That's where the Nissan, Toyota, and Daimler plants are located. The US has such peculiar pollution and, especially, crash safety requirements that it generally makes sense to assemble the cars locally for local consumption. The advantage the foreign companies have had in the US is that they kept the Unions at bay. One thing that will be interesting is the fate of SUVs, with Obama controlling GM and Chrysler. Toyota may end up getting the SUV business from Americans who have a real need for something larger than a clown car.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Well well well who's crying about manufacturing jobs now!!! Did I hear Obama say he was going to restrict small car imports in order to help sell more American small cars. I seem to be on the more logical end of this argument now that our govt has finished selling out our manufacturing jobs to the rest of the world. This is what you get and we as Americans deserve to suffer, well at least those who think sending our manufacturing over seas for cheap labor is a good idea do.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Good add very accurate reading.

http://us.mc431.mail.yahoo.com...,
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
UPDATE: GM auto maker had 1billion to invest in Brazil and has the gaul to take money from you the tax payer to prop them up. I'm sure there will be plenty of cars made in Brazil flooding the market in a few years. So much for the American made car and the American auto worker.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
No votes yet! I'll assume we voted for ourselves. This subject must be perplexing to most people because my position is starting to make a lot of sense in these economic times. Would anybody care to debate the future utter failure of Obama's "Govt readjustment of the discretionary spending base line package" He is going to double Govt spending in one fell swoop and it will remain that way forever. All of the ideas in this pork filled bill are permanent and are just increases in welfare spending that will remain permanent and as I said above this bill is just an increase in next years base line budget for discretionary spending. Next years budget will be double what it is this year. AH yes change, It most certainly is change, bring on the big mommy gov't and the socialist/communist take over of America. I said this country would be defeated without firing a shot and it would be destroyed by the first person to come along and promise cradle to grave welfare for all. Watch it happen before your very eyes over the next four years.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
UPDATE: The Eu threatens a trade war if America uses American made products and services to build and construct projects in America. Obama gives in and kicks Americans in the face. Ah yes change, ain't it wonderful.

UPDATE: Obama signs SCHIP bill. Now we as tax payers have to pay for every single child's health care in in America and all of the illegal alien children to. Here we come socialized rationed health care, only one more step to go and it's a done deal.

UPDATE: Congress suspends all bids for land in Utah to explore for new sources oil from all oil companies.

Seems we don't have to do anything to cause a trade war. Any attempt on our part as Americans to look out for our selves and do whats best for America is a bad thing now. The EU threatens a law suit in a world court. I guess we have to kowtow to the EU and the rest of the world and ask their permission if we as Americans can do anything for our selves after we are done paying for the rest of the world. If you have any doubt that this nation is going to become a socialist/communist country have no doubt this is just the beginning all three of these things happened in just one day! we have four more years of this left and then America as you new it will cease to exist. A protectionist stance is are only hope to keep jobs here to pay for the cradle to grave welfare state that is taking shape right before your eyes. How anyone can't see this is just absolutely mind boggling. Now go read history books about socialist/communist societies and learn your fates.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Continued..................

All the dry wall that they sent here is toxic and destroys the wiring in the homes that it was installed in and puts out a horrible toxic gas along with it. Who will be held liable? The home builder. The company in China that produced it will just laugh and send some more and suffer no liability what so ever. Sounds fair to me, not.

Rebuttals to suggestions for trade deficit which is a direct cause of our nations loss of manufacturing jobs:

"1. Develop domestic oil production in ANWR and offshore. That would reduce oil imports by at least $2.5 trillion." Congress already voted on this. It has no intentions of drilling for more oil and never will under the current Administration.
"Remove the carbon sequestration requirements" This will only be increased not decreased. We must save the planet.
"Alter the US system of lawsuits" Never in a million years would this happen.
"Change the US policy of maintaining a weak dollar." Printing worthless money as the govt is about to do?
"Substantially reduce government expenditures" Not if govt is going to adopt a cradle to grave welfare system as it is about to do.
"nuclear fuels" You will have better luck drilling for more oil which is none
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Resolved: Motorcycles should use fuel injectors.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
sadoliteRoyLathamTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 7 years ago
NYCDiesel
sadoliteRoyLathamTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
sadoliteRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
sadoliteRoyLathamTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteRoyLathamTied
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