Free Trade Is Superior to Protectionism

Before I begin with defending my arguments, two things first. One, the second round was for the presentation of arguments - I'm not sure where my opponent got confused. And two, I'll leave the source problem to the voters. It would be useless for me to devote half of my argument to arguing for my sources and against my opponent's sources. Also, I am against patents and intellectual property as it reduces development and efficiency. My opponent's main argument against free trade is that it fosters many of the institutions that protectionism has encouraged. For example, famine, while still a very big problem, has been drastically reduced in net severity. Economic diversity and globalization has allowed for the import of food to places where it is needed most. In this list of the 10 greatest famines in human history, none have occurred in recently in regions where globalization has been instituted. In locations such as North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and China, their famines were the result of excessive state regulation in agricultural equilibrium and the refusal to import food. [1]The same holds true for environmental erosion, poverty, and human rights abuses. These are the most severe in regulated, isolated countries like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan, and Bangladesh. And states with the lowest rates of these problems are all globalized, like New Zealand, Norway, and Japan. In other words, the supposed correlation between problems and globalization just isn't there. The truth is that globalization and free trade allow the taking advantage of comparative advantage - countries can produce the most efficiently what they can and import what they can't. No country can produce everything it needs the most efficiently. Next, my opponent claims that I must support the IMF to support my position. However, this is not true. "If there were no IMF, governments whose currencies were shaky as a result of their reckless fiscal and monetary policies would be forced to go to private bankers or investors to extricate them, and private investors would insist on guarantees of fiscal and monetary discipline as a condition of such help. " The IMF ties certain countries' economies to the fluctuations of others, which is not a belief of or symptom of free trade. Free trade does not mean the integration of economic policies but of supply and demand curves. Then my opponent returns to the same argument I have already refuted above. Free trade has allowed for developed countries to export their surpluses to undeveloped countries, thus reducing the incidence of famine dramatically. And it is isolationism that has caused many of the modern famines that have been some of the most deadly. Next, my opponent argues that it is free trade that has caused the rampant outsourcing of jobs as of late; however, the real blame should be placed on government interventionism in the economy. Excessive regulation in the economy is basically the thing that has caused the problem of outsourcing. "It is obvious that in unhampered labor markets, wages (at least for some occupations) would be lowered as a result of free competition. Changing demand conditions and technical advances make some occupations obsolete. The workers in those sectors either have to re-educate themselves to be able to perform different tasks, or become unemployable at a certain wage level. Market dynamics force nearly everyone to readjust from time to time—few are spared these painful changes. But refusing to carry out this readjustment by using government coercion only creates opportunities for the foreign workers willing to work for much less then their American counterparts. "[3]Finally, my opponent tries to salvage his argument on England - however, his argument doesn;t really address my refutation. True, England did have a very large stake on the global market, later on, other countries, such as the US, began to enter the market, and competition lowered prices. Tariffs reduced the amount of outside capital that helped fuel the industrial revolution. In addition, if you look closely at the U. S. 's economic expansion during that period, you'll see that it was not tariff protected industries that led America's surge during the late 19th century. The fastest growing industries were transportation, distribution, utilities, communications, and construction. Protected steel mills and textile factories were relatively stagnant. [4]In conclusion, free trade has resulted in an unprecedented increase in global prosperity and by comparative advantage, resources have flowed from places to surplus to places of shortage, resulting in a drastic decrease in shortages that have resulted in famine and other problems over the years. Tariffs and other protectionist ideas are obviously an impediment free trade policies, but because that is such, those ideas make those positive aspects of free trade less effective. Overall, the lifting of tariffs and the establishment of free trade has led to the most prosperous era that human history has ever seen, and protectionism is a step backward in the progression of civilization. Sources[1]: . http://listverse.com...;[2]: . http://mises.org...;[3]: . http://mises.org...[4]: Irwin, Douglas A. "Tariffs and Growth in Late Nineteenth-Century America," National Bureau of Economic Research.