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

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 DebtI 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]