Resolved: That the US should implement additional protectionist policies

He assumes, for example, that I feel that trade is "deadly" rather than that unlimited free trade is undesirable. He also assumes that because a job is ‘closely associated' with a form of trade, that job must depend upon that associated trade. Moreover, the one source he cites to provide a direct benefit, claiming that "low-cost imports [from China especially] have benefited US firms that use them as inputs for the production of other goods" measures competition in terms supportive of an unlimited free trade system: unlimited global free trade competition. Of course a business that uses cheap production goods will be more competitive in an unlimited global free trade system. So long as all groups have access to the same market with no price controls, the cheapest seller wins … no matter how it decreases its prices. [1] [2] [3] My opponent states that he agrees "that Americans depend on their income to fulfill basic necessities, but trade with China will not end this stream of revenue. " My point is not that this trade ends in income stream annihilation, but rather extreme income stream diminution. There is no good reason to pursue wealth at such a great expense that our nation's industrial laborers are reduced to ccl laborer lifestyle standards, so they can not afford the services of our white collar laborers, and so on. It weakens us as a nation, and strengthens another nation with values adverse to our own. My opponent has stated that "workers depend on this trade. Many American jobs exist solely because of this trade. 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. " Trade with China has already cost Americans around two million jobs. [4] [5] [6] [7] By jobs I mean good, high paying production or management jobs, not retail jobs at Wal-Mart or disguised government welfare. [8] [9] It's high time people started questioning what type of stimulus merely adding jobs, rather than good jobs, has on an economy. Personally, I believe that the answer is obvious. [10] [11] [12] My opponent claims that I asserted "that trade is not mutually beneficial. " This is not true at all. I was refuting my opponent's claim that "when we trade with China (or any foreign nation, for that matter), both economies prosper. " My opponent actually *repeats* the claim, stating "when the US voluntarily buys products from China, or any nation, the results bolster both economies. " This is an absolute statement of the benefits of trade that is not upheld by history. The opium wars are one example. We also have the slave trade to consider. Neither of these trade forms was beneficial to China or Africa. My opponent asks that we 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. " I disagree with the former statement and agree with the latter. China became wealthy because it undervalued its currency, ran its workers ragged and acquired US and other nations' manufacturing jobs on the cheap. Now it is trying to raise its labor standards so that it can be the New Superpower. It was a brilliant ploy and we were the fools that fell for it. [13] What I am recommending is that we prove ourselves equally as cagey, and set a rising tariff schedule that will increase the costs of Chinese imports by a little bit more each year for four years until we have established a barrier against exploitive Chinese trade. Unlike the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, this method would provide enough notice for American multinationals to back out of China. China could start a trade war if it wanted, but it would hardly come off the good guy. [14] We have more nations on our side - freer, better, more democratic nations, which would side with us in defense of something more precious than money: liberty. The ascendancy of the United States has brought oppression, but it has also brought an expansion of human rights, worldwide communication, and international accountability for a nation's actions. What would the ascendancy of China, a dictatorial oligarchy, mean? [1] . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] . http://www.epi.org... [3] . http://www.finfacts.com... [4] . http://www.reuters.com... [5] . http://blog.aflcio.org... [6] . http://www.news.cornell.edu... [7] . http://www.nysun.com... [8] . http://www.usatoday.com... [9] . http://www.independent.org... [10] . http://www.atimes.com... [11] . http://quickdailyhits.wordpress.com... [12]. http://www.businessweek.com... [13] . http://www.nytimes.com... [14] . http://uk.reuters.com...