Free Trade is better for American society than Protectionism

“True, free trade does not regulate how countries are supposed to dictate their domestic policies, but that is the problem”My opponent has not shown that protectionism will dictate the creation of more social goods either. Argentina, the most protectionist country in the world according to the World Bank, has severe forms of child labor taking place(1). There has been no evidence provided by my opponent that suggest protectionism equals more social goods. In fact if we want to speak historically, when the United States was most protectionist in the 19th century there was less labor laws and less worker's rights. Child labor was common(2) and unions(3) were not recognized by employers or the government(3). To imply that protectionism creates more social goods is wrong. (1). http://www.dol.gov...(2)http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu...(3)http://www.rense.com... “This does happen in countries we have free trade with such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Dominican Republic still uses child labor”The United States has a Free Trade agreement with Mexico. Mexico has child labor laws(4) and a minimum wage(5). Again, the countries that Con is referring to are underdeveloped. Underdeveloped countries tend to have child labor whether it is illegal or not. This was the case as I pointed with Argentina, who is protectionist. Correlation is not causation. Free Trade has nothing to do with the creation of child labor. Child labor has existed in these countries prior to their Free Trade agreements. (4). http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...(5)http://www.marketwatch.com... “If the US enacts Protectionism will it make goods produced by child labor more expense; therefore, it will be less bought. It will also favor Domestic products which would fund American jobs and the economy which is better for American society than free trade. ”This plan would only result in impoverishing more Americans at the expense of a minority of Americans gaining jobs. Consuming Americans goods is already expensive. Now, my opponent suggest Americans should consume more to benefit a minority of Americans. The level of consumption of American goods will increase depending on what Protectionist method is used(Tariff/Quota). Therefore, American goods' prices would soar. Who would be affected? The lower and middle classes of the United States. Lower class Americans would no longer be able to drive to work if we put a tariff on OPEC. Middle class Americans wouldn't be able to choose to eat healthy foods from Latin America because of a tariff. Essentially middle class and lower class Americans would have to restrict their consumption. They would consume less. Less consumption is worse for the economy. That is not good for America. Nor is it better for America. It is worse for America. “It does make countries play on the same field because it raises the prices of products that doesn't use policies such as abolishing child labor, or environmental protection. ”No, it does not make countries play on the same field. The only thing that is on the same field is that the price of all products non American increase. Countries would sell their goods to other countries aside from the United States who would want to consume what they offered regardless of child labor or environmental protection. So it does not make them play on the same field as Con claims. “Just because a country uses free trade doesn't make protectionism not make countries on the same field like my opponent claims. ”I don't even understand what your saying. “As far as causing imperialism free trade is great for that from the Opium Wars, and Banana Wars. “If Free Trade causes a great amount of imperialism. The Con has just further shown that Free Trade would be better for America. The imposing country reaps the rewards of imperialism. Britain reaped the rewards of the Opium Wars and the United States benefited from the Banana Wars. So Free Trade did benefit America more. “American markets are not uncompetitive since we have anti-trust laws. Further, Protectionism doesn't mean that no trade will take place it just means countries using unfair practices will pay the price when they export their products. Korean cars would still have made its way to the United States, so claiming it will make it uncompetitive is false. ”Con has made a fallacious claim. No one has mentioned in this entire debate that American markets were “uncompetitive. ” I have only mentioned Protectionism protects incompetent competitors. Also Protectionism does make the market less competitive because the government is raising the prices on a foreign firm's goods. Therefore, incompetent firms can compete in markets to produce inferior goods at higher prices due to Protectionism. “ If corporate profits are better under protectionism that means more people are buying domestic products which means more American Jobs which is better for American society. ”More American jobs at the expense of the 300 million Americans paying higher prices. Poverty would increase exceptionally because people will have to consume at a higher price. “ The interest of the mass is worth more than the few? This same reason was used to justify all sorts of horrible things like the Holocaust, Segregation, etc. The minority deserves protection too. “Con has committed a fallacy, Appeal to Emotion. Con has also used Godwin's Law. The benefits of the majority outweigh the benefits of the minority in Free Trade. Unlike Protectionism which protects a few American jobs, a few American corporations, at the behest of the rest of America. “Consumption would not fall because more people would be domestically employed and those people would be buying more domestic products. Poverty would decrease because jobs would be moving back into America because it could be cheaper for companies to produce the products here, which results in more employment, which results in less poverty. ”I have already refuted this point in the first round when I addressed American consumption. Consumption would fall because American goods more. Then the prices of American goods would rise due to the American goods being consumed. There would be no consumer surplus. Therefore people would consume a lot less. Poverty would increase due to the rise in prices. Only 2 million jobs would move back to America. 2 million jobs is not even a quarter of the adult American workforce. It is insignificant compared to the overall 300 Americans who reap the benefits of Free Trade. “Yes, free trade is employing a lot of Mexicans, but at the cost of American Jobs. ”I have already refuted this claim because the job losses were temporary not permanent. “If a country is dependent on another country to keep their economy they are effectively subordinate to that country. For political freedom, economic independence is necessary. This requires abandonment of free trade. ”If this is the case as Con says, this would further the case why the United States should engage in Free Trade. The United States could benefit from having more countries subordinate to it. This would be better for American society, not worse. “The examples of the USSR and Japan are to show countries can avoid a global depression with the right trade policy”Of course but Con forgot to mention the fact that neither of these countries were close to being the largest economies when he is referring. The United States and other countries had busts because they were developing. The United has been the largest economy since the 1870s. The countries that Con has mentioned in this context(USSR, pre-WW2 Japan) are inconsequential by comparison. “The examples of the USSR and Japan are to show countries can avoid a global depression with the right trade policy”That doesn't show that Protectionism prevents depressions. The United States created the Smoot_Hartley Tariff right before the Depression began to impact severely in 1930(6). None of it has to to do with trade because they were command economies already. North Korea doesn't suffer busts because it is a command economy. The people all equally suffer. That is not acceptable for the United States. (6). http://future.state.gov...Let's sum up my points in this argument:1. Free Trade does not undermine the Social GoodI already refuted my opponent's argument that Free Trade undermines social good. He has selectively chosen the results of Free Trade in underdeveloped countries. Underdeveloped countries tend to have cheaper production due to significant amount of low productivity. Lower productivity equals lower wages. Why is there less productivity? That is because there is a less educated citizenry. I have already pointed to the European Union and the European Free Trade Association that have more social goods then the United States. These countries engage in more Free Trade and have more "social goods. " So the idea that Free Trade undermines social good is empirically wrong. 2. Free Trade is good for Americans 3. Free Trade is good for the impoverished 4. Free Trade encourages economic development 5. Free Trade leads to a more mutually satisfying foreign policy 6. Free Trade does not make everyone play on the same field7. Protectionism is crony capitalism 8. Free Trade creates jobs9. Protectionism creates more povertyThe Con side has not shown how Free Trade is better for Americans. Instead he has shown that Free Trade is better for a select minority of Americans. The United States is made up of over 300 million Americans, not two million. Everyone reaps the benefits of Free Trade regardless of race, religion, gender, unionized, or nonunionized. A vote for protectionism is a vote for crony capitalism. A vote for Free Trade is a vote for all Americans.