Free Trade

Defense against Opponents attack:My opponent ignored the fact that I brought up that free trade destroyed jobs. They seem to think it was okay that they claimed free trade created 5 million jobs without any evidence to back it up. As I said, I couldn't find their source that 5 million jobs were created, and they didn't offer the source. I already provided sources that show free trade limits jobs, and here's one which shows that trade protectionism creates jobs.[1] When a government raises the prices of a good, or allows a good to be produced in America, it attracts certain firms to stay here and provides more jobs in that sector here in America.[1] In reality this would be good for the economy in a different way than free trade is. While free trade will lower prices and that could be good for the economy, I argue that it is worse for the economy because it would also lower wages and cause people to be unemployed as it destroys jobs, which I proved already before and my opponent provided no evidence of jobs being created through free trade, and only claimed they were created. What good is the lowered price for a product if no one can buy it still because they are unemployed and not getting any money? In addition, since unemployment would be higher, that is good for the employer since if the employees ask for a raise, they can be fired and replaced with people who are unemployed. Unemployment really only helps the employer. However, in protectionism, jobs are guarded and prevented from going over seas. While the price of products will probably go up, people will have jobs and money to pay for those products. And since more people will be employed, they can demand for a raise(and there is no one the employer can replace them with since unemployment would be down) to balance out the fact prices are up. When my opponent says we need to look at our economy first, that's an excuse to justify using other countries' slave, child labor, and under-paid workers. It's like saying you need to look out for yourself first to justify stealing from someone. Rebuttal to Opponents first contention: Standard of living does not go up in a society with free trade because more people lose jobs as I pointed out above, and because there are more unemployed people, employers are free to lay people off and hire someone else who is currently earning nothing(because they are unemployed) and who would be willing to work for the lower wage. So, it doesn't raise the standard of living at all. When we do trade when we have a comparative advantage, and the other party does as well, then that is a good thing, but trade has to be regulated in such a way where such circumstances arise. If the trade is getting rid of more jobs than it creates, which as I showed above that usually happens, then it is not good for us over all. I agree that specializing in certain products would be a good idea for certain nations, but again, it needs to be looked at through a protectionist's eye to ensure that the other nation isn't producing their goods immorally, and that it truly benefits both nations. One problem with specializing is that we need to make sure that we are specializing in the right fields. If we specialize in a product that doesn't need very many people to work to produce it, and we start trading for a product that needs more people to produce it and get rid of the industry of the latter product type, we've lost jobs over all and that is bad for the economy. In fact, that is what has been going on when I pointed that more jobs were lost than gained through free trade previously. Rebuttal to Contention 2:My opponent argues that free trade here is basically good because it fosters competition on a global scale. However, this can also happen under protectionism, it just happen at the same scale and it happens in a way more beneficial to the country. For example, if, let's say we didn't have any protectionist measures for our trade. Then let's say we have a company producing product A. Let's say this company employs 100,000 workers. They then go overseas to produce it more cheaply in another country and those 100,000 jobs are lost. Now, because this happened, America can no specialize in another product, but let's say this product B only needs 50,000 more people to produce it as efficiently, quickly, and as equal in quality as product A. We then just lost a net 50,000 jobs. Allowing Free Trade to run rampant can cause this to happen. If, however, we had a protectionist policy for product A that America is going to specialize in that product instead of Product B, we would gain more jobs. Instead, it would be the reverse. Instead of company A going over seas, company B will. We lose 50,000 jobs, but gain 100,000 jobs with a net growth of 50,000. This is why Free Trade is problematic, and we need the right kind of competition to where it provides more jobs for us than it destroys. Protectionism allows for this. So yes, if we were to make the market small, it would be a problem. I have no qualms with what my opponent said here, however, we need to make sure that the companies who are providing the most jobs in America do not get out-competed by other companies overseas otherwise it will destroy jobs in America. We should, instead, have those companies expand, and have the companies that need less people to produce the product, die out and get the product through trade. Why voters should vote for meI would implore voters to vote for con because:1) Free Trade does in fact destroy more jobs than it creates, and I proved this through my sources above. My opponent didn't provide a source, and only mentioned it but I could not find this source they claim existed.2) Protectionism would prevent us from trading with countries that use slave, child labor, or pay their workers poorly, which is immoral.3) Protectionism would allow us to keep companies that employ more people here and the product that needs more people to create it could be protected to continue to be created in America in order to provide more jobs. It can be used to allow products that don't need a lot of workers to go over seas for a net-gain of employment. Free trade could lead to the opposite happening where the product that needs less workers to continue being made in America while the product that needs more workers would go out of America. My point in number 1 proves that we have products that need more people to create go overseas for production and the ones that need less workers stay here, which is how we lost jobs.4) My opponent rarely provided actual sources, and the ones they did mention were not as reliable as the scientific studies I provided on this matter.ThanksI thank pro for accepting this debate and offering a challenging debate. I turn this to pro for their concluding arguments. Source:[1] http://escholarship.org...