The United States is in need of reindustrialization

I would like to clarify that my above argument was cut off by the site for some reason and the rest should read: "For the reasons above I affirm the resolution" Let's debate! Firstly, my opponent made a very interesting statement at the end of his argument. He states: "Government should play a major role in the long term revitalization of the economy. It should allow imported carbon fuels to be replaced with domestic carbon fuels. " My response: Hmm. .. I call long term revitalization of any industry reindustrialization. He also states that "It (the government) can make a better climate for private investment. " My Response: How can government "make a better climate for investment if you don't first, trust it to invest? that seems like a HUGE double-standard. My opponent states: "Pro argues that the private sector has been making most of the investment decisions. That is true, and it has been very successful. .. ." My response: Its because of the people's bad investments that we are in the midst of a fierce economic recession only rivaled by the Great Depression. The people have caused this recession. The decline in the housing market is due to the people overspeculating what they can afford. .. a bad investment. Another cause was the middle class spending beyond their means in general due to the expanse of credit. Another bad investment by the people. My opponent wonders why the US government is still persisting with ethanol? I don't know the answer. But that really is irrelevant to our issue. What is relevant is that we don't allow the private sector to make all of the investments. Our government needs to be proactive and work along with the private sector. I doubt not that there are political considerations. .. but I have HUGE doubt that those political considerations take precedence over the general good of the nation. As with a lot of your claims you provide no proof that this claim is true. Thomas Friedman states: "The driving idea behind globalization is free-market capitalism" My response: Globalization of the American economy is a very dangerous prospect. Friedman proposes a global economy (which to be more clear, is all of the world intermingling their economies to create one massive global economy where capitalism runs rampant). To be clear, I am a strong believer in capitalism, as long as it is kept in check, however, what Friedman proposes, would lead to the entire world turning into a cesspool of intermixed worthless money, EXTREME dependence on other nations, and the endangerment of the average, middle class worker. With a globalized economy, America wiuld lose its core values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ENTIRE world would be run by the wealthy. .. it would be a global bureaucracy where the average Joe loses his voice. The above resolution is much less radical than proposing a no-holds-barred free-market. What I am proposing is simply a revamping of the American economy through reindustrialization. As my opponent suggested (in Pro's favor) is that the educational system needs to be reindustrialized. My opponent sees his proposal as simply a policy change. .. it is a policy change. .. but let me remind my opponent of the definition of reindustrialization that we both agreed upon. Reindustrialization : a policy of stimulating economic growth especially through government aid to revitalize and modernize aging industries and encourage growth of new ones. What my opponent suggests is a policy that would (we both) agree would stimulate economic growth. His plan yo retool the educational system would indeed modernize an aging industry and encourage the growth new ones. His point of contention I'm assuming is whether or not the government needs to aid in this process. My response to such a claim would be a: retooling any industry isn't going to be a unanimous decision, you need the government to author legislation, especially of we're talking about revitalizing on a nationwide scale. So what my opponent is proposing is indeed reindustrialization. My opponent's central argument contains a major fallacy. He did not read the definition of reindustrialization carefully enough so again I will refer back to that. Reindustrialization : a policy of stimulating economic growth especially through government aid to revitalize and modernize aging industries and encourage growth of new ones. The key here is ". .. stimulating ESPECIALLY through government aid". My point is that I never insinuated that we need rely solely on the government or solely on the private sector. Both sectors are equally dependent on the other to exist. The definition uses the word ESPECIALLY not SOLELY and that distinction is ignored by my opponent. What my position calls for is a bipartisan effort to retool, revitalize, and reindustrialize our nation. My opponent has used the word revitilize as a substitution of reindustrialize many times in this debate, while failing to realize that revitalization is part of the definition of reindustrialization. So my opponent supports revitilization of industry. .. that sounds like reindustrialization to me. .. but I'll let the voters decide. .. I anticipate my opponent's response and thank him for debating this topic with me. .. I urge a strong vote in favor of this resolution. Thank you. sources: . http://www.educationindustry.org... all definitions are from wordnet. princeton. edu/ . http://www.thomaslfriedman.com... . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... (it's a transcript from Hardball with Chris Matthews) where Barack Obama expressses support for the "reindustrialization of America)