Resolved: That on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive im

1) Yes we would have to build factories and machines and such, and that would yield more jobs (so long as we use Americans to build them). Spending money on Americans is an okay thing. Because if the government spends money (though it would be better if companies did it, but they are often hesitant to start something, but will join in once the ball is rolling) on americans, then they get some of it back in taxes (income taxes), if those americans then build stuff that is sold to other americans, the government gets some more back (through taxes on the manufacturing plant's profits, and maybe sales taxes, pending the state). That money then keeps changing hands (from people buying goods and services and labour) which keeps things going, but it only keeps things going in America so long as it keeps changing American hands. This actually won't cost the government too much, since the cost to look at is not the total dollar figure, but what the dollar figure is compared to the alternative, paying unemployment checks. You can either pay 1,000 people A) $20,000,000 to sit on unemployment and do nothing, or B) pay them $24,000,000 to build some factories to create some jobs so they can EARN a paycheck rather then just get one? Option B doesn't cost $24,000,000, it only really costs $4,000,000 which is a darn good deal. I would also disagree that other nations have high interest in the well being of american any further then our pocket books. China has a history of sending rather bad products because they cut corners to save money, not something that someone who cares does. [2] Yes things can be made "cheaper" in those other nations, because they have lower safety regulations (saves money), lower worker rights (saves money), less environmental regulations (saves money) and less legal consequences if they cause serious injury (saves money). But then, that is not the topic of this debate. we are talking about what is better for the US, not what is better for individual corporations. 2) It is important that other nations' economies grow, so that they can both sell stuff to the US and buy stuff from the US, however they cannot sell to the US if we have exported our jobs to them and everyone is sitting on unemployment checks. Looking back at the car example, even if China makes new cars, if we can't buy the cars, it doesn't matter. Then China just goes and sells those cars to other nations and we get nothing (only lost jobs, lost business, and lost money). On to defending my arguments. 1) Again, it doesn't matter if they make it cheaper overseas, if the US citizens here don't have jobs and so can't buy them. It is perfectly acceptable to have goods made overseas so long as we have an abundance of jobs and people able to buy said goods here. This is not what was argued in the OP. The OP said that "exporting low-paying and low-skill jobs to BRIC nations," meaning that we should SEND jobs away. I strongly disagree. Like I said in my first argument, we should help those countries and their economies, however, we should not send our jobs to them, but instead work on helping them create jobs themselves (while we try to create jobs ourselves). 2) Yes, we do have manufacturing in other nations, and has cost the US jobs and also lead to poor quality products that ultimately hurt the US, not help it. I noticed that my opponent did not challenge my statements that "Luxury goods are much more elastic and so sway in demand much more due to price theory and supply and demand. [1] Just because they are growing now, does not mean that they are good to build our entire economy around." So I will extend that argument again. [1] http://www.basiceconomics.info... [2] http://www.who-sucks.com...