Solution to jobs and manufacturing being lost to cheap labor over seas.

We have agreed that trade deficits are a serious problem that must be resolved. Pro claims in his resolution that there is only one solution to the trade deficit problem: to erect trade barriers that keep out foreign goods, including oil. con points to many countries that have positive trade balances, including Germany and China, that have had positive trade balances. But Pro has provided no evidence that those countries have used trade barriers to produce positive trade balances. In fact, Pro notes that Germany has entered into agreements in the EU that lowers trade barriers, and that China has succeeded due to lower costs rather than protectionism. Pro is correct that Germany is now the largest exporting nation, but clearly it did not achieve that status by means of anti-trade policies. Historically, we know that trade barriers have lowered trade deficits only at the expense of substantial loss of prosperity. http://archives.starbulletin.com... India and Brazil had protectionist policies and bad economies until such time as they removed trade barriers, and then their economies improved. Research on the Great Depression shows that the Smoot-Halley trade barriers worsened the Depression. Pro makes numerous unsupported allegations, such as that the Obama administration has made it "perfectly clear" they are "going to convert the US into a socialist/communist country." That is far from clear, but it is also not relevant to the debate. China IS a communist country, and that hasn't hurt their trade balance. Clearly, free trade has benefited China as well as Germany and many other countries. Substantial investment capital is flowing into China, despite it's being a Communist country. Thus even if Pro's unsupported allegations about the US are true, they do not support his call for protectionism. Pro's resolution requires that countries selling to the US "take all of the regulatory baggage that US based businesses have to follow here." That means not only OSHA requirements, but all of the anti-discrimination, gender equality, sexual harassment, minimum wage, class action lawsuit, environmental impact requirements, and so forth. The only one of these requirements that Pro addressed specifically was OSHA requirements in Germany. He asserted that many of the Muslim countries could afford to implement OSHA requirements. Fine, but would they choose to implement the laws against sexual harassment or laws prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion? I brought those issues up specifically, and Pro failed to address them. Clearly, few of the oil exporting nations would change their societies are a fundamental level just to export to the US. Pro implied that the only impact of imposing the US lawsuit system would be the ability to sue exporters to the US. Of course, the exporting organizations can already be sued for violating their contracts, and the companies selling the products in the US can also be sued. The Chinese are quite concerned that bad products will damage their trade balance, so they have taken to applying the death penalty to manufacturers of adulterated products. "A Chinese court sentenced two men to death and a dairy boss to life in prison for their roles in producing and selling infant formula tainted with melamine,..." http://www.huffingtonpost.com... That is considerably more harsh than the US system, but it is less expensive. To match the burden on US manufacturers, the Chinese would have to implement the system whereby anyone in China can sue any Chinese company for any reason, and the suing party suffers no penalty if the suit is not sustained or even frivolous. The Chinese would never contemplate such an outrageous system, nor would the Japanese, the Germans, nor anyone else. The Third World countries could not possibly sustain such a wasteful legal system even if they wanted too. As a consequence, all foreign trade with the US would cease. Pro goes back and forth on what his resolution means. I quoted his opening statement when he said "if they want to sell their products in this country, they should have to take all of the regulatory baggage that US based businesses have to follow here." Then in the Fourth Round he retreated, and said, "My opponent suggests that the country as a whole must observe and operate like the US or nothing can be imported. This is just not the case." That's too late to retract an opening statement. But he then reverses one more time and argues "We should not import anything from these countries until they change their ways. Why should the US bear the burden of providing a total loop sided [lopsided] trade agreement with these countries?" The reason is that many of the US rules and regulations, like the US system of lawsuits, are unnecessary burdens that are our job to remedy here, and not an inefficiency to be taken up by others. With respect to issues of civil and human rights, it is a decision of the Executive Branch and Congress as to whether in each country's case to pursue a policy of engagement or one of confrontation. It may be best to pursue confrontation with respect to Iran, and impose sanctions, while having a policy with engagement with China. The notion that confrontation is always the correct policy is unsupported by virtually anyone. The analysis that leads to confrontation or engagement in each case depends upon the economic interests of not only the US, but the allies of the US, as well as the interest of advancing civil rights. Pro asserts, "None of these [requirements] is [are] insurmountable and most of the countries of this world meet or exceed the requirements with regard to importing goods into this country." That is false, as no country in the world parallels the expensive lawyer-intensive lawsuit system of the US that Pro demands. Most of the world would not accept the US system of anti-discrimination and anti-sexual-harassment. Pro accepts the probability of a retaliatory trade war, "Would the third world socialist/communist nations get mad and retaliate? Probably so. So what, they are not the main export companies that buy our products." The US exports agricultural products, aircraft, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, computers, and communications equipment. These are sold to China and India and other emerging nations, as well as to the developed world. A trade war would be devastating to US exports. We have agreement that trade deficits are a problem the US must solve. Pro asserts, indirectly, that favorable trade balances can be achieved without the trade barriers that Pro wants imposed, because Pro asserts correctly that many countries, including German and China, have achieved favorable trade balances without the protectionism he wants. Moreover, we know from history --ranging from the Great Depression to the more recent experience of India and Brazil-- that protectionism leads to economic disaster for the countries that raise the barriers. I have suggested some of the correct remedies, but the many remedies are a topic for another debate. What this debate has established is that protectionism is the wrong approach. Successful countries have renounced it. The resolution should therefore be rejected.