15% Tariff

This is the first debate I've done where my opponent posted arguments for all of the rounds, which is a nice change. "While it is true that technology is a portion of this, it is not the only factor. " You misunderstood me. I never said it was the only factor. Just that it accounts for 97% of the job losses in the manufacturing sector. Since you did not attempt to dispute that claim, I assume that you accept it. "Cheap labor abroad is unfair to the American worker because other countries do not implement the same moral employment codes that the U. S. does. " I fail to see how workers in other countries working for less than American workers is "unfair. " Why, morally, shouldn't they get the jobs, if they're willing to work for less? How is the poverty of the rest of the world "unfair" to American workers? "I used the American Revolution as an example because it is what America is becoming all over again; this time to the rest of the world. " I wasn't aware that the rest of the world was attempting to force a mercantilist system on the U. S. If this claim is true, I completely agree with you that it is wrong. Fortunately, they seem to be failing. As I said before, manufacturing output is increasing in the U. S, and has been for a while, even with our lowering of trade barriers. "There are numerous examples of foreign companies, backed by their governments 'dumping' their products in the United States, in order to kill the U. S. industry. -=Dumping anecdotes=- While I am all for free-market competition, I am not for socialist countries destroying our industry by dumping. " First of all, you certainly are not 'for' free-market competition. You are proposing a tariff. Free-market competition means competition in a market free of restrictions such as tariffs. As for "dumping," I welcome it. All it means is that foreign governments are taking their taxpayers' money and basically giving it to American consumers in the form of lower prices. Imagine if the Japanese increased their TV and car subsidies to the point where they were giving American consumers TV's and cars free of charge. Yes, workers at American TV and car companies would lose their jobs. But since Americans no longer had to pay for TV's or cars, they'd have much more money to spend on other things, so production, and therefore the amount of jobs, would increase in the rest of the economy. No net loss in jobs, and, on top of that, everyone gets free stuff! "Paragraph about National Defense + Military" While I don't agree with you that imports hurt our national defense, it's irrelevant anyway. Your tariff would not eliminate imports for companies producing military goods. It would somewhat reduce them. The "problem" would not be solved by your tariff. If you were proposing restrictions on imports for companies vital to national defense, this might be a valid point. But you are not, so it is not. "Paragraph about the U. S. and Britain in the second half of the 19th century" You say that prices fell with tariffs. Prices fell because output was increasing faster than the monetary base. They fell in spite of tariffs, because we were in the middle of our industrial revolution. It's interesting that you mention free-trade Britain. Yes, U. S. exports increased at a faster rate than British exports during the time period you mentioned. Of course they did. The U. S. was in the middle of its industrial revolution, while the British had already had most of theirs. [1] Free trade forced British industries to compete with the world, making them better and more efficient. That allowed the Britain to experience its industrial revolution sooner than countries like the U. S. , where tariffs subsidized inefficient and failing businesses. [1] The U. S. eventually did surpass Britain in exports, but only because of the rapid growth in population and capital relative to Britain. In addition, if you look closely at the U. S. 's economic expansion during that period, you'll see that it was not tariff protected industries that led America's surge during the late 19th century. [2] The fastest growing industries were transportation, distribution, utilities, communications, and construction. [2] Protected steel mills and textile factories were relatively stagnant. [2] Speaking of economic history, I think I'll mention a few other changes in trade restrictions. For example, the Smoot-Hawly tariff increase in 1929 ushered in a era of unprecedented prosperity, while the large tariff decrease after WWII brought a post-war slump lasting for decades. Wait, no, that's not right; the exact opposite happened. [1] Crafts, Nicholas. Britain's Relative Economic Performance, 1870–1999. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. [2] Douglas A. Irwin, "Tariffs and Growth in Late Nineteenth-Century America," National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. W7638, April 2000, pp. 16-17. Conclusion: 1. My opponent has failed to show that free trade destroys jobs. The claims in the AFL-CIO article posted are contradicted by all empirical evidence, basic economic reasoning, and nearly every economist. 2. My opponent claims that free trade is hurting the U. S. manufacturing sector, but did not offer evidence contradicting my claims that a) 97% of job losses in the manufacturing sector are the result of technological advance, and b) manufacturing output is going up in the U. S. , showing that our manufacturing sector is not declining. 3. My opponent failed to adequately address my claims of the negative effects of higher prices on consumers and businesses. Unless I misread his posts, he argued that tariffs would not really increase prices. This claim is unsupported by a logical argument or evidence, and is contradicted by economic reasoning. 4. Contrary to my opponents claims, it is clear that our economic history shows that tariffs not only don't help growth, but stifle it. 5. It is clear that tariffs do not increase or decrease the net amount of jobs. They protect some jobs by destroying others. My opponent has failed to morally justify stealing from some workers and consumers to protect a few special interests.