Resolved: That on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive im

1) The building of factories holds no weight as an argument, for several reasons. a) Under your suggestion (that we move current jobs to overseas), you hope that the improvement of these other nations is going to create markets for us to get into. Well, if all goes well (which you still haven't shown a single source), then WE WOULD STILL NEED TO BUILD FACTORIES anyway. b) Building factories is growth, companies do it to expand which is a good thing, saying that we should not build any factories is requiring our economy to never grow and so doom us to become a shell of our former greatness. c) As with just about every company, factories are built on credit, not cash. And companies ALWAYS hold onto a certain amount of debt, it is actually considered a good business practice since it boost earnings per share for stockholders (so long as it is under control and not too much). Intel, Microsoft, all companies do it. Intel's liabilities is over twice its annual Net Income. [1] And Microsoft's liabilities is almost 2.5x its Net Income [2]. "The BRIC nations economy CAN grow, because they are making a profit off of our deficit and the money that we owe them from interest that we owe them." These nations are not going to accept our jobs as payment for our debt. Billions of dollars (if not Trillions) have already gone to China for our jobs that have been shipped over there, but that hasn't covered one penny of our debt. Because the business that they are taking is legit businesses choosing to go over there, not the US government offering it as a form of payment. "I will repaeat what I said in my previous case..." This is just copied from the beginning and I have already taken care of it. "I'm still unclear of where you are going with the statement: "Luxury goods are much more elastic and so sway in demand much more due to price theory and supply and demand" and that is why I haven't attacked it. But, I'll give a good guess at what you are getting at. When luxury goods are on the market, supply and demand still is in effect." This is about how prices fluctuate with changes in supply and changes in demand. High elasticity, means that if the demand changes a little, the cost of that product changes a lot. So if the demand goes up just a little, it would be great for an economy that is based off of that product. But if the demand drops just a bit, the price drops a lot, meaning an economy based on that product is going to collapse. Luxury goods almost always have a high elasticity, so they are risky to base an economy on, extremely risky. They are like high risk stock, great to put a bit in your portfolio, but extremely unwise to have an entire portfolio based on them. I have agreed that those countries doing better is in our best interest. However, PRO has beed arguing that we should be sending our jobs to them, which would cause our economy to fall even further with rising unemployment rates. He then went on to say that as those countries do better, they will turn to us, a nation with sky high unemployment and is not producing much, and buy stuff from us. This is simply not logical, as I have shown. They will turn to other nations that are actually producing things, and we will be left jobless and in massive debt. I would hope that no one looks at this debate for the semantics, but rather at the actual debate. I say this since neither one of us ever debated the original topic that uses the words "has had" meaning in the past. Both of us argued based on how they could help in the future. [1] http://finance.yahoo.com...