The Instigator
Moelogy
Pro (for)
The Contender
Saberen
Con (against)

Trump would make a good president from an economic point of view.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Moelogy has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 380 times Debate No: 96876
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Moelogy

Pro

Full Resolution = Trump would make a good president for an economic stance

a mention of his foreign policies means an automatic win for the opposite side Including building a wall on the american-mexican border.

First round = acceptance

Second round = opening arguments

Third round = Rebuttals

Fourth round = Rebuttals

Fifth round = closing statements

Definitions:

Donald Trump - Republican candidate for President

Economic point of view - solely based on economics and excluding foreign policy.
Saberen

Con

I accept this debate. Hopefully my knowledge of economic policy will come in handy. Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Moelogy

Pro

Is not the world just funny? Here we are two Canadians discussing American politics. Anyways, Since the president of the United States has been named but not sworn in yet, I thought it would be reasonable to discuss the economic future of our southern neighbor. I believe Trump would make a great president economically for four reasons. I believe that his tax cuts, his smart plan to attract foreign investment and bring back jobs to america, his plan to replace trade deals that are draning the american economy and his experience make him highly qualified to be president of the United States.

Firstly, Trump is a major proponent of large tax cuts on all socio-economic classes. Trump is a Republican candidate and a key part of his economic platform is tax cuts to all socio-economic classes in america. Tax cuts to all economic classes is a beneficial step for the american economy since the tax cuts would result in much more money in the pockets of americans especially the higher class and the middle class. When the middle class and the rich have more money in their pockets due to tax cuts, consumer spending goes up which in tandem creates higher demand for goods. When there is more demand for goods, the supply has to increase to satisfy the demand which results in more business activity and more starups which creates more jobs and the average american will do better financially. So to summarize my first point, Donald Trump will create large tax cuts for all economic classes. The middle class and the rich will have much more money in their pockets due to the large tax cuts. When the rich and the middle class have much more money, consumer spending goes up which in tandem forces the demand for products to go up. When the demand for products goes up, then new business opportunities will open up to satisfy that demand and more business activity will occur due to startups and new small businesses attempting to satisfy that demand. as a result of the surge of startups that is to be expected, much more jobs are going to be created, the job creation number is estimated at 25 million new jobs.

Secondly, Donald Trump has a smart plan to attract foreign investment and to bring back jobs to america. Donald Trump will decrease the corporate tax from 35 to 15 making it much cheaper to do business in the US. This significant plunge in the corporate tax rate will without a doubt attract foreign investment from other countries to do business in the US since they will get to keep more of the money they make and since america already has a strong purchasing power. Due to the absurd corporate tax rate of 35%, an uncountable number of corporates have moved overseas to escape US taxes while still making money off the american demand. No company ever wants to give up 35% percent of its money to the government. Due to that absurd corporate tax rate, vital companies have moved overseas like Johnson Controls, Pfizer,CF Industries, a fertiliser manufacturer, Coca-Cola. america has the highest corporate tax rate of any developed country which leads to a mass migration of american companies to other countries where corporate taxes are more relaxed. Should we wait until all of american corporates move to other countries and there are no more jobs left in america due to the absurd corporate tax rate. With Trump as a president, the corporate tax rate will be reduced to 15%. The new low corporate tax rate should act as an incentive to bring back all the overseas companies and to bring back all the jobs with them. Moreover, another incentive Trump plans to make to bring back all those overseas companies is to have relaxed environmental regulations. Having relaxed environmental regulations should solve the secondary problem as to why those companies move overseas since american companies move to places where there are less strict environmental regulations.

Moreover, Trump will replace all the dranining trade agreements and replace them with ones that do not hurt the american economy. Current trade agreements like the NAFTA and the TPP which is yet to be signed, allow developing countries to get rich of america. In those trade agreements, developing countries would supply and satisfy a demand in a major market in america. This sounds good at the surface level where developing countries get to satisfy a demand in the american population, but under further analysis, this idea crumbles. Those trade agreements allow developing countries to provide a constant supply of goods to america to satisfy a certain type of demand. Those goods from the developing world are generally much cheaper than american goods due to low workers' wages in developing countries. The developing world then sabotages the american industry by providing an unbeatable rival to the industry. Since the developing world are allowed to supply constant cheap goods to the american population through those trade agreements, american industry can not compete with the cheap goods and therefore the america industry is sabotaged. as a result, those trade agreements hinder the american industry and the american economy by providing an unbeatable rival from the developing world with much cheaper goods. In addition, those trade agreements create trade defecits in the US since in those trade agreements, the US is generally importing and barely exports while the developing world does the majority of the exporting. Under Trump's plan, those inefficeint trade agreements that hinder and sabotage american industry while creating trade defecits would be completely repealed. Other more efficient trade agreements would be established where the american industry is not sabotaged and where there are no trade defecits for the US.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Let us not forget that Donald Trump is a successful multi-billionaire businessman who has built a 4-billion dollar economic empire. Donald Trump has an irrefutable experience went it comes to the world of economics as he has been exposed to supply and demand, world markets, foreign trade and other economic concepts on his road to becoming an economic mogul. He would be a perfect fit for the current economy of america since the american economy is experiencing a slump and he would be the needed experience to solve that problem. He has a proven track record of successful business planning and adminstration so he would most likely run america the same way he runs his successful multi-billion economic empire.

Sources :

https://www.brookings.edu...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://graphics.wsj.com...

https://www.donaldjtrump.com...

https://informationstation.org...

http://www.economist.com...
Saberen

Con

Interesting. Here's why I think Trump will be harmful to the U.S Economy.

Trade

Donald Trump's understanding of how global trade function's is most likely the pinnacle of his ignorance on this subject. He talks about repealing NAFTA and completely cancelling the TPP. These action's would certainly have some very harmful effects on the u.s economy and here is why.

First, the typical argument against nafta is how u.s manufacturing Jobs are being shipped over abroad and thus we are losing jobs. But this is a very facile argument and not true at all. But first, let's explain why free trade is a very good thing.

Comparative Advantage

"the ability of an individual or group to carry out a particular economic activity (such as making a specific product) more efficiently than another activity."

Comparative advantage allows different economic entities to produce certain commodities more efficiently than others. This Advantage can be caused by many different things such as an abundance of a certain resource, larger labour pool or unique manufacturing techniques.

The fact of the matter is, some countries can produce certain goods better than others.

Now when different countries are able to trade with eachother with their special good without any additional costs like tariffs, they can be sold cheaper on both markets.

Let's look at this graph:



As we can see here prices are often decided when supply and demand are in equilibrium where Pno trade and Qno trade meet, once markets open and inevitably another country or countries can produce more efficiently suddenly the price drops where world price and Qd free trade meet. Since domestic production cannot compete, they produce less. And thus, imports are needed. But now, consumers are paying significantly lower than they would be paying if they were required to purchase domestically. And this increases the consumer surplus. Yes, domestic jobs go out but now consumers have more money to spend on other commodities such as domestically produced ones. So the country who is better at producing can employ more people to make X. It's a transfer of job's from one sector to another but on top of that, the consumers spend less money.

Now that we understand the benefits of free trade, let's look unto NAFTA.

Critics of NAFTA love to point out how Manufacturing jobs are on the decline, and they are correct. But this isn't due to NAFTA.

Let's look at this graph:




As we can see here U.S manufacturing jobs have been going to consistently long before NAFTA or any significant free trade deal was enacted. This is not due to trade but due to technological advancement and increase capital gains. Raw labour has steadily been replaced by more efficient capital.

I can corroborate this claim if needed in the future but I'm trying to keep this round at a reasonable length.


Taxes and debt

Trump has announced to cut taxes and has claimed to have a solution to the U.S federal debt but he has no plan to cut federal spending.[1] And along with spending but insufficient revenue comes a deficit and bigger debt. A structural deficit as opposed to a cyclical deficit occurs when the economy is operating at it's full potential But the expenses of a government exceed it's ability to accumulate revenue. Donald Trump's tax cuts sound great but he has no plan and explanation on how he will compensate for the loss of income.

This is why the non partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculated that trump presidency would result in a debt to GDP increase from 75% to 105% [2]

Some ma argue that a decrease in taxes fuels GDP growth which is true. However, an analysis from the Tax Foundation found that with dynamic scoring, while GDP does grow tax revenue will decrease far quicker than the GDP can compensate for this loss and it is expected it will increase the deficit over the next decade by $10 to $12 trillion. [3]

Unless trump can find a way to seriously cut spending, his tax plan is simply not feasible.

Also on the subject of reducing corporate tax, reducing the tax does little to incentive corporations to pay up their taxes. They can just put their wealth in offshore bank accounts and suffer very little or no tax deductions at all. It's suggested that up to $21 trillion in assets has been lost to global tax havens. Even if Trump reduced the corporate tax which as I've shown will significantly increase the debt, there is still little incentive for corporations to pay tax when they can pay none at all. [4]

I would appreciate if you could site your sources with matching numbers if you could be so kind. I will await your rebuttal

Sources:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com... [1]

http://crfb.org... [2]

http://fortune.com... [3]

https://www.theguardian.com... [4]
Debate Round No. 2
Moelogy

Pro

Fascinating. Here is my Rebuttal :

Trade:
===================================================================================================

"Donald Trump's understanding of how global trade function's is most likely the pinnacle of his ignorance" Let us not forget that Donald Trump started with a million dollars and he turned that into an international multi-billion dollar economic empire. He has published several books on the economy and on global trade. I think it is unwise to call such a man ignorant on global trade due to his accomplishments, his books and his grand international economic empire.

"First, the typical argument against Nafta is that jobs are being shipped overseas" It does and I will provide the evidence for that later on in this segment.

Comparative advantage:
====================

I am pretty familiar with what the free trade is and there is no need for you to teach me what free trade does to the economy. I think that free trade is a very beneficial step but it has to be taken at the right time under the right circumstances for it to display its fruitful effects. Unfortunately, the US currently does not have the right circumstances for those effects to take place due to a slump in the economy of the US and due to the shrinking manufacturing sector. That's why I support repealing current free trade agreements until the US manufacturing sector returns to its fromer glory.

Under the current free trade agreements, developing countries are allowed to supply as much as they can to the US demand while the other countries never import any american goods. On the other hand, under the same free trade agreements, the US imports far more than it exports [1] since the US manufacturing sector is currently shrinking ad facing a slump which is the reason why the US can not export anything.

While in the perfect scenario of free trade, two countries would be exchanging the product they do best which would cause a cheaper price. That is simply not the case with Nafta. Under Nafta, the US barely exports due to a slump in its manufacturing sector. In fact under Nafta, the US does most of the importing under Nafta and barely exports anything.[2]

Unfortunately, Nafta is not bread ad butter free trade and should be repealed because the US does most of the importing while barely exporting anything which hurts the US economy and creates trade defecits. Donald Trump will have much better trade agreements where america can both export ad import not just import and gain trade defecits.

" Yes, domestic jobs go " I appreciate your honesty con. This statement by con is a confession that current free trade causes a loss in domestic jobs. Under Nafta, the US imports far greater than it exports which means that the US manufacturing jobs can not provide for the US demand since the foreign products are much cheaper and no one would buy the more expensive US products which causes US manufacturing jobs to decline. While, the US exports too little compared to others under Nafta. ( I admit that the US does export under Nafta but it exports way too little compared to others). This has caused american companies to move overseas where labour is much cheaper and where they can manufacture the same goods but for cheaper so they can compete with foreign suppliers who have chaper goods. When the US companies move to places where they can manufacture the goods for cheaper, the local domestic manufacturing are lost.

Under Nafta, 700,000 american jobs were lost [3 ].

Con provided us with a graph that 'shows' that the US manufaturing jobs have decreased over the decades. But that is an illusion. The graph says the number of americans working in manufacturing decreased as a percent of all the employed americans. The number of manufacturing jobs did not decrease but other sectors got bigger and employed more people giving the illuson that less people are employed in manufacturing while in fact manufacturing jobs remained relatively stable over the past several decades due to urbanization. It is that just more people became employed in other sectors which led to manufacturing jobs decrease as a percent relative to other sectors. However, in the current situation, manufacturing jobs are being lost due to free trade agreements like Nafta. Moreover, Nafta causes major trade defecits. Between 1993 (before NAFTA took effect) and 2013, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada increased from $17.0 billion to $177.2 billion, displacing more than 850,000 U.S. jobs. Growing trade deficits and job displacement, especially between the United States and Mexico, were the result of a surge in outsourcing of production by U.S. and other foreign investors. The rise in outsourcing was fueled, in turn, by a surge in foreign direct investment (FDI) into Mexico, which increased by more than 150 percent in the post-NAFTA period. [4]. Nafta kills jobs and should be repealed. Nafta creates jobs in the first couple of years just to prepare for exporting then those jobs get killed and taken away from the US when the manufaturing companies realize their products will be too expensive to compete with other suppliers. Nafta is a job - killer and should be repealed. However, I shall admit that nafta did create jobs in the first couple of years. Then the US manufatrers discovered that it is too expensive to create the product in the US which led to the US manufacturing companies to move overseas to other countries so they can make the product for cheaper and could compete with other suppliers who have cheaper goods [5]. Nafta creates the opportunity for other countries like mexico to utilize their cheap labour to make cheap products and to export those products to the US. With Mexico's cheap products due to its cheap labour, american manufacturing companies have no other options except to move overseas to compete with those suppleirs. [6] The effects of this is "domestic jobs being lost" as you admitted.

Taxes and debt:
=================================================================================================

"but has no plan to cut spending" False. Trump does have a plan to cut spending. He plans to cut spending into some social programs not including cuts to medicare nor education nor social service. But cuts to programs that do not work like obamacare. .[7] [8]

"he will increase the national debt" but that estimation does not include the fact that Donald Trump will not be paying for the wall between america and Mexico. If that fact was considered in the estimation, the numbers should be slashed. Trump said clearly he will make Mexico somehow pay for the wall so the cost of the wall should not be cosidered in the estimation since Trump is not paying for the wall. Moreover, when you are trying to drive america up from the economic slump it is in currently, debt must be taken to solve america's economic problem.

I can elaborat more on this in future rounds as i am currently running out of characters.

Sources
[1] http://www.cfr.org...
[2] http://www.inc.com...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[4] http://www.epi.org...
[5] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu...
[6] http://www.epi.org...
[7] https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Saberen

Con

Alrighty then.

Trade:

" Let us not forget that Donald Trump started with a million dollars and he turned that into an international multi-billion dollar economic empire. He has published several books on the economy and on global trade. I think it is unwise to call such a man ignorant on global trade due to his accomplishments, his books and his grand international economic empire."

I recognize this but this is an appeal to authority. And secondly, he is a business man. His experience with any kind of economics is on the micro scale, not the macro. And as I've shown in my previous segment his ignorance of the macro-economical impact of trade is evident in his rhetoric.

" That's why I support repealing current free trade agreements until the US manufacturing sector returns to its former glory."

It's not coming back. As I've shown in the second graph manufacturing jobs have been going down for a long time. Long before any significant free trade deal was enacted.

Let's look at this graph to corroborate my claim.



As we can see here, productivity has increased with output in the U.S but employment in manufacturing has declined with it. The only way this can be possible is if manufacturing jobs have been replaced by more efficient capital along with technological advancement. In this case, with or without free trade manufacturing job's will go down regardless as job's in manufacturing are becoming more easily and more cheaply automated.

Trade deficit

Trade deficits are not necessarily a bad thing and they are certainly not a sign of unfair trade. When Americans buy imports, the foreigners must use the dollars they earn on something. They can either buy American exports or invest in American assets.

If the amount of investments entering the U.S exceeds the amount going out, the extra dollars entering the U.S can be used by Americans to buy imports at an amount above the U.S could buy by just selling American exports. As the CATO institute says on this subject: "A current account deficit is simply the mirror image of a capital account surplus." [1]

Also, trade deficits are great indicators of consumer confidence in the market. If they weren't buying the goods imported demand would have fallen along with imports. If citizens are forced to purchase more expensive, domestic products they may just not purchase the goods at all if the opportunity cost is too high.

"" Yes, domestic jobs go " I appreciate your honesty con"

This is not me conceding this point. As I've stated before, when it comes to trade and job loss it's never really a "loss". When consumers are able to purchase goods from abroad cheaper, they now have a surplus of money they can spend which can be spent on domestic goods and services.

Accord to the U.S Chamber of Commerce, Increased trade from NAFTA supports 5 million U.S jobs and unemployment went down from 7.1% to 5.1% from 1994 to 2007 only increasing from 2008 to 2012 after the stock market crash. [2]


Taxes and Debt

"Trump does have a plan to cut spending. He plans to cut spending into some social programs not including cuts to Medicare nor education nor social service. But cuts to programs that do not work like obamacare"

Obamacare was NOT a useless program. It lowered health care costs for one. in 2015 costs only rose by 0.5% as opposed to the usual annual increase of 3% or 4%. It also lowers the budget deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years by reducing health care costs and transfers the costs to pharma companies and health care providers who are constantly getting stupid rich from absurd health care costs. [3]

His good ol' "let the markets lower prices" rhetoric has been empirically disproved over and over again. Monopolies just form as they have in the u.s and providers collectively raise prices and Trump has no specific plan for this problem. [4]

"but that estimation does not include the fact that Donald Trump will not be paying for the wall between America and Mexico"

Mexico has already stated they will not pay for any wall. [5] And even if he did build the wall for free and fully maintained that wall it would only cost around $25 billion at most. [6] This still leaves him with an $11.975 trillion deficit. Weather the wall is paid for or not by someone else that's a drop in the bucket compared to what his actual calculated deficit will be.

I shall await your rebuttal.

Sources:

https://www.cato.org... [1]

https://www.uschamber.com... [2]

http://www.dallasfed.org... [3]

http://healthaffairs.org... [4]

http://www.reuters.com... [5]

http://www.economist.com... [6]



Debate Round No. 3
Moelogy

Pro

Trade:
====================================================================================================

"His experience with any kind of economics is on the micro scale not macro" Trump has an *international* economic empire. So I think it is a displayment of ignorance from Con to claim Trump has no knowledge on the global economy. Trump's *international* economic empire includes building hotels all over the world in Vancouver, Canada, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Washington D.C. and Baku, Azerbaijan.[1] You must have an abundance of knowledge on economics and global trade in order to have such successful and fruitful international projects and businesses. Having an *international* economic empire is a clear sign Trump must have great knowledege on global trade and global economics.

"as I have shown in the second graph manufacturing jobs have been going down for a long time" The graph shows that the percent of people employed in manufacturing is getting smaller. This could be due to the fact that other sectors like services have been booming over the past decades emplotying exponentially more people giving the illusion less people are working in manufacturing. Other workers became heavily more involved in other sectors like services making manufacturing sector decrease as a *percent* of the overall employed citizens since the manufacturing jobs stayed relatively the same until the 2000's until free trade deals like nafta were signed.

" Let's look at this graph"

all the claims i make in the next paragraph are directed at the graph con provided which was titled " U.S. Manufacturing productivity and output have risen while employment has declined."

I found it interesting that the manufacturing jobs remained relatively stable until 2000's when free trade in the US (NAFTA) was very active when jobs dropped significantly. In early 2000's, nafta was the most active and that is when jobs started exponential decrease after being relativelty stable for a long time. Despite being signed in 1994, Nafta was especially starting to become very active and initiating heavy free trade between the three countries in the early 2000's especially 2002 [2]. The result of that was exponential decrease in the US manufacturing jobs after being relatively stable for 5 decades due to the manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas. Moreover, I found it interesting that you provided a chart here to show that manufacturing jobs were either stable or decreasing over the past five decades, yet you claimed later in the same round that Nafta created 5 million maufacturing jobs from 1994 to 2007. I found that exceedingly odd since the graph you provided earlier claimed that manufacturing jobs stayed relatively the same or decreased from 1994 to 2007.

Trade defecits:
=================================================================================================

Trade defecits are sometimes good depending on the situation. But trade defecits also mean major job losses.

Let me elaborate:

Trade defecit means a country is importing more than it exports.

Under NAFTA, the US has experienced $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs .[3] $181 billion in trade defecits is not a small number that con can just ignore. US is experiencing high trade defecits from free trade agreements like nafta which leads to job losses.

If the US is experiencing a vast trade defecits, this means that the US is importing way more than it exports.
This means that the demand in the US markets is being fulfilled by foreign manufacturers and not by US manufacturers since there is massive imports.[4] Moreover, since the US is exporting very little, it is not utilizing its manufacturing sector to fulfill foreign demand. [5].

Bottom line : Since the US is experiencing massive trade defecits due to free trade agreements, it is importing enormous amounts of goods while barely exporting anything. Since the US imports heavily, there is no need for the US manufacturing sector in the US markets since most of the demand is supplied by cheap foreign manufacturers. Low exports means the US manufacturing sector is not being utilized to satisfy foreign demand. as a result, trade defecits are a sign that the US manufacturing sector is dwindling due to lack of utility in both the US markets and the foreign markets which in tandem creates losses in jobs in the american manufacturing sector.

"This is not me conceding this point. As I've stated before, when it comes to trade and job loss it's never really a "loss". When consumers are able to purchase goods from abroad cheaper, they now have a surplus of money they can spend which can be spent on domestic goods and services."
Higher consumer surplus as a result of free trade does not deny the fact that jobs are LOST which you agreed with me on by stating " Yes, domestic jobs go ". The harm gained from the loss of jobs can outweighs higher consumer surplus. When Jobs are lost, people go on welfare and the aggregate demand goes down. When Consuemr surplus goes up, consumers have a few more dollars.

"Accord to the U.S Chamber of Commerce, Increased trade from NAFTA supports 5 million U.S jobs and unemployment went down from 7.1% to 5.1% from 1994 to 2007 only increasing from 2008 to 2012 after the stock market crash."

Intresting. Firstly, I do not seem to notice the unemployment statistic in the source you provided. You claimed something that is not mentioned in the source. Secondly, The graph titled "U.S. Manufacturing productivity and output have risen while employment has declined." contradicts this piece of evidence by claming jobs remained relatively stable or decreased from 1994 to 2007. Internal contradictions among Con's sources point to the utter unreliability of his sources.

Taxes and Debt:
=================================================================================================

"Obamacare was NOT a useless program" In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion. [6]. With all the minimal benefits you stated, we could have better alloted that money to provide maximal benefits. Obamacare is inefficient using lots of money to create minimal benefits like you stated. The bottom line is Trump has a plan to cut spending. [7]

"His good ol' "let the markets lower the prices" rhetoric.......Monoplies just form as they have in the US." Trump will allow the markets to be more capitalist and will make it easier for new businesses to enter the market which creates competition. If new businesses can enter the market easily that alone in itself destroys the potential of any monopolies occuring. If markets are more capitalist, it is so much more easier for new businesses to start and to enter the market due to relaxed regulations. If it is easier for new businesses to enter a market, competition forms between the different companies. When Competition forms between the companies, the companies especially the newer businesses will lower their prices so they have the most competitive product which leads to a general decrease in the price of the product which is all due to competition and making it easier for new business to join the market. Trump promised to reduce regulations in order to make it easier for new businesses to join the market. [8]

"still leaves him with a $11.975 trillion deficit" I will talk about this in my next round.

Sources
[1] http://www.investopedia.com...
[2] http://www.international.gc.ca...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[4] https://www.marketplace.org...
[5] http://www.epi.org...
[6] http://time.com...
[7] [8] https://www.donaldjtrump.com...
Saberen

Con

Trade

"Trump has an *international* economic empire. So I think it is a displayment of ignorance from Con to claim Trump has no knowledge on the global economy"

He is a business man first, economist second,third or last. He focuses on what is good for his company and at what risk does this goodness come. He he is not a GDP analyst, an Economic Development Officer or a macro trade analyst. His concern is with micro-economics.


mi·cro·ec·o·nom·ics


/mīkr!3;G6;ekəG2;nämiks,-G6;ēkə-/

"the part of economics concerned with single factors and the effects of individual decisions."


There is no evidence to suggest he has any experience in the "Macro" section of Economics. He does not study inflation, the effects of counter and pro cyclical fiscal policy, price rigidities, monetary policy, ect. And his ignorance in the field of macro economics is displayed in his rhetoric as I have shown in previous rounds.

"The graph shows that the percent of people employed in manufacturing is getting smaller. This could be due to the fact that other sectors like services have been booming over the past decades employing exponentially more people giving the illusion less people are working in manufacturing. "

Or It's simply due to the fact that less people are needed in manufacturing. You still have not addressed the reason why manufacturing has been falling even before NAFTA was enacted. If trade was killing manufacturing jobs those kinds of jobs would have remained relatively stable until NAFTA was enacted but they aren't.

"I found it interesting that the manufacturing jobs remained relatively stable until 2000's when free trade in the US (NAFTA) was very active when jobs dropped significantly"

They were not stable at all. The aggregate trend of manufacturing jobs has been going down long before any kind of trade deal was enacted. I've now stated this 3 times. And you have not addressed the fact that trade is not what is killing manufacturing jobs but increased capital gains and technological advancement.

"yet you claimed later in the same round that Nafta created 5 million manufacturing jobs from 1994 to 2007"

I never claimed it made MANUFACTURING jobs I claimed it created jobs which I provided a source for. And i quote from the study conducted by the U.S Chamber of Commerce:

"
Trade with Canada and Mexico supports nearly 14 million U.S. jobs, and nearly 5 million of these net jobs are supported by the increase in trade generated by NAFTA, according to a comprehensive economic study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber." [1]

The only problem here is my wording was slightly different. But no where did I claim it created manufacturing jobs.

Trade Deficit

"Trade deficit means a country is importing more than it exports."

Yes that is correct.

"Under NAFTA, the US has experienced $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs"

Compared to supporting 5 million with increase trade this is a very small trade.


" $181 billion in trade deficit is not a small number that con can just ignore. US is experiencing high trade deficits from free trade agreements like nafta which leads to job losses."

I am not ignoring this trade deficit but as I've stated before, this leads to increased investment in the U.S





This trade has led to massive amounts of increased investment in domestic assets for the U.S and foreign investment from Canada into the u.s increased from $26.6 billion in 1988 to $237.9 billion by 2013 and Mexican investment has increased from only $1.2 billion in 1993 to $17.6 billion in 2013. [2]

This amount of new investment is far superior than the trade deficit and thus, the u.s profits from the trade.

"Higher consumer surplus as a result of free trade does not deny the fact that jobs are LOST which you agreed with me on by stating " Yes, domestic jobs go ". The harm gained from the loss of jobs can outweighs higher consumer surplus. When Jobs are lost, people go on welfare and the aggregate demand goes down. When Consumer surplus goes up, consumers have a few more dollars."

When I said "domestic jobs go" I was referring to domestic manufacturing jobs. And you are right, the harm gained from the loss of jobs can outweigh the higher consumer surplus but there is no evidence to suggest this in the case of free trade. All we know is that directly, U.S manufacturing jobs decrease but while that does, other sectors grow.


"Interesting. Firstly, I do not seem to notice the unemployment statistic in the source you provided. You claimed something that is not mentioned in the source. Secondly, The graph titled "U.S. Manufacturing productivity and output have risen while employment has declined." contradicts this piece of evidence by claiming jobs remained relatively stable or decreased from 1994 to 2007. Internal contradictions among Con's sources point to the utter unreliability of his sources."

I will include evidence for my claim here. [3]




There is no contradiction here. U.S MANUFACTURING jobs have decreased. when I was Talking about the 7.1% decrease to 5.1% I was referring to the aggregate job market and this graph corroborates my claim.

Taxes and Debt

I don't believe this debate about obamacare is relevant to the debate anymore now that Donald trump appears to be in favour of the key elements in the affordable care act. [4]


"Trump will allow the markets to be more capitalist and will make it easier for new businesses to enter the market which creates competition. If new businesses can enter the market easily that alone in itself destroys the potential of any monopolies occurring. If markets are more capitalist, it is so much more easier for new businesses to start and to enter the market due to relaxed regulations."

Ok, what exactly is trumps plan to get more small companies in the health care business? Barriers are far too high right now in that market for anyone new to compete. Does he have a solution on how to tear down this barrier? And what kind of regulations are you referring to? Some regulation ensure that when you get care you aren't put at risk due to health care provider negligence. De-regulating the health care system could be disastrous. I'm going to need you to elaborate further on his plan if he even has one on how he is going to break up the monopoly on health care.


I'll be waiting.


Sources:

https://www.uschamber.com... [1]

https://www.fas.org... [2]

http://www.econedlink.org... [3]

http://www.bbc.com... [4]



Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Moelogy 3 weeks ago
Moelogy
ik wtf
Posted by Saberen 3 weeks ago
Saberen
This site is so broken lmao
Posted by Saberen 4 weeks ago
Saberen
I would like to apologies on my grammar in this section "As we can see here U.S manufacturing jobs have been going to consistently long before NAFTA or any significant free trade deal was enacted. This is not due to trade but due to technological advancement and increase capital gains. Raw labour has steadily been replaced by more efficient capital." what i mean to say was "As we can see here U.S manufacturing jobs have been going DOWN consistently long before NAFTA or any significant free trade deal was enacted. This is not due to trade but due to technological advancement and increase IN capital gains. Raw labour has steadily been replaced by more efficient capital."

I've been having trouble with editing text on this site.
Posted by Moelogy 4 weeks ago
Moelogy
are my opening arguments good or no?
Posted by Some_Confused_Kid 4 weeks ago
Some_Confused_Kid
Seems like a good debate. I will be checking on this debate a lot.Good luck on both sides.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.