Resolved: That the US should implement additional protectionist policies

I am afraid I must continue to disagree with my opponent. My opponent states that "when another country sells the US cheap goods, American consumers benefit enormously. … as consumers are able to do more … with their money, our economy only grows larger …, and the small businesses [I am]worried about will benefit." My opponent appears to believe that consumers have pools of wealth that are diminished solely by the costs of consumption. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of people, this is not true. Many people live on their income. [1] When their income dries up, their outlays don't disappear; they just drain more of the income earner's resources. Eventually, even one's savings, the pool that my opponent believes is the source of buying power, dries up. [2] Once one tier of service providers are no longer able to accept any more outlays, those –other- service providers who relied upon those outlays for –their- income will be unable to pay for their outlays, and so on.[3] Consumption is just one part of the valuation exchange we refer to as the economy. Failing to respect the need to maintain income sources is part of why we are where we are right now. Additionally, my opponent claims that "when we trade with China (or any foreign nation, for that matter), both economies prosper." He also questions why "American citizens continue to purchase foreign goods if it [does] not benefit them." In response to his first, quite absolute, statement, the supposition that trade provides mutual benefit has been disproven throughout history. [4] In response to his second statement, American citizens continue to purchase –cheaper- foreign goods because it increases their savings, and most do not think to worry about their income as they assume that their jobs are relatively secure. Clearly, this is not the case. [5] American consumers have acted like the grasshopper in their spending habits, living for their immediate needs. Now that winter has come, they should realize that they ought to have acted like ants, and assured themselves of a way to survive in lean times. [6] In short, American consumers are impulsive. They do not consider the impact of their purchases upon their economy, but upon their pocket book. As I have already shown, that means they are only looking at one half of the problem. My opponent has also stated that "if we allow China to grow economically, we will see a reduction in unfair policies. This is true of any developing nation… China specifically is already working to improve labor conditions … because of free trade with the US and other countries, not in spite of it." My opponent has apparently not read my sources. My second cited source in my original argument notes that "the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong asserts among its ‘universal principles' that ‘American business plays an important role as a catalyst for positive social change by promoting human welfare and guaranteeing to uphold the dignity of the workers and set positive examples for their remuneration, treatment, health, and safety.' But U.S.-based corporations are trying to block legislation designed specifically to improve the remuneration, treatment, health and safety, and other standards for Chinese workers." China is not attempting to improve labor standards because of free trade; it is attempting to improve labor standards because it has the wealth to do so, as the United States once did. The forces of free trade would prefer that labor standards remain the same. My opponent then mentions the straw horse of free trade supporters, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was to protectionism what our current free trade practices are to free trade – too extreme. It placed extremely high tariffs on nearly every foreign import, including those from relatively trade benign nations such as Germany[7] and Canada [8]. In response, all of the nations we snubbed engaged in reciprocal trade restrictions. [9] We would not stand to lose very much if China or countries with similar labor standards ceased to trade with us. They do not import very much from us. [10] [11] [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2] http://blog.puppetgov.com... [3] http://www.bls.gov... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.bls.gov... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.census.gov... [8] http://www.census.gov... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... and also http://www.state.gov... [10] http://www.census.gov... [11]http://www.isa.org...