The Instigator
Paco3837
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Daysuit
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

all trade barriers should be removed to foster competition

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,901 times Debate No: 2225
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

Paco3837

Pro

The world is rapidly becoming a borderless conglomeration of large companies, who both compete with and depend on each other to survive. It is time we stopped looking at the world like it was a hundred years ago. Commerce is entirely global now, and things such as trade regulations only hinder the flow of money into the hands of those who need and deserve it. A good example of this is the American automotive industry, whose cars are, shall we say, terrible at the moment. it is the policies of the United States government that drive up the prices of the much better European and Asian cars, which are not only more efficient, but also last far longer than any vehicle coming out of Detroit. Tarriffs fail to benifit workers for two reasons:

1. No car is truly made in America anymore
2. Only a small portion of American workers make cars

As is stated in No. 1, no car is truly American anymore. Ford hires Turkish workers to produce parts in Germany which are then shipped to Mexico and assembled by Mexican workers and finally shipped back to the United States. Tarifs on Asian cars unfairly reward the American companies, who hire less Americans than Toyota.

As for No. 2- Tarifs on imported cars benefit only a small portion of the American labour force, while they harm the rest of its lower and middle class citizens.

Tarifs of any kind are unfair. American companies would not have to fear foreign goods if they would simply produce better products. I believe that a tariff free economy would strongly benefit the average American citizen/ consumer. Very few Americans actually produce things in factories anymore, and America as a whole is moving away from the old factory economy to a newer, more modern service based economy. Lower tariffs would benefit many retailer and support companies, and open the doors to new products from around the world. To put it simply, America is not, nor should it be, a major producer of goods. It is a seller of goods, and an improver of goods. The closing of a factory in any American city should be celebrated as a sign of positive change. We now live in an age where the Walmarts and Burger Kings are more vital to our economy than the Fords and General Motors, and our trade policies should reflect that.
Daysuit

Con

Certain tariffs can ostracize the US from better products at a lower price. However, lowering or removing said tariffs would be an economic disaster as they are a no cost way (as the tariff creator) of creating new revenue and sustaining businesses in the process. Removing tariffs would collapse the US agriculture economy. What happens when farms start going under because coastal states are closer to the source of trade, and now farms in South Dakota can't compete with the farms in South America when it comes to selling corn in California?
Debate Round No. 1
Paco3837

Pro

I disagree, the United States government employs a variety of taxes and fees on many goods and services to function. Tariffs are just one of the many opportunities to raise money for the government. Although, I must say, the type of tariffs you are describing are not the ones I take issue with. My main concern is the protectionist tariffs, enforced not for profit but rather to protect companies unwilling or unable to change. These companies should be forced to ether sink or swim, and not expect a government handout.

As for your argument regarding agriculture, I must also disagree. In the United States of America enough food can be produced annually to feed our entire nation many times over. Not only do we have an advanced network of transport systems, but we also strictly regulate the food consumed in the United States. An ear of corn, for example, would be much easier to produce in Iowa and send to California than to produce in South America and ship there, even if the labour and production costs are slightly lower in South America. Our government already subsidizes farmers not to grow food, thus inflating the value of the food to marketable prices. This same system of subsidization could be extended to farms which are further from the destination of their crops. This would most likely be unnecessary, however, as the transportation systems in the USA render the price differences in transport distances negligible. Not to mention the fact that without tariffs, farmers would benefit from cheaper equipment, parts, and feeds imported from other nations.
Daysuit

Con

You have a great point, however Free Trade agreements bring a lot of economic stress to those involved. Removing tariffs on goods that tax payers subsidize, not only takes money out of the tax payer to produce the goods in it's own country, but now threatens the economy of another country if it doesn't subsidize the said good even though it can produce just as much. Protection tariffs prevent immediate collapse of a large fully grown economy sector, and are essential to a free market economy and protects other smaller nations from the worst aspects of globalization.
Debate Round No. 2
Paco3837

Pro

I believe that if all tariffs were to be simultaneously removed internationally, the global economy would strongly benefit. Every nation has some resource or product that some other nation needs, the removal of protective tariffs would simply make the importation of these products and resources much more available. As for the harmful effects of globalisation, we must not forget that no tariffs means more jobs for people in smaller, third-world nations. People in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, survive on less than a dollar a day. Any employment, including slave labour, would be a major improvement for them. Even slaves are fed everyday. Is not food a form of pay? Meanwhile the American poor would be able to drive cheap cars from china, cars that only cost $3,000, and have an easier time finding employment with the companies who would be benefiting from the eliminated tariffs. People will always vote with thier wallets, and will ultimately decide what the better product by buying it. This should not be done be the government.
Daysuit

Con

The idea of more jobs and more opportunities is a great idea. However the difference between Free trade deals and fair trade deals is the overall GDP of the largest consumer based nations will be the winners, not the smaller nations with large export economies. Here's why, large free market economies have the money for subsidies, which are lobbied for. These subsidized markets will not go away with tariffs, in fact they may increase. The reason why is, without financial trade barriers, and the potential for profit (because now the government is footing the bill for enough of the costs to turn most sales into pure profit). This means an unchecked, non-tariffed, subsidized industry in one large nation can completely low-ball smaller nations without the same government bail subsidies. Inevitably this shuts down the economy sector of the said smaller nations economy, because they can no longer compete.

In the industrialized countries with free capital trade job quantities may increase. However, these jobs are not sufficient or significant enough to create a substantial increase in tax revenue or overall quality of life. Thats because free trade deals open up opportunities for the service industry and little else. We are talking about a trade off between quality of jobs and quantity of jobs gets thrown way away from quality and more towards quantity. The same can be said for the goods produced. Granted we may have more 3000 cars in our market but now we might have less choices of cars because American companies can't compete; and in order for China to give us 3000 dollar cars our automotive standards might have to be lowered.

The end result leaves the lower and middle class citizens of the world with a poor outlook, with low quality 3000 dollar cars, soy-laden meats, tons of retail and service jobs with little room for advancement, and putting out of work people in non-subsidized industries.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
Con's conclusion won the debate.

"tons of retail and service jobs with little room for advancement, and putting out of work people in non-subsidized industries."

stupid service economy, "you want fries with that?"
Posted by Ennui2778 9 years ago
Ennui2778
Just a quick sidenote Paco- It is known that you re an avid supporter of the candidacy of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). Dr. Paul advocateded replacing the income tax with tarriffs. You, from my own personal experience, How then is the government going to collect money if it-
a) Abolishes the income tax, like you advocate
b) Abolishes the Federal Reserve, like you advocate?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
Paco3837DaysuitTied
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 
Vote Placed by hcallega 9 years ago
hcallega
Paco3837DaysuitTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
Paco3837DaysuitTied
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 
Vote Placed by Daysuit 9 years ago
Daysuit
Paco3837DaysuitTied
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 
Vote Placed by govchapman 9 years ago
govchapman
Paco3837DaysuitTied
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