Bernie Sanders Would Make A Good President

Introduction I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for giving his rebuttals. It is the round for counter rebuttals, and I will give them now. Rebuttals My opponent begins by denouncing "the mass media or right-wing-biased foundations," also stating that he "will trust the economists before" he trusts those organizations. He then states that since CNN "is biased towards establishment politicians from the left and right," if it "publishes a story in favour of certain aspects of a Sanders presidency," it must be true and "we can open our eyes." This, however, is irrational. CNN, as opposed to Fox News (a right-wing organization), is a liberal leaning news corporation that often favors the top Democratic candidates. Just as I do not use Wikipedia as a source for my arguments, I do not use articles by any of the mainstream media because they are biased in every realm: The researchers are biased, economists are biased, anchors are biased, etc. CNN is the antithesis of a reliable source.This is why I feel the need to point out that a little over 43% of my opponent's arguments come from CNNMoney, and just over 14% of it comes from Huffington Post, making it a grand total of 57.3% of his arguments being copied directly from other sources. I also feel the need to point out that the Huffington Post article was written by Catherine Pearson, Huffington Post’s Women and Parents Senior Reporter, also the author of the articles “Why So Many Women Love The ‘Pull-Out Method’” and “What You Shouldn’t Say To A Mother Who Is Struggling To Get Pregnant.” The CNN article cited was written by Tami Luhby, a left-leaning Senior Writer. Both sources my opponent cited are from writers who are biased toward the topics they write about, negating my opponent’s point about using an unbiased source. Moving on to the main rebuttals: My opponent cites Tami Luhby, who cites Gerald Friedman’s economic growth predictions, stating that “would result in average annual output growth of 5.3% over the next decade, and average monthly job creation of close to 300,000.” According to respected economists Christina Romer, Ph.D and David Romer, Ph.D (long-time Democrats, if I might add), “careful examination of Friedman’s work confirms the old adage, ‘if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.’ We identify three fundamental problems in Friedman’s analysis.”Their three problems are as follows: Sanders’ plans assume that the effects of his policies occur through their “impact on demand. … However, his estimates of those demand effects are far too large to be credible.” When you assume that the economic demand stimulus can raise productive output by 37% over the next decade, it is also assumed that the US economy performs far below its capacity, which is not the case. While there is indeed an output gap, it is nowhere near the level Sanders’ plan assumes it is at. “[A] realistic examination of the impact of the Sanders policies on the economy’s productive capacity suggests those effects are likely to be small at best, and possibly even negative.” The above three issues are issues with Friedman’s analysis of Bernie Sanders’ economic plan. There is more: The level of redistribution Sanders’ plan would advocate for comes down to between 1% and 1.45% of the GDP. Friedman has also concluded that Sanders’ healthcare plan would cost roughly 4.3% of the GDP. According to the Romers, “Since a permanent change would raise the level of GDP in the first year and then leave it at the higher level, summing is not appropriate.” And, as Tim Worstall says, “the effects being claimed are too large to be even vaguely reasonable, the growth projections require us to be much worse off now than we actually are and the analysis assumes that all the bits of the plan will boost the economy, when in fact some parts will be a drag upon the economy.” My opponent next goes into how a $15 minimum wage would “do more than merely increase economic activity.” (It was actually Luhby who said this). I must continue to make the same assertion I made in my original arguments: Increasing the minimum wage to such a level would decrease low-skilled jobs that are not worth such a pay. This would in fact lose jobs instead of create them. It is a common misconception that because big companies like McDonald's or Wendy’s generate so much revenue annually, the minimum wage can easily be increased by them. Proponents of an increased minimum wage forget that these companies are franchises, and their employees are actually employees of the individual franchises. Their wages, like that of employees of small businesses, come from the revenue of each store, not the corporation itself. Just as your local mom-and-pop store cannot afford to pay a $15 minimum wage to its employees, neither can franchise owners. My opponent moves on next to free trade, though he claims his arguments in the previous round were sufficient enough to prove his point. I beg to differ. Free trade increases prosperity for all the people involved, because it gives consumers more purchasing power and better-quality products at lower costs (due to the lower cost of manufacturing). The increase in imports and exports in a free trade system accompany enhanced economic growth. Free trade also does not decrease Americans jobs. In addition, non-free trade does not necessarily increase jobs either; rather, protectionism focuses on jobs that a closed market cannot sustain. When the market is opened to the global stage, companies are able to compete at a greater scale.Sanders cannot seriously consider the idea of getting rid of free trade if he knows what he is talking about. Not only to hundreds of foreign companies operate in the US, hundreds of US companies conduct business in foreign lands as well. Take Apple, for example, which conducts business in 18 countries, including the US. If it were to stop operating in 17 of them, the effect on Apple would be devastating. Yes, they would liquidate assets and keep that wealth, but it would run out as their market essentially disappears. An increased tariff would also harm the company, as they would have to increase their consumer prices in order to make up for the drastic loss of their net income. Finally, the wage gap. My opponent asserts that the gender wage gap exists and that women earn 78 cents to every $1 a man makes for the same job. As I said earlier, the idea that women are paid 78 cents to every dollar a man makes is true only to some degree. This is an average. It is not 78/100 for the same job and same amount of work; instead, it is overall. Women prefer different jobs than men, and the jobs that men prefer tend to be higher paying. In Warren Farrell’s book Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It (Which is a great book and you should read it), Farrell explains that the wage gap is not because of wage discrimination; no, that was made illegal in 1963 when John F. Kennedy signed it into law. Instead, they make lifestyle choices that affect their ability to earn. This is not the case with all women, obviously, but it is a fact. The majority of women make the choice to have children instead of work full-time or seek higher-level jobs. My opponent did not say anything about my point concerning the capital investment decrease of 18.6%, so there is nothing to refute there. Conclusion I have made sufficient refutations and have argued my points. I look forward to my opponent’s response. Sources 1. http://www.nytimes.com...2. “Senator Sanders’ Proposed Policies and Economic Growth” https://evaluationoffriedman.files.wordpress.com...3. http://mercatus.org...4. http://www.cato.org...5. Free Trade Today by Jagdish N. Bhagwati6. http://www.apple.com...7. Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It by Warren Farrell