The United States is in need of reindustrialization

This has been an interesting topic, and one appropriate to the times. Pro did well to select it. Until the last round, Pro was content with the definition of "reindustrialization" as a policy for stimulating growth through selective application of government aid to some industries, taxing other industries to pay for it. He argued, for example, that there was no reason to believe that the private sector could make better investment decisions than the public sector. Confronted with expert analysis (Friedman, Rothbard), general counter examples (North vs. South Korea, North Carolina, Japanese reindustrialization policy), and with specific counter examples (the ethanol decision in the US), Pro essentially abandoned that stance. Instead, he adopted the posture that any good government policy could amount to reindustrialization. He endorsed the ides of the government removing it's obstacles to developing local fossil fuels and to changing the emphasis in education to stress science and engineering. Pro argues that his shift still meets the definition of industrialization, which says that it is "especially" done with government aid, so perhaps it isn't "necessarily" done with government aid policies. "Especially" is defined as "To an extent or degree deserving of special emphasis; particularly." http://www.answers.com... The word "especially" in the context of reindustrialization thus means that the emphasis is on government aid, although other features may be included in the policy. Government aid must always be the centerpiece. In fact, that is the way that "reindustrialization" has always been used when the term is applied in public debate both in the US and Japan. There are other features, such as, perhaps, policies regarding intellectual property and such, but the thrust is invariably on providing economic aid to some industries at the expense of others. So when Pro effectively concedes that government aid cannot be justified as the centerpiece of reindustrialization, he concedes that there should not be a reindustrialization at all, because the definition requires aid as central feature. The best thing government can do is to get out of the way of free market operation, and let the markets adjust to the realities of global trade. I grant that getting out of the way is a policy decision, but by definition it isn't a reindustrialization policy. I did not use "revitalization" as a synonym for "reindustrialization." I argued that it would be good for government to get out of the way of free markets naturally realigning, and I used the word as a shorthand reference for that happening. It was clear from the context that I was not talking about any policy in which the centerpiece was government aid. In this round, Pro argues that "The people caused the recession ... our government needs to be proactive and work along with the private sector." Major factors leading to the current recession were (1) repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act http://en.wikipedia.org..., allowing banks to get to be too big to fail, (2) a Federal Reserve error in keeping interest rates too low, (3) Government-run Fannie Mae having a policy of buying very large quantities of low quality loans, (4) government encouragement of bad loans through the amended Community Redevelopment Act, and (5) government failure to regulate bad loan policies. I grant that private enterprise bears responsibility as well, because even though government encouraged bad practices, they were not mandated and might have been resisted. Nonetheless, it is clear the government had a leadership role in creating the recession. Pro's implication that government decisions are generally better than private decisions is not true. The private sector succumbs to errant whims, but at least it is corrected by failure. Government is rarely corrected by failure. Government just spends more public money to try to defend it's bad decisions. In any case, the recession has very little to do with global trade. The bubble that burst was in domestic real estate. Therefore it is irrelevant to the debate topic, except that it again shows the lack of wisdom of government economic decisions. Pro argues, "I doubt not that there are political considerations... but I have HUGE doubt that those political considerations take precedence over the general good of the nation. As with a lot of your claims you provide no proof that this claim is true." The proof I provided was the expert analysis of Rothbard as to the reasons, the example of outrageous public employee salaries produced by political kickbacks in California, and the major example of the ethanol debacle, in which bad economic policies are continued for the benefit of constituents. I challenged Pro to provide his own examples of nations in which the government consistently made better economic examples than free markets. He could provide none. He did not provide an example of a good domestic economic policy decision made in the face of political self-interest. Pro has the burden of proof in the debate, and he did not meet it. Pro listed some sources, but did not say what he claimed to be in them that supported his case. It's not my job to read his references and construct his case before refuting it. I relied upon what Pro argued. The resolution is negated.