Resolved: That the US should implement additional protectionist policies

My opponent continues to believe that protectionism will save America from the clutches of the recession, but nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to my opponent's judgement, I do not believe that American consumers "have pools of wealth that are diminished solely by the costs of consumption." I agree that Americans depend on their income to fulfill basic necessities, but trade with China will not end this stream of revenue. My opponent has not yet truly shown that trade is as deadly as he seems to believe. There are two main ways in which trade is beneficial to the American economy: first, workers depend on this trade. Many American jobs exist solely because of this trade. A study by Morgan-Stanley found in 2007 that, "…four to eight million American jobs are closely associated with trade with China… Chinese exports have saved American consumers $600 billion over the past decade and nearly $100 billion alone in 2004…" [1]. Restricting or even eliminating this trade, as my opponent continues to advocate, would only serve to hurt the millions of workers whose livelihood depends on trade with China. Second of all, many companies depend on this trade. The Congressional Research Service found in 2007 that, "…low-cost imports [from China especially] have benefited US firms that use them as inputs for the production of other goods, thus making those firms more competitive" [2]. It does not make sense to implement tariffs when trade with China actually keeps many companies afloat. My opponent expresses concern with regard to maintaining income sources, and that is exactly what trade has done, does, and will continue to do. My opponent next asserts that trade is not mutually beneficial, that China is gaining from American losses in this situation. However, this simply does not make sense, and my opponent does not adequately back up his claims. He states simply that, "…the supposition that trade provides mutual benefit has been disproven throughout history." His source for this succinct statement is a Wikipedia article on the Opium Wars, a conflict between Britain and China that occurred in the mid-1800s. I would appreciate it if my opponent would shed some light on how this pertains to trade issues. Despite his clams, trade is a positive occurrence for both the US and China. Morgan Stanley reports that, "…business and trade relations have … contributed to the growth… of… [both American and Chinese] economies" [1]. The Heritage Foundation agrees, and cites a 2003 study by Michael W. Klein, Scott Schuh, and Robert K. Triest, which "…shows the benefits of trade outweighing its costs by 100 percent" [3]. When the US voluntarily buys products from China, or any nation, the results bolster both economies. This kind of economic activity will be necessary to end the recession. My opponent argues that China is working to end unfair labor practices only because it has the wealth to do so, and that American corporations are attempting to slow this process. However, we must disregard the current policy positions of companies, and look to the underlying factors that have allowed China to become as wealthy as it is today. Without American trade to improve China's economic status, that country would not have the wealth necessary to spur policy decisions moving towards a level playing field. The "forces of free trade" that my opponent frowns upon are actually the reason for the policy movements that China is experiencing today. My opponent and I agree that tariffs on Chinese goods would likely start a trade conflict, as happened in the great depression with the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Act, but he denies that this would hurt the US economy. He asserts that we would not have that much to lose if we cut off all trade with China, or even if we cut off all trade with nations that utilize unfair labor practices. China may not have been very important to the US economically when the Smoot-Hawley act was passed. But today, China is America's third largest export market, [4] and provides valuable revenue that aids the US economy - especially in this period of economic turmoil. We need all the help we can get to end this recession, so it makes no sense to risk losing trade with such a large nation as China. My opponent is proposing that we regulate, restrict, and risk losing trade not only with China, but with many other countries as well. What he overlooks is that this trade helps both American workers and companies, is beneficial to both China and the US, and will encourage fair labor policies around the globe. By imposing tariffs on Chinese products entering the US, we will only risk losing an important and valuable trade partner. In these troubling economic times, we cannot afford to suffer such a loss. Please vote in negation. [1] A report by Morgan Stanley, quoted in http://online.wsj.com.... [2] http://www.fas.org... [3] http://www.heritage.org.... [4] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn...