free trade should be valued above protectionism

Let me start with this basic point: no one is against trade. Trade has taken place since the beginning of human history. The only question is what RULES we put in place to manage trade. The issue of so-called "free trade" and, by extension, how one views the power of corporate America to shape our economic lives is, from my little vantage point, THE deep, systemic change question on the economic vision side. RESOLVED: Free trade should be valued above protectionism Now before I Get into today's debate I realise some definitions need Clarification. Free Trade : Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows traders to trade across national boundaries without interference from the respective governments. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Protectionism : Protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations designed to discourage imports and prevent foreign take-over of domestic markets and companies. (I would like to note that the key difference in definitions is Two Words, RESTRICT and RESTRAINING) . http://en.wikipedia.org... Now the highest value for today's round should be that of Societal Welfare. (Note: it is the same definition as my opponent) And the only Criterion that upholds this value is Maximizing Domestic standard of living. The relation will be proven later on in my case, but basically I'm going to show that When you maximize the Domestic standard of living that it leads to Societal Welfare, And that's why I'm urging a negative vote. BUT First lets go into "What is a Resolution, Value and a Criterion? " For those who are not familiar with the LD debate format. RESOLUTION-To basically Sum it up a Resolution is a Statement that you affirm or negate. It is the side you are trying to prove With you Value and Criterion pair VALUE-The basic overlying idea. "It's kind of like a pair of tinted glasses, it's what you use to look at the round, and how you look at it. " Hello Orange CRITERION-What measures your value, usually an action of some kind Now to My arguments 1-Infant Industry This argument maintains that in order to grow and compete in the future, new industries need temporary protection from foreign competition. A critical need, protectionism allows these industries to establish themselves in the key beginning stages shielded from foreign competition from established firms. Protection gives these industries and companies a chance to progress and develop a competitive advantage in the future. If this protection is not given, new industries will never develop in a country as they are killed off by mature foreign competitors before they are even given a chance to take root. Protection in the form of tariffs for competitors or tax credits for companies would allow the government to establish and grow industries which would benefit the public good such as technology, solar, and green industries which have the potential to create millions of jobs. For emerging countries, this form of infant industry protection would allow less developed countries to start their own industries which can eventually compete on the global market alongside industries from developed countries. Now Maximizing the domestic standard of living(Criterion) is applied here with the infant industries argument leading to a better society or Societal Welfare(Value). 2. Diversify the Economy This Argument maintains that in times of trouble(War, Natural Disasters, etc. ) some Countries need important economic factors like(Agriculture and steel). In addition to being a vital industry, agriculture has important cultural significance. A country may want to maintain a domestic food supply for the sake of security as well as preserving agricultural interests and farmer's lifestyles. Agriculture also has a unique exposure to price fluctuations as environmental factors can have major impacts on prices. As vital interest, agricultural products are often shielded from foreign competition. In the European Union, for example, agricultural subsidies compose over 47 percent of the EU's budget. Another vital industry is heavy industry such as the production of steel and coal. In the event of war, it is vital for a country to have the ability to produce steel and other resources for military manufacturing. If a country did not protect this vital industry and other countries produced the steel needed, it would be at the whim of other countries in a matter of vital national security. Now on to My opponents Case. If the judge has observed the round in full you'll notice That I put down definitions of RESOLUTION,VALUE and CRITERION. My opponents Criterion is the same as the Resolution side she is affirming, In LD Debate this is not allowed. But I'm going to show you that even if it was allowed it wouldn't work. I'll show you that Free Trade is So Destructive to Societal Welfare that the two terms should never go together. Most industrialized governments have long held that laissez-faire capitalism creates social evils that harm its citizens. To protect those citizens, these governments have enacted laws that restrict what companies can and can not do in pursuit of profit. Examples are laws regarding: Child Labor Environmental Protection Laws Competition Anti trust Equal Opportunity Collective Bargaining Occupational Safety and Health The main goal of free trade is to maximize profits not welfare. There are two ways to maximize profit, either to increase sales or to cut costs. The easier one to do is cut costs because increased sales is ultimately dictated by the laws of supply and demand. The biggest cost to most multinationals and large corporations is salary pay or wages, so to cut that cost jobs are sent overseas(Outsourcing) to developing countries where real wages are much lower(Child Labor) and the price of doing business is adequately cheaper. In turn that deteriorates the number of existing jobs domestically. So You See Free Trade definently does not uphold Societal Welfare. It has lead to the creating of many laws Regarding the Free trade Monster. Now to Her Arguments Free Trade Enhances Competition + Free Trade is beneficial to the Economy Dumping-. http://en.wikipedia.org...(pricing_policy) You See There is a Company tactic Called Dumping that is started by This Competition between Mature Foreign Companies and small domestic companies. I will Use an example of dumping, that uses simple Economics and Relates to drugs. 1. Drug Dealer A has a drug Cartel that goes around the entire US. But he wants to expand into someone's area. 2. Drug Dealer B has a small Drug Organization, based out of Dallas, Texas(One of the places Drug Dealer A wants to expand. 3. Drug Dealer A goes in a purposely lowers prices on his "goods". So then people turn to him a Not Drug Dealer B. 4. Drug Dealer A has now eliminated Drug Dealer B(B cannot make any profit) 5. Drug Dealer A has B eliminated, literally(JK! ) As I've shown this Competition is bad, an eliminates most companies. How can this(Free Trade) be beneficial to the Economy when it eliminates Any Jobs and Businesses. How can this eliminate Monopolies when it's what starts them. This a key reason we need protectionism Free Trade decreases unemployment Outsourcing and Child labor This is why the has been a huge Job loss In America. It's Simple Really. Why Pay Americans this 8.25 and hour when you can pay a child nothing but bread and some water? This is what free trade creates. Free Trade is beneficial to the consumes Only If you want Cheap Products, made from Child labor, Environmental abuses and You loss of Job(It's everything I've proved) So I have Proved how free trade is disastrous for Societal Welfare.