Trump would make a good president from an economic point of view.

Trade: ==================================================================================================== "His experience with any kind of economics is on the micro scale not macro" Trump has an *international* economic empire. So I think it is a displayment of ignorance from Con to claim Trump has no knowledge on the global economy. Trump's *international* economic empire includes building hotels all over the world in Vancouver, Canada, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Washington D.C. and Baku, Azerbaijan.[1] You must have an abundance of knowledge on economics and global trade in order to have such successful and fruitful international projects and businesses. Having an *international* economic empire is a clear sign Trump must have great knowledege on global trade and global economics. "as I have shown in the second graph manufacturing jobs have been going down for a long time" The graph shows that the percent of people employed in manufacturing is getting smaller. This could be due to the fact that other sectors like services have been booming over the past decades emplotying exponentially more people giving the illusion less people are working in manufacturing. Other workers became heavily more involved in other sectors like services making manufacturing sector decrease as a *percent* of the overall employed citizens since the manufacturing jobs stayed relatively the same until the 2000's until free trade deals like nafta were signed. " Let's look at this graph" all the claims i make in the next paragraph are directed at the graph con provided which was titled " U.S. Manufacturing productivity and output have risen while employment has declined." I found it interesting that the manufacturing jobs remained relatively stable until 2000's when free trade in the US (NAFTA) was very active when jobs dropped significantly. In early 2000's, nafta was the most active and that is when jobs started exponential decrease after being relativelty stable for a long time. Despite being signed in 1994, Nafta was especially starting to become very active and initiating heavy free trade between the three countries in the early 2000's especially 2002 [2]. The result of that was exponential decrease in the US manufacturing jobs after being relatively stable for 5 decades due to the manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas. Moreover, I found it interesting that you provided a chart here to show that manufacturing jobs were either stable or decreasing over the past five decades, yet you claimed later in the same round that Nafta created 5 million maufacturing jobs from 1994 to 2007. I found that exceedingly odd since the graph you provided earlier claimed that manufacturing jobs stayed relatively the same or decreased from 1994 to 2007. Trade defecits: ================================================================================================= Trade defecits are sometimes good depending on the situation. But trade defecits also mean major job losses. Let me elaborate: Trade defecit means a country is importing more than it exports. Under NAFTA, the US has experienced $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs .[3] $181 billion in trade defecits is not a small number that con can just ignore. US is experiencing high trade defecits from free trade agreements like nafta which leads to job losses. If the US is experiencing a vast trade defecits, this means that the US is importing way more than it exports. This means that the demand in the US markets is being fulfilled by foreign manufacturers and not by US manufacturers since there is massive imports.[4] Moreover, since the US is exporting very little, it is not utilizing its manufacturing sector to fulfill foreign demand. [5]. Bottom line : Since the US is experiencing massive trade defecits due to free trade agreements, it is importing enormous amounts of goods while barely exporting anything. Since the US imports heavily, there is no need for the US manufacturing sector in the US markets since most of the demand is supplied by cheap foreign manufacturers. Low exports means the US manufacturing sector is not being utilized to satisfy foreign demand. as a result, trade defecits are a sign that the US manufacturing sector is dwindling due to lack of utility in both the US markets and the foreign markets which in tandem creates losses in jobs in the american manufacturing sector. "This is not me conceding this point. As I've stated before, when it comes to trade and job loss it's never really a "loss". When consumers are able to purchase goods from abroad cheaper, they now have a surplus of money they can spend which can be spent on domestic goods and services." Higher consumer surplus as a result of free trade does not deny the fact that jobs are LOST which you agreed with me on by stating " Yes, domestic jobs go ". The harm gained from the loss of jobs can outweighs higher consumer surplus. When Jobs are lost, people go on welfare and the aggregate demand goes down. When Consuemr surplus goes up, consumers have a few more dollars. "Accord to the U.S Chamber of Commerce, Increased trade from NAFTA supports 5 million U.S jobs and unemployment went down from 7.1% to 5.1% from 1994 to 2007 only increasing from 2008 to 2012 after the stock market crash." Intresting. Firstly, I do not seem to notice the unemployment statistic in the source you provided. You claimed something that is not mentioned in the source. Secondly, The graph titled "U.S. Manufacturing productivity and output have risen while employment has declined." contradicts this piece of evidence by claming jobs remained relatively stable or decreased from 1994 to 2007. Internal contradictions among Con's sources point to the utter unreliability of his sources. Taxes and Debt: ================================================================================================= "Obamacare was NOT a useless program" In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion. [6]. With all the minimal benefits you stated, we could have better alloted that money to provide maximal benefits. Obamacare is inefficient using lots of money to create minimal benefits like you stated. The bottom line is Trump has a plan to cut spending. [7] "His good ol' "let the markets lower the prices" rhetoric.......Monoplies just form as they have in the US." Trump will allow the markets to be more capitalist and will make it easier for new businesses to enter the market which creates competition. If new businesses can enter the market easily that alone in itself destroys the potential of any monopolies occuring. If markets are more capitalist, it is so much more easier for new businesses to start and to enter the market due to relaxed regulations. If it is easier for new businesses to enter a market, competition forms between the different companies. When Competition forms between the companies, the companies especially the newer businesses will lower their prices so they have the most competitive product which leads to a general decrease in the price of the product which is all due to competition and making it easier for new business to join the market. Trump promised to reduce regulations in order to make it easier for new businesses to join the market. [8] "still leaves him with a $11.975 trillion deficit" I will talk about this in my next round. Sources [1] http://www.investopedia.com... [2] http://www.international.gc.ca... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] https://www.marketplace.org... [5] http://www.epi.org... [6] http://time.com... [7] [8] https://www.donaldjtrump.com...