Tarrif penalty on imports not manufactured to U.S regulations for polution, safety, child labor, etc

Cause of US Manufacturing Decline In round 3 I explained that the source of US manufacturing decline was primarily from other nations industrialising and providing increased competition. This means that tariffs won’t improve US competitiveness in the international marketplace, which is much more important for the long term and in fact harms it by encouraging people to dedicate resources towards non-competitive industries. I brought this issue up again in round 4, but Pro never rebutted this point, which was important as it meant that he couldn’t demonstrate his policy would be effective. Pro also failed respond to the point that even if countries paid workers the same as US workers in real terms, that because of the lower cost of living, these countries would still outcompete the US in many of these industries. The article I referenced (http://www.semi.org...) is not a short term view, but rather a view over the last 6 years. It also examines the projects slated for the future. In contract, Pro quoted an article that refers to global spending, not American spending and is hence largely irrelevant to a discussion of US manufacturing decline. Regardless, the semiconductor industry is only one industry and policy shouldn’t be decided on the basis of a single industry. Pro complains that China has been artificially cheapening its currency and that this makes tariffs necessary. Firstly, progress is already being made on this issue. China’s nominal exchange rate increased 24% between 2005 and 2010 http://www.economist.com...). China’s real exchange rate, which determines how much of an advantage a country has in manufacturing goods cheaply, strengthened by 50% between 2005 and 2010 (http://www.economist.com...). Secondly, it is unlikely that the US will be successful in pushing China to increase it any faster, because of the impact on their exporters. The Economist argues that, “Chinese policymakers accept that the yuan needs to appreciate over the longer term, but say now is the wrong time, because Chinese exports are still falling, by 14% over the past 12 months.” They also note that, while there might be advantages of this increasing further, “the sort of increase required—perhaps 25%—is politically unacceptable because it would put many exporters out of business overnight” (http://www.economist.com...). Lastly, the Economist, notes that this wouldn’t reduce the deficit, because many of the good bought from China aren’t produced in America and so the consumers would still be purchasing them from overseas http://www.economist.com.... Since changing the Yuan wouldn’t reduce the deficit significantly and faster change would be politically untenable in China and it is becoming less of a problem anyway, this isn’t a good justification for export tariffs. Harm caused by tariffs I explained that corporations would use their money and lobbying power to ensure that these tariffs are applied as widely as possible and so even a law allowing tariffs to be applied in specific circumstances would inevitably be abused. I also explained that tariffs benefited big business at the cost of consumers, Pro never responded to that. I also explained that it would be unduly burdensome for producers to comply with US regulations or regulations similar to the US because this would increase their costs and damage their ability to compete in the international market. Pro tried to soften their policy and argue that they were only trying to “move them closer to US regulations”, not “match US standards exactly”. However, the title of the debate is “Tariff penalty on imports not manufactured to US regulations…” and his more exact wording is, “The US should have a penalizing tariff on imports (US companies manufacturing overseas are no exempt) in which the importer cannot demonstrate that the manufacturing of those products meet the environmental, safety, and employment regulations in the US.” It is clear from this wording that Pro is required to argue that the US should utilise tariffs on good that weren’t produced standards equivalent to the US, not just utilise tariffs against the worst offenders. Given this, even with the warning and probation periods, these tariffs will be cause significant harm by requiring producers in countries where the law isn’t up to a US standard to pay for expensive certifications and spend large amounts of money changing various processes, which they mightn’t have. Sales tax: “The increase in payroll tax and decrease in corporate income tax bring into question how federal income tax has evolved”, the solution then, is to reform payroll tax and corporate tax, neither of what is suggested here. Personal income tax by itself is still progressive, excluding the ability of the wealthy to exploit tax loopholes. We should close these loopholes. “The questions federal income tax software asks are horrendous” - Many of the questions on this software is complex, but it is possible to hire usability experts to help rewrite the software at a fraction of the cost of rewriting our whole system of laws. Regardless, we can simplify our tax system somewhat without having to completely throw it away. “At the very least, federal income tax should not increase” - this is outside of the debate. Your burden is to argue that the federal income tax should be replaced, as opposed to staying the same. Deficit: The danger of the US deficit is largely overstated since it is denominated in US dollars. Forbes quotes Alan Greenspan: ”[A] government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency. A fiat money system, like the ones we have today, can produce such claims without limit.” (http://www.forbes.com...). Forbes also explains that although printing excessive money might lead to inflation, this is much less likely due to the dollar being used as a reserve currency. Inflation occurs when their is a greater supply of a currency than demand, but the role of the US dollar as a reserve currency guarantees a large demand. Summary: In this debate, I explained that the main cause of US manufacturing decline was increased competition, because of this, Pro's policy was limited in its potential impact. I further explained that tariffs harm consumers, won't make the US more competitive internationally and indeed consumer resources that could be used more productively. In regards to tariffs, I explained that big companies would use their lobbying power to ensure that tariffs were applied based on when it benefited them, rather than when they might be deserved. I further explained that tariffs cause an extreme amount of harm in countries without a safety net and that tariffs could decimate an industry and that the recovery would be limited even when the tariff was removed. In regards to the deficit, I explained that mercantilism has largely been discredited and that the US debt is denominated in US dollars, so we can always utilise quantitative easing. Therefore, this wasn't a particularly strong imperative for action. In regards to sales tax, I explained that sales taxes are less progressive and that implementing such a big reform would have significant costs. Further, since a sales tax increases the cost of living, it increases the cost of labour and hence fails to make US products more competitive. In regards to references, while Pro used more references, my references support my argument more. My references demonstrated that Pro's mercantilist strategy of tariffs has been largely discredited, that the US foreign debt isn’t that significant, that the semi-conductor industry is in fact growing in the US and that Chinese depreciation of their currency can’t be changed by tariffs nor would it reduce the deficit. In contrast, Pro’s references didn’t allow them to win any major points of contention.