Free trade should be valued above protectionism

Uil Spring 2011 Neg "When goods are not allowed to cross borders, soldiers will"- Frederic Bastiat. A country can only produce as efficiently as its cultural values, reflected in its business ethics and labor laws, allow. In a country such as the United States, productivity is limited to the extent that it does not involve child labor, long labor hours, forced labor, or unsafe working conditions. So what happens if a country does not have the same standards as we do? Well, they might produce the goods more efficiently, in a manner of speaking. The problem is the efficiency your consumers gain comes at the expense of the cultural value your buying power once maintained. Here's an illustration: lets say that a Chinese child laborer, henforth known as a (ccl) works for $.10 an hour, whereas a U.S laborer, known as a (usl) in the same field earns $8.00 an hour. Assuming the product is of the same quality, you can afford to hire up to 80 ccls for every one usl. Your efficiency is seemingly increased ten fold. Furthermore, if you wish to hire only 50 ccls, you might be able to get away with inferior production processes. Now your efficient only because, compared to the consumer culture you are infiltrating, you are a criminal. That is the problem with free trade: the countries that benefit from it most are the ones we should least want to support with our consumer dollars. When we do, we displace our cultural values within our society, at least to the extent of that singular product or service, with those of the provisionary society. This is why I must negate resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism. The value for today's debate shall be Sovereignty, which is a government position that is independent from foreign control or intervention and has the power to regulate its own affairs. The criterion that shall be used in conjunction with Sovereignty is Unilateralism, which is A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies. I offer the following definitions for clarity in today's round: Free Trade- - an economic concept referring to the selling of products between countries without tariffs or other trade barriers. From American Heritage. Protectionism- - the economic policy of promoting favored domestic industries through the use of high tariffs and other regulations to discourage imports. From wordiq.com Contention 1: Free trade is bad for a society; it denies basic human rights Chinese workers are denied the right to form unions, are often paid less than China's own very low minimum wage, and are denied overtime pay. But if free trade is bad for labor, then we should end it, not patch it up, as fundamental economic defects are too profound for a few labor agreements to fix. Free trade is not fair trade; it benefits strong nations at the expense of weaker ones, and rich interests at the expense of the rest of us. Available evidence shows that Africa's economy is experiencing increasing and serious deterioration in terms of trade, despite tremendous efforts deployed by its governments to reorganize and restructure their economies, often at a very high social cost. Trade liberalization has worked to undermine the comparative advantages that Africa might have had, aggravating their development problems and leading to the abuse of labor standards and human rights. Contention 2: Protectionism is the better alternative for a country, rather then Free Trade. Protectionism means a nation looks at its economy as one of its assets. A government will make industrial, production and trade policies designed to ensure the nation's economic success. This could allow a country to develop economically. Japan was a good example in the aftermath of World War Two. The term Made in Japan, was considered a bad thing to put on a product. Then they started making the best electronics, and cars. They quit being a big joke. In our country we have, at least in the past, considered it important that workers make a minimum wage, that children go to school instead of entering the workforce at an early age, and that prisoners, especially political prisoners not be forced to work for literally pennies a day, if they get paid at all. We buy a lot of products from countries that don't have such protections. We pay less for them, but we jeopardize our economy. We buy shirts, athletic clothing and shoes from countries that use child and prisoner labor and have no minimum wage. Corporations are there to make money, not to have a moral conscious. They go where they can maximize profits, no matter what the costs to their country. A protectionist policy would keep products out from countries that unduly exploits its labor, uses child labor or prisoner labor. While we would pay higher prices, we would also have the additional money to afford them. We would have a healthy economy based on a strong manufactoring base.