The United States should have a general policy of free trade.

Many thanks to Roy for proposing we debate this "controversial" topic, it has been a pleasure. In closing, I will offer a brief summary of the debate, followed by some responses to Pro's claims in the final round.Pro's caseAt this point, I assume drops are concessions. Pro concedes the following points:1. Results showing the U.S. economy would be at least 13% larger without trade deficits2. The problem of externalities, including pollution and technological spillover (See R2)3. Evidence that free trade leads to human rights violations4. Evidence that free trade has been a catalyst for war/violence (by desire to impose free trade on other nations)5. Free trade is a win-lose policy (Pro admits to "free trade producing winners and losers")6. The general populace favors trade restrictions7. Free trade increases income inequality and thus poverty8. Factors of production do not move easily between industries9. The whole economy is at risk when investments in human capital are negated by free trade10. Short-term consumption at expense of long-term prosperityRecall Pro accepts the BoP. What, then, is left of Pro's argument that could possibly outweigh the negative effects of free trade and thus satisfy the BoP? According to Pro:11. Comparative advantage is sound (after Pro's concessions, is this not free-trade fundamentalism?)12. Lower prices from competition13. Historical record supports free tradeEach of these is dubious. At the outset, it is already questionable whether (11) and (12) outweigh the negative economic effects, lost jobs, income inequality, trade deficits, etc. Any time an economic change creates both winners and losers, as Pro admits free trade does, the judgment of whether the change is good or bad for the group as a whole is problematic. It becomes a matter of moral philosophy, not number crunching. Economists, as a result of their training, have no more claim to know what is good for the country than any other citizen. Pro's outdated surveys (from 2006) of economists won't help us here.Free trade makes a minority of the country better off, but hurts the majority. Even if the total gains to the few winners are sufficiently large (they aren't) that they could hypothetically compensate the losers, why would it be obvious that Americans as a group are net winners? In R2, I stated: "no theorem in economics guarantees the gains of consumers outweighs the loss of workers." Pro never contests this statement, Pro does not even provide evidence that savings from lower prices outweigh the economic and human loss from lost jobs and lower wages. Hence, Pro has not met the BoP.By way of response, in R2 and R3, I also challenged (11) and (12) with the counterargument that comparative advantage depends on the assumption that factors of production move easily between industries. Pro argued in R3 that the resources employed in one industry will be employed in a more competitive industry with higher returns. I argued that the reality is different. The economic investment in human capital (the skills workers pay money to acquire) is totally lost. Physical resources of production (for example, blast furnaces in a bankrupt steel mill) are also lost. As a result, you see physics PhDs as taxi-drivers.Pro dropped these arguments, effectively conceding that comparative advantage is false. Yet Pro continues to support (without any counterargument) the theory of comparative advantage. Pro writes, "The theory of comparative advantage is so well established that it isn't necessary to refute each and every type of trade restriction." Considering the large number of esteemed economists that question comparative advantage (most famously, Dani Rodrik), Pro's statement is clearly false. If a pragmatic trade restriction is discovered that solves all the problems with free trade without posing new problems, it would be necessary even for the free-trade fundamentalist to refute it if free trade were to continue.Pro argues import competition leads to lower prices on imports. Pro fails to realize that imports are fundamentally paid for by exports, the price of which must rise to generate the increased sales. Higher prices on domestic goods are certainly bad for domestic consumers who spend a greater proportion of their income on domestic products, such as drugs and food.Against the hard economic facts, Pro insists prices for domestic products will not go up. How does Pro propose we pay for increasing value of imports? Pro offers no answer. The only answer is deficit trading. When we import a greater value of goods than we export, it produces a trade deficit. Pro admits deficit trading is bad for the economy overall. Pro ignores the double bind here, and instead continues to claim (by ignoring my arguments) that lowered prices from imports are worth the cost of lost jobs, trade deficits, higher prices on domestic goods, and dramatically increased inequality. But Pro has not proven that competitively priced imports are worth the human, moral, and economic costs.Brief responses to the rest of R4The evidence: Japan is blatantly protectionist. In Chile human rights violations were required to keep domestic demand high and free trade going. Both China and India keep their manufacturing tariffs above 30% (protections). Hong Kong does not count, it was British (not an independent state). In protectionist Latin America, per capita income in the 60s and 70s was growing at 3.1% per year. After the continent embraced free trade in the 80s, per capita income dropped to 1.7%. [11] Likewise, in Africa living standards fell dramatically after free trade policies were introduced. The evidence favors trade restrictions.Pro claims he did not say anything about savings, but half his argument is about savings. Savings from lowered prices. Government overspending. In economic theory, both of these are known as savings problems.For example, Pro states, "the Federal government pays interest on the debt it has accumulated from overspending." In R3, I explained why overspending (savings rates) and trade deficits are the same thing. Pro drops my argument, and claims no argument about savings was made, even though Pro explicitly refers to "overspending" throughout the debate. Pro dismisses Buffet's plan by stating that particularities of protections are irrelevant. I disagree. As stated earlier, if a particular protection is economically sound, it should not be dismissed without consideration. According to Warren Buffet, the trade deficit is the most urgent economic problem our nation faces. His solution:"We would achieve this balance by issuing what I will call Import Certificates (ICs) to all U.S. exporters in an amount equal to the dollar value of their exports. Each exporter would, in turn, sell the ICs to parties--either exporters abroad or importers here--wanting to get goods into the U.S. To import $1 million of goods, for example, an importer would need ICs that were the byproduct of $1 million of exports. The inevitable result: trade balance." [12]Trade is balanced through free-market forces. If Exxon had nothing to export, it would acquire ICs from other exporters, allowing Exxon to legally import oil. Exxon itself has no need to export anything, but to keep the quantity of other exports in mind so that trade is ultimately balanced. Pro misunderstands Buffet's plan. Buffet's plan solves a great deal of problems with free trade (deficit trading) while retaining everything Pro argues is beneficial: competition and free-market economics.Hence, Pro practically concedes the debate by dismissing Buffet's plan in R3 and R4. It is a relatively simple solution to the problems of free trade that merits serious consideration. It is a better trade policy than free trade.As my summary has shown, Pro has not met the BoP. The resolution is negated.[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...