Free trade agreements are more harmful than helpful

Thank you, Con. I'd like to take this round to rebut some of Con's claims to further explain my point of view. I will allow him to do the same and then we will move into closing statements.All of the contentions offered by Con in the previous round focused on one general topic, being the global economy. While it may be true that free trade offers higher economic freedom and competition, does this outweight the cost? C1: Low to middle income prosperity is NOT increased by free trade.Con claims that "free trade maximizes efficiency, and therefore prosperity, by allowing the private sector to productively allocate resources to where they generate the highest returns." This sounds great, but does the increase in free trade correlate to an increase in prosperity? Unfortunately, no. Free trade agreements do not increase economic prosperity in middle to low income households and only promote income inequality by fueling a race to the bottom, where countries focus on profit moreso than the economic needs of their workers. Since NAFTA and WTO took effect around 1995, our trade deficit has widened steadily, except for the 2008 crash, which cut imports more than exports. Factories in America closed, entire industries declined, and millions of good jobs moved offshore. In America, workers are pressured to accept wage cuts, loss of job security, elimination of pensions, and more shifting of medical costs. Why do we insist on underperforming trade policies that enrich the elite few, yet undermine civil society in America and abroad, while doing real harm to workers and communities?C2: Trade Deficits In con's argument, he talks about the national economic benefits of trade deficits vs. capital surplus. Con argues that capital surplus completely offsets trade deficits and thus we have nothing to worry about. This, too, is simply not the case. Trade deficits have harmed the domestic economy in a number of ways. First, deterioration in the trade balance has reduced employment, especially in manufacturing and other industries producing traded goods. The growth in the trade deficit over the past two decades has destroyed millions of high-wage, high skilled manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and pushed workers into other sectors where wages are lower. Despite the appearance of a "boom" in the economy, the U.S. has lost nearly 500,000 manufacturing jobs since March of 1998, due to the impact of the rising trade deficit. As you can see in the figure above, trade deficits are certainly one of the most significant causes of the decline in U.S. wages. The steady growth in our trade deficits over the past two decades has eliminated millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs and drawn workers into less-profitable fields of work. "Most economists now acknowledge that trade is responsible for 20 to 25 percent of the increase in income inequality which has occurred in the U.S. over the past two decades. However, existing research can only explain about half of the change in income inequality. Therefore, trade is responsible for about 40% of the explainable share of increased income inequality. The rest is due to forces such as declining unionization, and inflation-induced erosion in the value of the minimum wage." [1]C3: Economic BenefitsCon argues that "free trade allows nations and innumerable firms to compete. This competition spurs higher quality and cost-cutting to attract sales." While it is true that free trade most definitely increases economic competition between nations in a race to cut costs and make profit, is this a good thing for the general public? I argue that no, it is not. The bottom line is that small businesses cannot compete on a global scale when we allow unrestricted trade. Free trade promotes the growth of multinational corporations who can farm their labor out to the cheapest source, which leads to cheaper prices that drive smaller competitors out of business. Morally, this is simply not right. The Small Business Exporters Association found in a recent survey that over 15% of small-business exporters say they’ve been hurt by free-trade agreements with other countries. This could easily become a larger number if we allow more bills like the TPP to pass through congress. As I've mentioned before, unrestricted free trade simply promotes the existence of massively large corporations and increasing income inequality. C4: Consumer BenefitsCon argues that "when consumers have more affordable goods, they have more disposable income," while when tarrifs are in place, "this weakens aggregate demand and the economy." It is undeniable that unrestricted trade lowers the cost of goods, which as I've detailed in previous arguments, is not worth the global cost. I'd like to lay out the multitudes of ways in which free trade is negative on the consumer:1. A recent study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) showed the TPP would mean a pay cut for 90% of US workers. [2]2. Free trade threatens the availablity of less expensive, generic medications [3]3. Free trade lowers the safety standards of imported food products [4]4. The TPP is expected to create a loss of over 1 million jobs as companies shift work to low-wage countries [5]5. Free trade limits the authority of local governments to restrict permits to extraction and export of liquid nature gas to partner countries, which could lead to an increase in fracking [6]6. Products with "fair trade," "animal-friendly," and "GMO-free" labels are considered trade barriers under free trade and restrict the freedom of the consumer [7]7. "Buy local" policies are outlawed under the TPP and additionally restrict the freedom of the consumer [8]8. Government officials can be SUED if they attempt to prefer local products over imports [9] I could go on, but I think you get the message. In no way does free trade seriously benefit the consumer. C5: Job CreationCon argues that free trade produces jobs through "international investment, lowering prices, and export-supported jobs." Free trade may create some jobs, but in NO way is this enough to offset jobs lost. According to the Economic Policy Institute, "as of 2010, U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced 682,900 U.S. jobs.” The worst part? That's net jobs, which means the number is taking into account jobs gained as well. That means that simply through trade deficits with Mexico, we have lost nearly 700,000 jobs. In August, 2012, the EPI estimated that the US lost 2.7 million jobs as a result of the U.S.-China trade deficit, 2.1 million of them in manufacturing. The EPI reported in July of 2013 that the US-Korea free trade agreement had already cost the US 40,000 jobs. Again and again these trade agreements result in loss of jobs, particularly in higher-wage sectors of our economy like manufacturing, and big increases in the trade deficit. Yes, exports increased adding jobs in some sectors but imports increased more, costing more jobs than those gained. And the sectors that lost jobs tended to be higher-wage, like manufacturing.Conclusion:Is unrestricted free trade worth it for the average American? No. As I've laid out above it causes a decrease in low to middle income prosperity, an increase in income inequality, an increase in trade deficit which leads to a decline in U.S. wages, unfair competition for small businesses, massive consequences for the average consumer, and disgusting losses in jobs. We need fair trade, not free trade. Sources: http://pastebin.com...