Free Trade is better for American society than Protectionism

1. Free Trade Undermines Policies for the Social GoodI have shown how free trade gives economic incentive to keep laws regarding minimum wage, child labor, environmental protection from being implemented. We were protectionist in the 19th century, but that was for creating industries. Those tariffs allowed US industry to grow without being crushed by international competitors. Especially rebuilding after a devastating civil war, it ensure our economic self-sufficiency. Also, before the free trade agreement was signed in 1985 with Israel [3], the US abolished Child labor [1], established a minimum wage [2], and most social goods were made while using these protectionist polices.Mexico still has problem with child labor according to the world bank [4]. Even if they are underdeveloped it doesn't mean that free trade still doesn't give incentive to not establish restrictions. My opponent stated " Free Trade has nothing to do with the creation of child labor." making people think that my position is that free trade causes child labor. I said no such thing. This is a logical fallacy called a strawman [5]; he misrepresent my view to make it easier to refute. My actual position was that free trade give financial incentive to not pass laws regarding child labor which my opponent has not refuted.Protectionism would help the impoverished unlike what my opponent would have you believe. When my opponent says the goods are expensive that just means they are more expensive than goods produced by countries like china, and El Salvador who use child labor. He is right that it would cause consumption to go up, but that is good since it is consumption that drives the economy. However, he fails to see the full effects on the economy. Yes demand will increase, but supply increases as well because those millions of new workers are making products too. This increase in supply will drop prices. Further, increase demand leads to lower prices of local goods. I will give an example a local shop sells 100 items this local shop needs to cover all its overhead expense on those 100 items, but since in protectionism consumption goes up to lets say 120. Now the overhead cost of the local business is spread around 120 items instead of 100, thus lowering the price of each item. There is another important economic effect, the decrease of unemployment. Since millions of people are now working and self sufficient they no longer need to be on welfare, food stamps, other social programs which in turn decreases government spending. Also, since people are self sufficient they have a less of a reason to turn to crime for money, so it would result in less crime too. I agree with my opponent the lower and middle class are effected, they are in a better economic situation than under free trade. It does make countries play on the same field. Of course it is only in the United States because that is who would be enacting the tariff. To claim that I meant it would make a fair playing field globally is absurd and another strawman.You said protectionism makes markets uncompetitive, and I responded that they wouldn't be uncompetitive because we have anti-trust laws, and that protectionism doesn't mean there is no trade. That wasn't fallacious like my opponent claims. Protectionism might protect "incompetent" industries for a short time, but if they are really incompetent they will fail to another domestic industry or foreign if they the foreign industry is that much better. Concluding, Companies (local and large) make more money, more people are employed, consumption rises the only loser here is other countries; therefore, protectionism is better for American society than free trade. 2. Free Trade causes job loss This isn't an appeal to emotion. "t's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position." [6] The argument I made is a logical argument called reductio ad absurdum, which is "the refutation of a proposition by demonstrating that its logical conclusion is absurd." [7] Your statement that the benefits of the majority outweighs the benefits of the minority logically concludes that things like the Holocaust, segregation, etc. are not bad since the majority benefited from the minority. 3. Free Trade causes Trade Deficits Those job losses are permanent unless they come back or new ones open up. If there are 100 jobs and 100 people then 10 jobs are outsourced there are now 10 unemployed. It is important to note that unemployed means looking for any work and not getting it. No matter how "temporary" it is it still causes economic harm. What is temporary anyways six months, six years either way it wasn't permanent because they got a job. 4. Free Trade creates undesirable interdependency You assume the United States would be on the better end of imperialism. You also assume that America would be the country with subordinates. This isn't true in 1979 we had a major oil crisis because we were too dependent on foreign oil and it hurt our economy severely [8]. Economic interdependency is bad, it would be better if other countries mistakes didn't affect the US.The size of the economy doesn't matter in this case, if you are not dependent on other countries economically you can not be affected if they have economic hardship. Think of it like dominoes and you have two rows if one row falls the other is still standing. In free trade the countries are lined up in one row of dominoes and as soon as one falls they all fall. In protectionism the US is in a separate row an not effected by other's falling."The United States and other countries had busts because they were developing." Apparently Japan and the USSR industrialization does not count as developing.I have shown that free trade keeps Americans out of work, that it keeps people impoverished, it hurts economic growth with trade deficits, that it makes countries dependent for vital resources, that it protects our social goods, and it loses American jobs.Concluding Protectionism is better for American society than Free Trade. Sources[1] http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu...][2] http://www.dol.gov...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.worldbank.org...[5] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[6] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[7] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [8] http://www.autonews.com...