The Instigator
thejudgeisgod
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

The United States is in need of reindustrialization

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 4 votes the winner is...
thejudgeisgod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,544 times Debate No: 8482
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

thejudgeisgod

Pro

I thank whomever accepts this debate. I have a few key terms to define.

Need: a condition requiring relief

Reindustrialization : a policy of stimulating economic growth especially through government aid to revitalize and modernize aging industries and encourage growth of new ones

Some parameters: My opponent (con) must prove that we need not reindustrialize.

With those in place let's debate!

1) Industry creates capital

One of the most prosperous times in the United States was the 50s. This was due to massive wartime industry and worker productivity. At this time, the United States was the central industrial power, upon which other countries relied on desperately, which created hegemony for the U.S. We have lost that hegemony, because, quite simply in peacetime, America lulls back into contentment. If we look back at the 20s and the 50s, both were characterized by massive consumerism and prosperity. However, the decades following were times of financial unrest and economic recession because Americans had overindulged in the peacetime decades. I am in no way saying that the United states need to wage a war for economic interests. Which leads me into my second contention.

2) The United States is still riding off of the Technology boom of the 90s

The 1980s was a time of peacetime "prosperity" brought on by the exponential expansion and popularity of credit. The President of this peacetime era, Ronald Reagan increased spending on National Defense, and ran up the country's deficits in the process, and while the common man was kept content, and capitalist democracy was at its peak, the largely uncontrolled spending manifested itself in the world's first billion dollar deficit.

The nineties gave birth to revolutionary technologies. The most outstanding of these was the computer, and its lovechild the internet. These innovations led to the "dot com boom". This new technological advancement created many economic opportunities for American citizens.... jobs and investment opportunities. However, the American government currently puts too much of its "stock" in technologies and not enough in production. In light of the current economic recession, it is time that our government reemphasizes the importance of production.

3) The reindustrialization of America would significantly decrease its dependence on the industries of foreign countries

If we took all of the clothes from our closets and closely examined them we would find that the majority of the tags read: Made in (Somewhere other than USA). If we look at the computers and the TV screens in America a majority of them would read (somewhere other than the USA) We as an American people are far too dependent on the productivity of other nations.

What do we produce? An overabundance of white-collar workers. The rapid increase of the percentage of Americans with college degrees has flooded the market, and as a result many Americans end up either unemployed or severely overqualified for their positions.

4) Why reindustrialization would fix these problems

a.The United Stares could put an emphasis on vocational education instead of scholastic education. Because let's face it a country needs its vocational workers, and not everybody needs an education.

b) If we become more internal in our operations then we will become more financially stable. Its time that American Eagle actually becomes "American".

c) If we produce our own necessities, we would be able to reduce our dependency on other nations, and focus on some vital issues (i.e.) stabilizing our economy, which benefits the entire world economically.

d) We can export what we produce to other nations providing some necessary capital and at the same time reestablishing hegemony. We would turn the tables, they would be dependent upon our goods, not the other way around.

Let me emphasize that the American people will have to face the reality of higher taxes, unless we started producing some of the basic necessities of life (clothing, toilet paper etc.) And we all know that Americans appreciate low taxes.

I rest my case in anticipation of my opponent's responses. Thank you.

Sources:
www.wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The US Census Bureau, 2007
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
RoyLatham

Con

I accept Pro's definitions. Pro's definition of reindustrialization is one that requires government intervention: "a policy of stimulating economic growth especially through government aid." Thus reindustrialization occurring by ordinary free market investment does not qualify. It is about government.

The central flaw is Pro's argument is that for government to aid revitalization and growth, it must take the money for that aid out of the private sector. Then the government must select the areas for investment and spend it. The government does that with little regard for market demands, with little knowledge of technological trends, and without profit motive. Political considerations, on the other hand, are paramount. Money will be distributed in proportion to the political influence of the individual states and in accord with whatever politicians think will buy them votes.

A prime example of government investment disaster is the ethanol debacle. That paid off the farm states, so that every presidential candidate could claim credit in the Iowa primaries. Ethanol, however, turns out to be a net energy loss, it increases pollution, and it caused corn prices to spike upwards then plummet. We can expect disaster after disaster as politicians try to pick winners and losers, and continually fail. The government does not admit failure, and continues bad investments like ethanol, whereas enterprise writes off the bad ones.

The alternative is free market operation. An example is the textile industry being phased out of North Carolina. This made news headlines when those really great jobs sewing underwear were lost to Mexico and China. What ensued was a transformation of the North Carolina state economy to pharmaceuticals, financial services, and high-tech R&D. North Carolina attracted the new industries through policies of low taxes and minimum interference with business. Instead, they might have raised taxes to "reindustrialize" the textile industry.

Pros specific arguments are rebutted:

1) "Industry creates capital." Actually it is capital that creates industry. Government taking capital out of the private sector and spending it according to political considerations wastes capital and therefore diminishes industry. After WWII the industrial base of Europe and Japan were destroyed, so American industry was preeminent. That was lost not due to "overindulgence" but rather due to competitors rebuilding.

2) Pro claims, "the American government currently puts too much of its "stock" in technologies and not enough in production." Government has not put much into technology, and it has boomed. While the dotcom bubble did burst, technology has remained a pillar of the American economy. Other key sectors of the economy are entertainment, financial services, aerospace, and agribusiness. Biotechnology is perhaps the key emerging area. If the government redirects resources into manufacturing, resource will be removed from one or more of the existing sectors of the economy. There is no reason to believe that taking money out of biotechnology and putting it into, say, textiles, will provide a net benefit to the economy. The evidence that it will not is that private capital has not flowed in that direction of its own accord.

Pro could argue some specific case of taking resources out of X and putting it into Y, but it is far more likely that investors will make those decisions correctly than government. If it were not so, the great socialist experiments of the last century, like the Soviet Union and India, would not have failed.

3) It is true that if the US produced its own clothing, then we would not be as dependent on other countries for clothing. So what? Is there a real danger that all the countries producing clothing will gang up and refuse to produce, thereby damaging their own economies? I don't think that is a risk. It's not a good tradeoff because advanced economies are far more efficient at producing sophisticated goods and services.

There are a few genuinely strategic goods that the US could produce that it does not. The principle one is oil. We could choose to convert coal to oil, we could get oil from oil shale, and we could expand drilling. That would substantially increase the independence of the US. The reason why we do not do that has nothing to do with lack of investment capital. It is a policy that foreign dependence on a strategic commodity is better than doing it ourselves. If oil is not deemed a strategic necessity, then clearly textiles, which is orders of magnitude less important, cannot be compelling.

Pro claims that America produces too many college graduates. We produce far too few engineers and scientists, and must fill graduate programs with foreign students. We may well produce too many generic humanities graduates. The cure to that is to redesign the K-12 system to put substantially more emphasis on the sciences. It's not to send humanities majors to factories.

4) Pro claims all the problems would be fixed by government redirecting investment to manufacturing. Redirecting destroys value. Rather than producing the things we are most efficient at producing, we would be forced to produce the things we are least efficient at producing. Taking resources out of such successes and trying to compete on labor-intensive goods means that we will cede the markets were we excel.

Finally, I question Pro's broad assumption that manufacturing is the best bet for the future. In 1900, agriculture provided over 90% of the jobs in the economy. Suppose government had made every effort to preserve the agricultural sector. That would have impeded growth of the industrial sector. Now, all the food is produced by 4% of the population. Since the 50s, half as many manufacturing workers are producing twice as many goods. (ref: "The Lexus and the Olive Tree") It's not the role of government to fight such changes in the economy. Enterprise will find the best use of resource
Debate Round No. 1
thejudgeisgod

Pro

thejudgeisgod forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro has forfeited and we do not know if he will return or not. In case he does, I'll post a few references that I didn't have room for previously:

1. I used North Carolina as an example of pursuing new industries rather than attempting to rescue old ones. Duke University summarizes:

"In biotechnology and banking and finance, North Carolina exceeded overall US growth rates in these industries. ... North Carolina is the fifth fastest growing center for biotechnology in the United States, and the fourth fastest growing location for banking and finance activities, as shown in Table 4. Employment has grown by nearly 45% for NC biotechnology and 41% for NC banking over the 10-year period, raising North Carolina's national rank in these two industries. ... North Carolina's traditional strength in agriculture and manufacturing lies in declining industries, and North Carolina has one of the highest rates of job loss for the furniture and tobacco industries." http://www.soc.duke.edu...

2. "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" by Thomas Friedman is an enduring analysis of the effects of globalization. http://www.thomaslfriedman.com... From Chapter 1:

"The driving idea behind globalization is free-market capitalism – the more you let market forces rule and the more you open your economy to free trade and competition, the more efficient and flourishing your economy will be. Globalization means the spread of free-market capitalism to virtually every country in the world. Globalization also has its own set of economic rules – rules that revolve around opening, deregulating and privatizing your economy."

3. "There is a fatal flaw that permeates every conceivable scheme of government enterprise and ineluctably prevents it from rational pricing and efficient allocation of resources. Because of this flaw, government enterprise can never be operated on a "business" basis, no matter what the government's intentions. ... What is this fatal flaw? It is the fact that government can obtain virtually unlimited resources by means of its coercive tax power. Private businesses must obtain their funds from investors. It is this allocation of funds by investors on the basis of time preference and foresight that rations funds and resources to the most profitable and therefore the most serviceable uses. Private firms can get funds only from consumers and investors; they can get funds, in other words, only from people who value and buy their services and from investors who are willing to risk investment of their saved funds in anticipation of profit. In short, payment and service are, once again, indissolubly linked on the market. Government, on the other hand, can get as much money as it likes." Murray N. Rothbard, Dean of the Austrian School, in "Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market" http://mises.org...

4. Japan has undertaken a national industrial revitalization policy, starting in 2004. The book "Innovation and entrepreneurship in Japan" by Kathryn Ibata-Arens analyzes the results. The summary on p 87: " 1. ...Transformations in the global economy have made national approaches ineffective ... 2. ... [Local] policy has engendered innovation and growth while the central state has been out-of-touch with and even inimical to these developments on the local level ... 3. ... arguments about Japan's national innovation system have been overtaken by developments at the firm and regional levels." http://books.google.com... If the Japanese cannot figure out an effective policy at the national level, there is no chance the US will be able to do so.

Other arguments are continued.
Debate Round No. 2
thejudgeisgod

Pro

My sincerest apologies to my opponent, my internet has been down for days. With that said, I hope the voters see the forfeit as a technological inconvenience, as I have every intention of finishing and winning this debate. :)

I find it necessary to define industry for my opponent.

industry: systematic labor especially for some useful purpose or the creation of something of value b: a department or branch of a craft, art, business, or manufacture ; especially : one that employs a large personnel and capital especially in manufacturing. (1).

With that definition in place let's debate!

My opponent states: "The central flaw is Pro's argument is that for government to aid revitalization and growth, it must take the money for that aid out of the private sector. Then the government must select the areas for investment and spend it."

My response: Yes the government must take money out of the private sector. It is the only sector of our economy large enough to foot the bill. The private sector is "responsible for allocating most of the resources within an economy." (2). My opponent then cites the recent "ethanol debacle" as a reason to not trust the government in their investments. Without governmental assistance, the fate of our various industries would be left to large investors, only a fraction of our population. We would then become a bureaucracy, a government run by the rich.

My opponent claims: "Government taking capital out of the private sector and spending it according to political considerations wastes capital and therefore diminishes industry. "

My response:

Indeed. However, that is not the case. Our government does not have a sector known as "political considerations". Mu opponent makes a brash accusation that the money taken from the private sector (taxes and the like) is solely squandered by whimsical politicians. This is not the case. My opponent is insinuating that every penny taken from the private sector goes directly to the hands of corrupt politicians, who quickly squander the money, by spending it on "political interests." My opponent has no direct proof that the "ethanol debacle was spurred by political influences. The government invested on what it thought would be a viable alternative fuel. My opponent simply showed correlation. But as we all know correlation does not equal causation.

My opponent is correct in saying capital creates industry, but I am equally correct. They are both dependent on each other. We need money in order to invest in new industry, but on the same token, that investment also gives us money in return. Mathematically if a=b, then b=a

My opponent states: Pro could argue some specific case of taking resources out of X and putting it into Y, but it is far more likely that investors will make those decisions correctly than government.

My response:
You have no proof to back this unfounded claim. You simply cannot prove that the people are more adept at making investment decisions than the government. Both sectors are equally subject to human error.

My opponent states: There are a few genuinely strategic goods that the US could produce that it does not. The principle one is oil. We could choose to convert coal to oil, we could get oil from oil shale, and we could expand drilling. That would substantially increase the independence of the US. The reason why we do not do that has nothing to do with lack of investment capital. It is a policy that foreign dependence on a strategic commodity is better than doing it ourselves. If oil is not deemed a strategic necessity, then clearly textiles, which is orders of magnitude less important, cannot be compelling.

My response: My opponent is indeed correct. Oil is a huge commodity that is currently available in The U.S., but has gone virtually untapped. This needs to change. We can tap into our oil, and use it as a trade commodity. The fact that we have this great potential and don't put it to use is appalling. It can be a part of the US' reindustrialization process.

My opponent claims: Pro claims that America produces too many college graduates. We produce far too few engineers and scientists, and must fill graduate programs with foreign students. We may well produce too many generic humanities graduates. The cure to that is to redesign the K-12 system to put substantially more emphasis on the sciences. It's not to send humanities majors to factories.

My response: When did I ever say or even imply that we need to send humanities majors to factories? I didn't.

My opponent says " The cure to that is to redesign the K-12 system to put substantially more emphasis on the sciences"

My response: That sounds a lot like reindustrialization.

My opponent states: Redirecting destroys value. Rather than producing the things we are most efficient at producing, we would be forced to produce the things we are least efficient at producing. Taking resources out of such successes and trying to compete on labor-intensive goods means that we will cede the markets were we excel.

My response: We wouldn't be really be taking away anything. As I have states previously, as a nation we don't produce much. We speculate. We try to be the innovator. But right now we need to produce. We are in a state of financial uproar, with foreigners shouldering our debt beyond our credit. By producing our own goods, we can reduce our dependence on other nations and increase other nations' dependencies on us.

My opponent states: "It's not the role of government to fight such changes in the economy."

I have never advocated such a position. I realize that the world economy is dynamic and the United States has a need to stay current and fresh and cannot afford to solely revert to industrialization alone. But we do need to produce more of our own necessities and stop relying on other nations to fulfill them for us. Our country needs to reindustrialize so we can continue our innovations. For t
RoyLatham

Con

Good that Pro is back at it.

Pro grants that capital must be taken out of the private sector in order for the government to spend it on reindustrialization. So the question is whether private investors make better investment decisions than government. Pro claims "You have no proof to back this unfounded claim. You simply cannot prove that the people are more adept at making investment decisions than the government." In Round 1 I argued that if it were true that government were better at making investment decisions than free markets, then the Soviet Union would have been an economic success. It was not. In addition, one may compare North Korea to South Korea, East Germany to West Germany, India under socialism to India under capitalism, Taiwan and Hong Kong to socialist China, and China under Mao's central planning to China with today's dose of free markets. All provide clear examples of the greater efficiency of free markets. The burden of proof is upon Pro show where government investment was superior to free markets. I know of no examples.

References [2] and [3] that I cited in Round 2 provide expert opinion that free markets make better investment decisions. Friedman cited free markets as necessary to compete in global economy. Rothbard provided the reasons why government is inherently less efficient. Reference [4] established that even in Japan, where cooperation between industry and government has traditionally been strong, government reindustrialization failed. Government cannot sense international market trends and it cannot adequately reflect regional strengths and weaknesses. Pro has provided no contrary expert opinion or rebuttal analysis and gives no examples of reindustrialization being accomplished successfully. The North Carolina example [1] shows the natural realignment of an economy without a reindustrialization policy.

Pro argues that the private sector has been making most of the investment decisions. That is true, and it has been very successful, especially in comparison to all nations where the government makes the bulk of investment decisions. The reason why Pro is wrong in asserting that this constitutes "a government run by the rich" is that (a) all the power of law lies in an independently elected government, and (b) the rich compete with each other to bring better goods and services to consumers. The rich are rich because they know how to be efficient. Pro must cite examples of countries where government makes most of the investment decisions, and those countries are both free and wealthy. There are none.

Pro argues that the ethanol debacle was a result of government making an honest, but incredibly bad, investment decision. If it was only a bad investment decision why are they persisting with a bad decision? It doesn't take much savvy to know that good money should not be thrown after bad. There are still votes in corn-growing states, however. Suppose Pro is correct, however. Then what we have is an extremely incompetent investment decision made by people who insist on wasting more money on the bad decision. That is what Rothbard [3] revealed to be the nature of government investment decisions.

Pro asserts, "Our government does not have a sector known as 'political considerations'. M[y] opponent makes a brash accusation that the money taken from the private sector (taxes and the like) is solely squandered by whimsical politicians." We may not have a sector named "political considerations," but there is no doubt that we have political considerations, and moreover that political considerations usually take precedence over investment considerations. For example, California is teetering on collapse while prison guards salaries average $72K and retire at full salary, often over $100K, after 30 years. http://www.signonsandiego.com... State employee unions pour vast sums into the campaigns of the majority Party. It's no secret that the Congress runs on politics. If it prioritized investment savvy, we'd have chronic surpluses.

Pro grants that we have not used coal, oil shale, and drilling to remedy the largest strategic industrial need the country has. Pro suggests that doing so could be part of a reindustrialization policy. Reindustrialization is about reallocating capital, however, and there would be no problem raising capital to achieve energy independence if government simply allowed it to happen. Government is the obstacle. That's symptomatic of why government-funded reindustrialization cannot work. The government does not make rational investment decisions, it makes political decisions. (Note that burning our own carbon does not create any more CO2 than burning someone else's carbon.)

Changing educational policy does not meet Pro's own definition of reindustrialization "through government aid to revitalize and modernize aging industries and encourage growth of new ones." No government aid is needed to put more emphasis on scientific, engineering, and vocational training. It's a good idea, but it mainly requires a policy change, not inefficient reallocation of private capital.

Government should play a major role in the long term revitalization of the economy. It should allow imported carbon fuels to be replaced with domestic carbon fuels. It can make a better climate for private investment through lower taxes, and it can change education policy to support science and technological enterprise. It could kill all the lawyers ... uh, scratch that one ... for now. But it should not enact a policy of taking private capital and investing it in the name of "reindustrialization."

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
thejudgeisgod

Pro

I thank my opponent for his impressively prompt response. I would like to clarify that my above argument was cut off by the site for some reason and the rest should read: "For the reasons above I affirm the resolution"

Let's debate!

Firstly, my opponent made a very interesting statement at the end of his argument.

He states: "Government should play a major role in the long term revitalization of the economy. It should allow imported carbon fuels to be replaced with domestic carbon fuels."

My response:
Hmm... I call long term revitalization of any industry reindustrialization.

He also states that "It (the government) can make a better climate for private investment."

My Response: How can government "make a better climate for investment if you don't first, trust it to invest?
that seems like a HUGE double-standard.

My opponent states: "Pro argues that the private sector has been making most of the investment decisions. That is true, and it has been very successful...."

My response: Its because of the people's bad investments that we are in the midst of a fierce economic recession only rivaled by the Great Depression. The people have caused this recession. The decline in the housing market is due to the people overspeculating what they can afford... a bad investment. Another cause was the middle class spending beyond their means in general due to the expanse of credit. Another bad investment by the people. My opponent wonders why the US government is still persisting with ethanol? I don't know the answer. But that really is irrelevant to our issue. What is relevant is that we don't allow the private sector to make all of the investments. Our government needs to be proactive and work along with the private sector. I doubt not that there are political considerations... but I have HUGE doubt that those political considerations take precedence over the general good of the nation. As with a lot of your claims you provide no proof that this claim is true.

Thomas Friedman states:
"The driving idea behind globalization is free-market capitalism"

My response: Globalization of the American economy is a very dangerous prospect. Friedman proposes a global economy (which to be more clear, is all of the world intermingling their economies to create one massive global economy where capitalism runs rampant). To be clear, I am a strong believer in capitalism, as long as it is kept in check, however, what Friedman proposes, would lead to the entire world turning into a cesspool of intermixed worthless money, EXTREME dependence on other nations, and the endangerment of the average, middle class worker. With a globalized economy, America wiuld lose its core values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ENTIRE world would be run by the wealthy... it would be a global bureaucracy where the average Joe loses his voice.

The above resolution is much less radical than proposing a no-holds-barred free-market. What I am proposing is simply a revamping of the American economy through reindustrialization. As my opponent suggested (in Pro's favor) is that the educational system needs to be reindustrialized. My opponent sees his proposal as simply a policy change... it is a policy change... but let me remind my opponent of the definition of reindustrialization that we both agreed upon.

Reindustrialization : a policy of stimulating economic growth especially through government aid to revitalize and modernize aging industries and encourage growth of new ones.

What my opponent suggests is a policy that would (we both) agree would stimulate economic growth. His plan yo retool the educational system would indeed modernize an aging industry and encourage the growth new ones. His point of contention I'm assuming is whether or not the government needs to aid in this process. My response to such a claim would be a: retooling any industry isn't going to be a unanimous decision, you need the government to author legislation, especially of we're talking about revitalizing on a nationwide scale. So what my opponent is proposing is indeed reindustrialization.

My opponent's central argument contains a major fallacy. He did not read the definition of reindustrialization carefully enough so again I will refer back to that.

Reindustrialization : a policy of stimulating economic growth especially through government aid to revitalize and modernize aging industries and encourage growth of new ones.

The key here is "...stimulating ESPECIALLY through government aid".
My point is that I never insinuated that we need rely solely on the government or solely on the private sector. Both sectors are equally dependent on the other to exist. The definition uses the word ESPECIALLY not SOLELY and that distinction is ignored by my opponent. What my position calls for is a bipartisan effort to retool, revitalize, and reindustrialize our nation.

My opponent has used the word revitilize as a substitution of reindustrialize many times in this debate, while failing to realize that revitalization is part of the definition of reindustrialization.

So my opponent supports revitilization of industry... that sounds like reindustrialization to me... but I'll let the voters decide... I anticipate my opponent's response and thank him for debating this topic with me...

I urge a strong vote in favor of this resolution. Thank you.

sources:
http://www.educationindustry.org...
all definitions are from wordnet.princeton.edu/
http://www.thomaslfriedman.com...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com... (it's a transcript from Hardball with Chris Matthews) where Barack Obama expressses support for the "reindustrialization of America)
RoyLatham

Con

This has been an interesting topic, and one appropriate to the times. Pro did well to select it.

Until the last round, Pro was content with the definition of "reindustrialization" as a policy for stimulating growth through selective application of government aid to some industries, taxing other industries to pay for it. He argued, for example, that there was no reason to believe that the private sector could make better investment decisions than the public sector. Confronted with expert analysis (Friedman, Rothbard), general counter examples (North vs. South Korea, North Carolina, Japanese reindustrialization policy), and with specific counter examples (the ethanol decision in the US), Pro essentially abandoned that stance. Instead, he adopted the posture that any good government policy could amount to reindustrialization. He endorsed the ides of the government removing it's obstacles to developing local fossil fuels and to changing the emphasis in education to stress science and engineering.

Pro argues that his shift still meets the definition of industrialization, which says that it is "especially" done with government aid, so perhaps it isn't "necessarily" done with government aid policies. "Especially" is defined as "To an extent or degree deserving of special emphasis; particularly." http://www.answers.com... The word "especially" in the context of reindustrialization thus means that the emphasis is on government aid, although other features may be included in the policy. Government aid must always be the centerpiece. In fact, that is the way that "reindustrialization" has always been used when the term is applied in public debate both in the US and Japan. There are other features, such as, perhaps, policies regarding intellectual property and such, but the thrust is invariably on providing economic aid to some industries at the expense of others.

So when Pro effectively concedes that government aid cannot be justified as the centerpiece of reindustrialization, he concedes that there should not be a reindustrialization at all, because the definition requires aid as central feature. The best thing government can do is to get out of the way of free market operation, and let the markets adjust to the realities of global trade. I grant that getting out of the way is a policy decision, but by definition it isn't a reindustrialization policy.

I did not use "revitalization" as a synonym for "reindustrialization." I argued that it would be good for government to get out of the way of free markets naturally realigning, and I used the word as a shorthand reference for that happening. It was clear from the context that I was not talking about any policy in which the centerpiece was government aid.

In this round, Pro argues that "The people caused the recession ... our government needs to be proactive and work along with the private sector." Major factors leading to the current recession were (1) repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act http://en.wikipedia.org..., allowing banks to get to be too big to fail, (2) a Federal Reserve error in keeping interest rates too low, (3) Government-run Fannie Mae having a policy of buying very large quantities of low quality loans, (4) government encouragement of bad loans through the amended Community Redevelopment Act, and (5) government failure to regulate bad loan policies. I grant that private enterprise bears responsibility as well, because even though government encouraged bad practices, they were not mandated and might have been resisted. Nonetheless, it is clear the government had a leadership role in creating the recession. Pro's implication that government decisions are generally better than private decisions is not true. The private sector succumbs to errant whims, but at least it is corrected by failure. Government is rarely corrected by failure. Government just spends more public money to try to defend it's bad decisions.

In any case, the recession has very little to do with global trade. The bubble that burst was in domestic real estate. Therefore it is irrelevant to the debate topic, except that it again shows the lack of wisdom of government economic decisions.

Pro argues, "I doubt not that there are political considerations... but I have HUGE doubt that those political considerations take precedence over the general good of the nation. As with a lot of your claims you provide no proof that this claim is true." The proof I provided was the expert analysis of Rothbard as to the reasons, the example of outrageous public employee salaries produced by political kickbacks in California, and the major example of the ethanol debacle, in which bad economic policies are continued for the benefit of constituents. I challenged Pro to provide his own examples of nations in which the government consistently made better economic examples than free markets. He could provide none. He did not provide an example of a good domestic economic policy decision made in the face of political self-interest. Pro has the burden of proof in the debate, and he did not meet it.

Pro listed some sources, but did not say what he claimed to be in them that supported his case. It's not my job to read his references and construct his case before refuting it. I relied upon what Pro argued.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
*votebombing is still not removed*
ugghhhh I'm just gonna do you some justice and do a debate about how you should've won this...in summer of course
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
feels like an unfair lost to me. The extra round heaped upon arguments that should have been impossible to refute in mere...8,000 characters?
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
9spaceking, It's worse than you think. In days of yore it was allowed to vote for yourself, the voting was secret, and there were no RFDs. So if you didn't vote for yourself, you risked being at a seven point disadvantage because your opponent might give himself all seven points -- and you'd never know. At some point, the site decided to make the voting public, which reveals the quandary. In this debate, had I awarded myself all seven points, it would have been tied.

At the time, there was a problem verifying voters outside of the US. That meant that many non-US debaters could not vote for themselves, and were unable to offset the vote a US debater invariably gave to himself. That was unfair. Forbidding self-voting solved that problem.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
WTF how can they vote themselves....
Posted by thejudgeisgod 8 years ago
thejudgeisgod
I changed the topic guys it is as above
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
um I have spoken as a neg first in public forum and won
Posted by thejudgeisgod 8 years ago
thejudgeisgod
in my league aff always has first argument... I've seen both styles used
Posted by Clockwork 8 years ago
Clockwork
"As is customary in public forum debate"

Puffy positions (both Pro/Con and Speaker1/Speaker2) are decided by a coin toss...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 8 years ago
thejudgeisgod
thejudgeisgodRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Clockwork 8 years ago
Clockwork
thejudgeisgodRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 TheCategorical 8 years ago
TheCategorical
thejudgeisgodRoyLathamTied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
thejudgeisgodRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03